Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, during the debt limit impasse in 2006, then-Senator Obama stated: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership, and Americans deserve better. That was former Senator Barack Obama. At that time our gross debt was $8.3 trillion. It is now well above twice that, currently standing at $17.1 trillion, which is over 100 percent of the size of our economy. During that same 2006 debt limit debate, then-Senator Biden said: My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point. That was then-Senator Biden. Things have certainly changed since 2006. Now President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden preside over an administration which tells us that raising the debt limit is merely a matter of paying our bills and is a reflection of decisions made in Congress. Yet while it is ostensibly true that the Congress has the power to raise the debt limit, it is not true that Congress makes spending decisions unilaterally, with no role being played by the executive branch. No amount of spending can be enacted without the President signing it into law. In addition, the President submits a budget every year. The White House also issues policy statements and veto threats on spending bills on a more or less frequent basis. And, of course, every administration works with Congress to enact its domestic agenda which inherently includes setting priorities on Federal spending. So, in short, the commonly repeated notion that questions surrounding spending and the debt limit are Congress's and Congress's alone to answer is simply an attempt by this administration to avoid accountability on these issues. Ultimately, regardless of what President Obama and those in his administration are saying now, both Congress and the executive branch are to blame for our current predicament. The President has exercised his authority to suspend the debt limit under the Continuing Appropriations Act of 2014, which he signed into law on October 17. On October 16, public debt subject to the limit was around $16.7 trillion. On October 17--the very next day--public debt subject to the limit was over $17 trillion. In one day, Treasury increased the debt subject to the limit by over $328 billion. Let me repeat that. The debt increased by over $328 billion in a single day. That brings the increase in total public debt under this administration to more than $6.4 trillion, an amount that is, by all accounts, unprecedented. Echoing earlier sentiments of then-Senator Biden, I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point. The debt limit debate provides us with an opportunity to reexamine our Nation's fiscal course and take steps to correct it. Sadly, we have a President who appears unwilling to have that conversation. Instead, he apparently wants to press forward, full steam ahead, on our already unsustainable course, saddling future generations with unheard-of debts and broken entitlement promises in the process. Unfortunately, as the Congressional Budget Office has made clear, over the course of President Obama's administration, the Federal Government has recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing our debt to soar, as we all know. Federal debt as a percent of the economy's annual output is higher than at any point in U.S. history, except for a brief period around World War II. CBO makes three other points equally clear. No. 1, our debt path is unsustainable, threatening our economy and putting us at risk of a fiscal crisis. No. 2, the root of our fiscal problem is Federal spending, not a lack of revenue. No. 3, the main source of our spending problem is our unsustainable entitlement programs. That being the case, any serious talk about raising the debt limit must include a real, concrete discussion about entitlement reform. As every credible analyst tells us, we need to face the fiscal facts and enact serious structural reforms to our entitlement programs. So far, President Obama has been unwilling to even engage in this discussion. These days, every fiscal discussion with the White House begins and ends with demands for additional tax hikes to fuel even more spending. I guarantee it will be spending, not paying down the national debt or paying down what we owe; it will be to spend more. Of course, the President will occasionally resurrect offers he has made in past failed fiscal negotiations to include small entitlement changes, including, for example, movement to a different price index for certain cost-of-living adjustments, but at the same time the President and his administration have made clear that even those small entitlement changes will only be on the table if tax hikes are delivered first. That is the President's precondition for even entertaining tax reform or entitlement reform, even on the heels of a more than $630 billion tax hike at the beginning of this year and another $1 trillion in revenue delivered courtesy of ObamaCare. Entitlement reform is not an option, it is a necessity. Structural reforms to our health care entitlements should not hinge on another tax-and-spend operation. And structural reforms to Social Security should not be held hostage to another tax hike. Earlier this year I personally presented to the President, in detail and in writing--again, I emphasize I personally gave him this--five reform proposals relating to Medicare and Medicaid that have received bipartisan support--Democratic and Republican support--in the past. I asked him to consider the proposals and have since asked members of his administration to likewise give the proposals consideration. By the way, when we had our supper at the White House in the family dining room, I brought it up again. By the way, I brought it up with the Secretary of the Treasury over and over. I did not wait until an impending debt limit debate. Rather, I put my proposals forward in a good-faith effort to begin timely discussions. Unfortunately, thus far, I have not received even the slightest response, while the clock on Medicare and Medicaid keeps ticking, and both of them are running more and more deficits as we speak. By the way, the five points were bipartisan. They were bipartisan measures that both Democrats and Republicans supported. The situation with Social Security isn't much better. The trustees of the trust funds embedded in the Social Security system, including top administration officials such as the Treasury Secretary, have, in no uncertain terms, urged Congress to act quickly on reforming the retirement and the disability insurance programs to move them toward sustainability. Quite simply, it would be folly to approve of yet another debt limit increase without also working to address these programs, which are the main drivers of our debts and deficits. Therefore, I disapprove of the President's exercise of an authority to suspend the debt limit, and I urge all of my colleagues to similarly disapprove. The recent debt limit impasse and the impasse of 2011 also provided a good deal of information about lack of accountability of the Treasury Department and of our regulatory agencies. I currently serve as the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee which has oversight responsibility toward the Treasury Department. To fulfill those responsibilities, I have been asking questions of Treasury about debt and cash management procedures, and I have repeatedly been stonewalled by the Treasury Department. I don't know that I have ever seen this happen before in either Republican or Democratic administrations. For example, when we have approached the debt limit, I have asked questions about how much cash our Nation has in the till, only to find that Treasury won't tell me and that they prefer the Congress rely on estimates from think tanks and Wall Street firms. Furthermore, during the most recent debt limit impasses, administration officials were busy frightening seniors, our troops, and financial market participants about whether they would be paid in the event the Treasury were to run out of cash. Officials also identified threats of massive financial instability stemming from a breach of the debt limit and of potential disruption from a downgrade of the rating on U.S. Government securities. So, naturally, I asked Treasury and, in fact, every voting member of the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or FSOC, to provide Congress and the American people information regarding the plans they had in place to respond to such catastrophes. Out of close to 20 letters I sent to FSOC members, I received only 3 responses. Apparently, the FSOC, which was empowered by the so-called Dodd-Frank Act to monitor and respond to merging threats to financial stability, does not identify or share response plans with respect to any threat that could emerge as a result of government policies. That being the case, I believe we should strip FSOC of any notional oversight of financial stability and call it what it really is: another unrestrained regulatory agency created only to enact additional regulations. After the fact, we have found that Treasury and some financial regulators had plans for how to respond to a debt limit breach or a ratings downgrade. Yet none of these plans were shared with Congress. Put simply, if we are going to empower a Federal regulatory body such as the FSOC to develop contingency plans to respond to threats to financial stability, then that body should be required to share those plans with the American people. Sadly, thus far that has not been the case. Another thing I have learned from our recent debt limit impasses is that we need to take a closer look at the Treasury Department's use of so-called extraordinary measures, which have become all too ordinary. These ``extraordinary measures'' are merely ways for the Treasury Department to temporarily delay facing a debt limit increase by issuing shadow debt. For example, Treasury can simply declare a debt issuance suspension period and stop issuing debt that it normally would issue while instead effectively telling the lender: Don't worry, I will pay you back later with interest. I believe the authority to use these types of extraordinary measures needs to be reexamined. As you can see, Mr. President, there are a number of problems that need to be confronted with regard to our Nation's ever-growing debt. As I said, we need to work together to address our Nation's unsustainable entitlement programs; otherwise, any effort to rein in our debts and deficits will amount to little more than tinkering around the edges. In addition, we need to improve information sharing between Congress and the executive branch on issues relating to our debt. The Treasury Department and our financial regulators have a lot to do with maintaining the depth, liquidity, and efficiency of the market for Treasury securities, and Congress has a duty to exercise oversight over these functions. Unfortunately, the administration, far more often than not, opts to keep Congress in the dark on these issues. And, the Treasury and financial regulators choose to keep their plans secret. This has to stop. By using his authority to suspend the debt limit through February 7, 2014, President Obama has opted not to confront any of these serious issues. Instead, he is leading us even further down a path that we already know is unsustainable. That being the case, I plan to vote in favor of the resolution of disapproval of this debt limit suspension, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Having said all this, we are in a really big mess on ObamaCare--or if you want to call it the ``Affordable Care Act'' that nobody believes is affordable at all. They know it is going to lead us right into even more unsustainability than we have right now. I suspect that over time our brilliant people in the IT world, the information technology world, many of whom I know personally, will find some way to resolve what really has been a horrible, horrible situation with the broken introduction of the ObamaCare website. We all know it is horrible, and I hope they can resolve that. I think it is going to be hard because it is such a mess. I hope Mr. Zients is successful in his efforts to try to cure the broken system, but that does not cure the faults or problems with ObamaCare as a whole. What about the 30-hour rule? A lot of people, a lot of businesses, especially small businesses today, are making sure their employees do not work more than 30 hours because if they do, it triggers their having to pay what appear to many to be outrageous health care costs. That is just one thing, and that is not going to be easily resolved because the bill is such a stupid bill. It was stupid to begin with. We knew it would not work to begin with. We made the case that it would not work, and frankly we are here in this really ridiculous posture where we have been stymied because of an ineptly implemented introduction of a flawed law, and there is certainly some incompetency here. I hope they can resolve that, but that still does not resolve the 30-hour rule, which is very important. How about the 50-employee rule? A lot of businesses that would have expanded, small businesses that would have grown, that would have tested the market and really gotten going, do not want to employ more than 49 people and trigger a massive sudden cost to their businesses. These are problems that basically are unsolvable under the bill, and they may be even larger problems than those we have with regard to the website problems I have been mentioning. ObamaCare is full of cliffs: to implicit tax rates; to hours of work; to numbers of employees. And those cliffs have led and will lead to more economic damage. That is just the beginning. I could speak for hours about what is wrong with this lousy Act called ObamaCare. I wish some of my colleagues on the other side would start saying what they actually know. They know it is a lousy Act. They know it is something that is not going to work. And if it does--if they continue to maintain that it has to work--it is going to be a massive cost to society, with less effective health care than we have ever had before. It is not just these technical problems that we have to solve; it is the economic problems that arise from ObamaCare. And I know what is going to happen. Within the next year or two, our friends on the other side--or should I say the White House in particular--President Obama is going to throw his hands in the air and say: It is not working. We have to go to a single-payer system, meaning socialized medicine. Anybody who believes that is the way to go--it sounds easy, but anybody who believes that is the way to go has not looked at socialized medicine around the world. They can point to some instances where it has worked for a short time, but over time it results in less health care, higher costs, and stultification of what really could be a great health care system. I want to solve these problems in health care, but I believe they ought to be solved on a bipartisan basis and not just a partisan basis, which is where we are with regard to ObamaCare--or should I say the ``Affordable Care Act.'' There are a number of people in this body and in the other body who, like me, have worked in health care areas and on health care issues ever since they have been in the Congress who would be willing to sit down and get this resolved. But I have to say there was no real consultation, there was no real effort to work in a bipartisan way, as far as I could see, even at the lower levels in Congress, in developing the partisan product called ObamaCare. It was just they were going to pass this and that is the way it will be. Now they are stuck with it-- should I say they are not really the ones who are stuck with it; it is the American people and the American taxpayers who are stuck with it. We have to, sooner or later, get together to resolve this problem without going to socialized medicine. I have talked to a number of doctors, health care providers, who are going to get out of the profession. They do not want to be governed by this type of governance. Frankly, you are going to find that if we go to socialized medicine, doctors are not going to work more than 6 or 8 hours a day, where today they will work as long as it takes to serve people who need their help. We are going to find a real dearth of doctors. We are going to find a real dearth of the ability to provide the health care people need. We are going to start doing what that payment advisory board really is set up for, and that is rationing. Once that starts, the American people are going to rebel. It is going to happen sooner or later if we do not get our friends on the other side to at least work with us on finding some resolution. I have to say that we are working on our side to come up with a resolution, and I hope I can interest our colleagues on the other side. I admit that we can do a lot better than we are doing around here. We can do it in a much better bipartisan way than we are doing it. I think some people get a joy out of creating battles around here when we should get a joy out of resolving problems. I yield to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from Wyoming. Here in Washington and, indeed, throughout the country everyone is talking about the ObamaCare Web site. No doubt that is a serious concern. The healthcare.gov Web site has been, to put it bluntly, a debacle. I don't know of a single Member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, who would say otherwise. That said, we need to be clear about something: The problems with ObamaCare go much deeper than a faulty Web site. Sure, the administration would have the American people believe that the problems with this law are simply technical in nature and that once they bring in technical experts to fix the Web site, all will be right with the world. But let's not kid ourselves. The problems with ObamaCare are fundamental and systemic. The administration may very well get the Web site up and running in the next few weeks, and they should, but that won't fix the health care law. I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about some of the problems facing ObamaCare that have nothing to do with the Web site. When he was trying to get the law passed, President Obama repeatedly promised Americans that ``if you like your current health plan, you will be able to keep it.'' This promise was central to the President's efforts to sell ObamaCare to the American people, and as it turns out, it was all a lie. Now even the White House admits that millions of Americans will not be able to keep their health plan under the law, and if recent news reports are to be believed, they have known this for years. Experts have predicted that as many as 16 million Americans may lose their existing coverage due to ObamaCare's new requirements. According to the NBC News story from yesterday, the Obama administration has known about this for at least 3 years. We have known about it as well. Consumers throughout the country are already receiving cancellation letters from their insurance providers. For example, in New Jersey 800,000 individuals are being dropped from their existing plans. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people informing them their current coverage will end. Florida Blue is ending policies of 300,000 customers due to ObamaCare. This isn't some unforeseen or unintended consequence of the law. On the contrary, it is precisely what was intended when the law was put into place. As you know, Mr. President, the President's health care law includes a mountain of new mandates and requirements for health insurance plans. Any plans that fail to meet those onerous requirements are invalidated under the law. True enough, the law provides that plans that were in effect as of March 2010 will be grandfathered in, allowing consumers who prefer to keep those policies to do so even if the plan's don't meet the law's requirements. However, the Department of Health and Human Services has, through regulations, all but eliminated the protections enjoyed by those in existing plans by saying that the grandfathering provision does not apply to plans that have undergone any changes--even small changes to deductibles or copayments--since 2010. Under this requirement, many of the plans that were in place before passage of ObamaCare, particularly those in the individual health insurance market, will fail to pass muster. That is why we are seeing hundreds of thousands of Americans being dropped from their current insurance plans and why the same fate is certain to befall millions more. As I said, the Obama administration knew about these problems a long time ago. In fact, regulations issued in July of 2010 estimated that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, 40 to 67 percent of consumers would not be able to keep their policies. Let me repeat that. The administration knew in July 2010 that at least 40 to 67 percent of consumers in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans in place. Yet the President never took back his promise: ``If you like your current health plan, you will be able to keep it.'' This, quite frankly, is preposterous. The response we are getting from the administration is that, sure, many people will lose their existing health insurance, but it will be replaced by better, cheaper options. This claim is at odds with the facts. For many people, health expenses will increase under the new plan as a result of higher premiums, higher deductibles, and higher copays. One study from the Manhattan Institute found that individual market premiums will increase 99 percent for men and 62 percent for women nationwide. For others, the new plans may not cover visits to their current doctor or the hospital they have used in the past. That is because insurers are reducing the number of doctors and hospitals covered by plans in the exchanges in order to reduce premium prices. These changes are a direct result of ObamaCare's new requirements and mandates. I have received letters from my constituents from all over Utah who are scared, who are angry, and who are confused about the changes they are facing. For example, Brenton in Provo, UT, currently has a high- deductible plan and uses a health savings account. This arrangement works well for Brenton and his family, and they would like to keep it. Unfortunately, Brenton's plan has been canceled due to ObamaCare. The plan he will be required to purchase is more expensive and includes coverage he doesn't want. There is also Kathy from Salt Lake City, who wrote to tell me her deductible will increase from $3,000 to $5,000, her copays for doctor visits will increase by 30 percent, and her copays for prescription drugs will increase to 50 percent. Kathy let me know that as a result of these changes, her health care expenses will now be higher than her income. Even those who were in favor of the law are now finding it is not being implemented as they expected. A recent L.A. Times article profiled a young woman who was shocked by the 50-percent rate hike she received as a result of the health care law. She was quoted as saying, ``I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it.'' That is a refrain I think we will be hearing from a number of people who supported ``health care reform.'' Increased costs aren't the only problem consumers will be facing under ObamaCare. There are other serious, more subtle problems that have yet to be addressed. For example, some consumers may have their personal information compromised by an ObamaCare navigator or by submitting an application to the federally facilitated marketplace, the Federal data services hub, or one of the Affordable Care Act call centers. I have warned about that for a number of months--that they are moving too fast and not doing the job well enough--and a lot of people are going to get hurt. Social Security numbers, employment information, birth dates, health records, and tax returns are among the personal data that will be transmitted to this data hub, resulting in an unprecedented amount of information collected in one place by a government entity. Every piece of information someone would need to steal an individual's identity or access their confidential credit information will be available at the fingertips of a skilled hacker, providing a gold mine for data thieves and a staggering security threat to consumers. The entire system, including the data hub--a new information-sharing network that allows State and Federal agencies to verify this information--has not gone under any independent review to determine whether the data that is entered is secure. This means an individual's personal and financial records may be at serious risk of becoming available to data thieves. I have already been to the floor several times to discuss these issues. I am here again today because as of yet there has been no solution--or should I say no solutions--to these problems. In fact, the ObamaCare exchanges are less than a month old and data breaches are already occurring at the State level. A recent CBS News story featured a Minnesota insurance broker who was looking for information about assisting with ObamaCare implementation. Instead, what landed in his in-box last month was a document filled with the names, Social Security numbers, and other pieces of personal information belonging to his fellow Minnesotans. In one of the first breaches of the new ObamaCare online marketplaces, an employee of the Minnesota marketplace, called MNsure, accidentally emailed him a document containing personally identifying information for more than 2,400 insurance agents. While the incident was resolved, the broker said it raised serious questions for him as to whether those who sign up for MNsure can be confident their data is safe. These types of incidents are only going to increase as time goes on if rigorous testing is not performed to ensure that the data hub is sufficiently secure. Despite assurances by the chief technology officer for the administration in early September that ``we have completed security testing and received certification to operate,'' we all now know that all the testing had not been completed until just days before the October 1 launch date and that no third party--no third-party expert-- had a chance to review it. But there is much we don't know. What kind of testing was done? Who did the testing? What did they look for? What were the results? And perhaps most importantly, what are the risks of using the Web site? To help get answers to these questions, today several of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee and I are sending a letter to Secretary Sebelius asking detailed questions about the testing protocols, what waivers were received with respect to the testing requirements, and any and all results of the limited testing that did occur. Hopefully, that will enable Congress and the American people to better understand exactly what is broken with the system and help to ensure it does not happen again. These questions and problems demonstrate why it is imperative that the Government Accountability Office--GAO--independently verify that sufficient privacy and security controls are in place for the data hub and the entire Federal marketplace so that Congress has independent assurance that the necessary controls exist and that taxpayers know their personal information is secure. That is why I introduced S. 1525, the Trust But Verify Act, which calls on the GAO to conduct such a review and delays implementation of the exchanges until the review is completed. The bill currently has 32 Senate cosponsors. As you can see, Mr. President, the problems with ObamaCare are numerous and fundamental. As I said before, this law was bad policy when we debated it, it was bad policy when the Democrats forced it through the Congress, and it remains bad policy today. I have little doubt the administration can eventually get the Web site up and running. They would have us believe that once that task is accomplished, everything will be fine. But that is simply not the case. They can't say everything will be fine when millions of Americans are losing their existing health coverage as a direct result of the health care law. They can't say everything will be fine when health care costs are continuing to skyrocket even though the President claimed his health law would bring costs down. And they can't say everything will be fine when consumers' personal information is at serious risk because the administration didn't take the proper precautions with its new data system. As I said, the healthcare.gov Web site has been a debacle and the President is right to recognize it as such, but it would be a huge mistake to simply write off the problems with ObamaCare as a simple IT problem. My own position on ObamaCare is very clear. I support repealing the law in its entirety. As more and more Americans lose their health coverage--coverage they shopped for and liked--and face outlandish costs as a result of the law, I believe that position will eventually be vindicated. In the meantime, I think we can all agree that the law is simply not ready for prime time and that at the very least it should be delayed so we can protect the American people from further harm. I have made this call before and I am sure I will make it again. Today, with all the new information we have received--the broken Web site, the security problems, the skyrocketing costs, and the millions of Americans losing existing coverage--I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will begin to see the light. I hope they will finally see what happens when one party tries to take on something as vast and as complicated as our health care system all on its own without any help from the other side. I hope that they would work with us to come up with real solutions to our Nation's health care problems. I will keep waiting, and if the problems we have seen in the last few weeks are any indication, I should not have to wait too much longer. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to celebrate the career of a very dedicated Utah public servant. Palmer DePaulis has served the people of Utah for over 30 years, most recently as the executive director of Utah Department of Human Services. As executive director, Mr. DePaulis has made great strides in creating safe and permanent homes for vulnerable children and at-risk families. He has instituted a ``System of Care'' approach for children and families that creates a partnership between children, their families, and caregivers that focuses on an individualized, culturally responsive plan to address a variety of mental health challenges so that children can be kept in the least restrictive, most integrated, and safe setting possible. Current law directs the majority of Federal dollars to the least desirable outcomes for vulnerable families, namely, removing a child from the home and placing them in foster care. During the last session of Congress, the Congress passed and the President signed legislation I drafted that permits some States to apply for and receive waivers for certain rules relative to foster care. In drafting this legislation, I worked closely with Mr. DePaulis and his team to craft policies that would give Utah and other States the flexibility to innovate and try different approaches to improving child welfare systems. I am pleased that Utah was one of the first States to successfully apply for and be granted a child welfare waiver. Utah's plan is a strategic and forward thinking approach that strives to gain a better understanding of the needs and strengths of children and families that have experienced child abuse, neglect, and dependency. It acknowledges, as a guiding principle, that, whenever possible, children should remain safely at home. Utah's wavier proposal adopts a holistic framework to provide supportive family services that prevents neglect and abuse and bolsters a family's ability to keep a child safe within the home and preserve intact families when a family's problems can be addressed safely and effectively. I am confident that the Utah's waiver, instigated by Mr. DePaulis and his team, will result in improved outcomes for children and families. In addition to his work in the area of child welfare, Mr. DePaulis also oversaw services that have benefited thousands of Utahans. These include, but are not limited to: meals to homebound seniors, treatment for mental health and substance abuse, and services that help individuals with disabilities lead independent and productive lives. Prior to joining Utah Department of Human Services, Mr. DePaulis served as mayor of Salt Lake City. During his tenure as mayor, Mr. DePaulis made the humane treatment of the homeless one of his signature issues. He helped open family and men's homeless shelters and worked with community partners to highlight the need for a continuum of services to ensure shelter residents had access to medical, transportation, substance abuse, and mental health services. Throughout his long and distinguished career, Mr. DePaulis has worked to improve the lives of our most vulnerable and forgotten citizens. Utahans and the Nation owe him our gratitude and appreciation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to quickly begin by saying that last night at the stroke of midnight the government faced its first partial shutdown since 1996. There has been a lot of partisan talk back and forth about who is to blame, but our constituents are demanding action and rightfully expect us to resolve this situation. We need to act swiftly to get the government up and running again. Let me turn to another matter. Today's date is October 1, 2013. Since the passage of the so-called Affordable Care Act in 2009, millions of people have looked forward to this day, probably with more dread than anticipation. That is because today is the day the ObamaCare health insurance exchanges--where millions of Americans will be required by law to purchase health insurance--are open for business. Perhaps I should say they are supposed to be open for business. President Obama, in his futile effort to sell his health care law to the American people, has been trying to paint a rosy picture about what will happen starting today. He has claimed that today will mark the first step in a process that will provide health coverage for millions of Americans. Sadly, now that we are here, the picture is much cloudier than the President would like to admit. Indeed, as the exchanges begin to go live, we have more questions than available answers. We know the exchanges have been met with significant delays--delays for large businesses, delays for small businesses, and even some delays for some of the State exchanges themselves. We know about other technical and logistical problems facing the exchanges. I will talk more about those in a few minutes. What we don't know is what will happen to the average American trying to sign up and navigate his or her way through the ObamaCare exchanges. I wish to take a few minutes to talk about that today and, in doing so, I wish to talk about someone we met during the 2012 election campaign. Her name is Julia. We all remember Julia. She was the faceless character created by the Obama campaign to symbolize the cradle-to-the- grave support women would receive under President Obama's administration, including under ObamaCare. She was supposed to be the embodiment of President Obama's compassion for women and his opponent's lack thereof. Unfortunately, President Obama's ``Life of Julia'' outline was short on some details, particularly when it came to Julia's efforts to obtain and keep health insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges. Today I will try to fill in some of those details. However, it will be difficult because, as I said, there is still much we don't know about how the exchanges are going to work. As we follow Julia into the exchanges, the first question that comes to mind is: What brought Julia to the exchange in the first place? Is she one of the millions of Americans who will end up losing employer-provided health insurance as a result of ObamaCare? Is she now a part-time worker after her employer had cut her hours to avoid the employer mandate? Perhaps she was laid off so her employer could keep their number of employees below the threshold required to be considered small business under the law. In any event, Julia has come to the exchange looking for health insurance because that is what the law requires her to do. The next question is, Who will explain to Julia how she is to sign up for insurance under the exchange? What we know is that she will be assigned to a navigator, a person employed by a private organization tasked with assisting the uninsured in determining what type of coverage they qualify for. This person, who is not a government employee, will have access to her personal information, including her Social Security number and household income data. Sadly, there is no telling whether this person will steal that information and use it for nefarious purposes. That is because the administration, in the drafting of the rules for the certification of navigators, cut corners on things such as training and background checks, putting consumers and patients at increased risk for fraud and identity theft. I came to the floor to discuss this a couple of weeks ago. This was something that Members of Congress warned the administration about months ago. Sadly, our warnings have been ignored. So the bottom line for Julia is that before she even enters the exchange, an unqualified navigator or perhaps an imposter posing as a government counselor may have easy access to her private personal information, allowing them to steel her identify and create a nightmare for Julia to fix. Somehow, I do not think the authors of ObamaCare had this in mind when they created the navigator program. The next question Julia will face is whether the exchange in her State will be ready. This, of course, will depend on where Julia lives. Not all of the State exchanges will be ready to launch today. Idaho, Minnesota, Oregon, Colorado, and the District of Columbia have already announced they will be delaying the launch of their exchanges. The New York Times ran an article about the delays and glitches facing the exchanges this past weekend. According to the article, ``Many of the 16 directors of State-run exchanges are describing October as a soft launch period when Americans can start exploring their coverage options--but on Web sites that may be incomplete, vulnerable to glitches, and perhaps not ready for an onslaught of customers.'' In other words, Julia, depending on where she lives, may not even be able to sign up for insurance today because of the problems and delays--problems and delays many of the exchanges are now facing. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume Julia is able to sign on to the exchange and select a health insurance plan. Now that she has picked a plan, the question is, Will her personal information be secure? In order to sign up and purchase an insurance plan, Julia will have to hand over a virtual mountain of personal information, including her Social Security number, her tax return, and the like. All of this data will be entered into the Federal services data hub, a new information- sharing network that allows State and Federal agencies to verify her information. The problem with the data hub is that it has not gone under any independent review to determine if the data that is entered is secure. The administration announced that the data hub had passed internal testing on September 10, a mere 3 weeks before it was set to go live. Sure, they may claim the data hub is operational and ready to go, but no independent watchdog such as the Government Accountability Office, for example, has had a chance to verify the security operations or make recommendations to better safeguard the privacy of consumers. Absent an independent review, there is simply no way of knowing whether the exchanges have adequate safeguards in place to protect enrollee's personal information. For Julia, this means her personal and financial records may be at serious risk of becoming available to data thieves or just plain crooks. Obviously, this is not something the Obama campaign mentioned about Julia when they planned out her life for her. The next question for Julia is whether she will be eligible for premium or cost-sharing subsidies. Depending on her income, Julia may be eligible for a tax credit designed to defray the cost of purchasing health insurance on the exchange. These credits are both advanceable and refundable, meaning that the IRS will pay them first and verify them later. My gosh, what a system. This is what some have referred to as ``pay and chase.'' The problem with this method of determining the eligibility for the subsidies is that there is an increased likelihood that applicants will receive larger subsidies than they actually qualify for. For Julia, that could mean, if she receives a subsidy, she could end up owing the IRS money next tax season. That is not a highly advertised element of the exchanges or the subsidy program, but that is the reality people such as Julia will be facing. Once Julia's plan and potential subsidies are in place, the question then becomes will she have the same quality of health care she had before that she was promised by the President. The Obama administration has made some misleading claims on this front. According to the White House, consumers and States with Federal exchanges will have an average of 53 plans to choose from. However, this number does not tell the full picture. According to an analysis undertaken by my staff on the Senate Finance Committee, 75 percent of States with Federal exchanges will have fewer plans available than the average touted by the White House. In addition, there will be fewer provider networks in the exchanges, because in an effort to keep the cost of premiums down, insurers are reducing the number of doctors and hospitals covered by the plans in the exchanges. For example, there is only one insurer in the New Hampshire exchange. Their plan will exclude--get that word ``exclude''--10 of the 26 hospitals in the State. Another example is Blue Cross Blue Shield of California. Their exchange plan also covers only 53 percent of the doctors and 74 percent of the hospitals that are included in their broadest nonexchange plan. According to the New York Times `` . . . many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers. . . . from California to Illinois to New Hampshire and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.'' In short, this means that on the exchanges, Julia may very well have fewer choices for health care providers, potentially leaving her with limited access to quality care. The final question Julia will face on the exchanges is perhaps the most important. I call it the final question, but I am sure there are others. Will Julia have to pay more for her health insurance under the exchanges than she did before this wonderful ``Affordable Care Act''? This, once again, depends on the specifics of Julia's situation. If, like most Americans, Julia previously had employer-provided health insurance, she will likely be paying more for her insurance on the exchange than she did through her employer. While some enrollees may be able to find cheaper insurance through the exchanges, the majority of Americans will pay more for health insurance under the exchanges than they do now. The Manhattan Institute found that individual market premiums will increase 99 percent for men and 62 percent for women nationwide with the exchanges in place. The bottom line for Julia is that depending on her plan, she may very well end up paying more out of pocket for her health care than she did before ObamaCare was in place. As you can see, the reality of Julia's experience on the health insurance exchanges does not resemble the pretty picture President Obama painted for her during the campaign. She will almost certainly face a number of difficulties just navigating the process. I do not blame President Obama. He was just told what to say by so-called experts on health care. Those experts have been wrong, wrong, wrong too many times. In the end, it will likely end up costing Julia more to buy insurance on her exchange. Of course, Julia is not a real person. Her problems are imaginary. However, the problems that real Americans, including people from my State of Utah, will be facing as the exchanges open today are very real, as I have described them. Put simply, these exchanges are going live today with too many unanswered questions and too many unsolved problems. We should have never gotten to this point. The Obama administration should have acknowledged the ample warnings, signs and problems in the exchanges and heeded the many calls for delay. The administration was all too willing to delay the pain businesses will suffer under ObamaCare. Sadly, the American people got no such special treatment. All I can say is that those of us in Congress will be watching these exchanges closely. The American people will be watching them too. They will be experiencing them, which may not be very pleasant, in light of the promises that were made to them. If what we have discussed or witnessed so far is any indication, I do not think we or they or Julia will like what we see. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is no secret that the so-called Affordable Care Act is a train wreck waiting to happen. Some of it has already happened. We know that. The American people know that. My constituents all over Utah know that. But sadly the President of the United States doesn't seem to know it. In fact, the President is out today trying to convince the American people that his signature domestic achievement is a winner. Few people believe him, however, and no amount of spin on his part will change that. Frankly, Republicans have been saying ObamaCare would be a disaster since well before it was enacted. Indeed, if we look back at the original debates on ObamaCare, we will find that we predicted virtually all of the problems we are seeing now as the administration attempts to implement this poorly crafted law. Let's look at some of the predictions we made. We predicted, for example, that in order to avoid the employer mandate, businesses would cease hiring new workers and they would move existing employees to part time. ObamaCare requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer their workers health coverage of a minimum value or pay a penalty. As we predicted, a number of small businesses, which are the main job creators in this country, are simply opting to unilaterally limit their full-time employees in order to avoid the mandate. Just think about that. We have the lowest labor participation rate since the Carter administration, but instead of working to create the jobs American families and workers need, more and more businesses have stopped hiring to avoid the costs that come with ObamaCare. The law defines full-time employees as those working more than 30 hours a week. As a result of this bizarre definition, many employers have opted to simply cap workers' hours. That is happening everywhere. It is happening in the private sector and among public schools and municipalities. In fact, it is happening so often that even the leaders of big labor, who are among the biggest supporters of ObamaCare, have publicly argued that the law is destroying the 40-hour workweek. That is just one Republican prediction about ObamaCare that came true. We also predicted that ObamaCare would cause people who currently have health insurance to lose it. We all remember the President's infamous promise that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it.'' Sadly, our post-ObamaCare experience hasn't borne that out. At the time, Republicans said there was no way he could fulfill that promise, and we were right. According to the Congressional Budget Office, millions of Americans are likely to lose their current employer- provided health insurance under the President's health law. We also predicted that the cost of health insurance premiums would skyrocket as insurance companies struggle to comply with all of the new mandates under the law. This is also happening. Numerous studies have shown that the cost of premiums have continued to go up since ObamaCare was passed and are predicted to go up even further next year as the law is more fully implemented. The question is: How high are the costs going to go? Yesterday, the administration released a report claiming that ObamaCare is bringing down the cost of health insurance premiums. Specifically, the report claims that premiums ``will be 16 percent lower than projected.'' Lower than projected is not the same as lower than they are now. If we compare the cost of ObamaCare health plans with the cost of plans available on the market today, it is indisputable that costs are going up under the law. The administration is free to cherry-pick data in order to make the best case possible. Indeed, that is what they have done with this most recent report. However, even when they cite the most favorable data available, we see that ObamaCare is making health insurance premiums more expensive in this country. When we look at the more complete picture of the data, we find it is even worse. As the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research recently found, individual market premiums will increase 99 percent for men and 62 percent for women nationwide under ObamaCare. This, once again, was not unforeseen. While the President was claiming his health care plan would reduce premiums by an average of $2,500 a year, Republicans predicted costs would actually go up under the law. As it turns out, we were right on that one too. Republicans also predicted that health care spending would increase as a result of ObamaCare. The President, if my colleagues recall, promised the law would lower the costs of health care. However, health care spending is projected to increase dramatically as a result of ObamaCare. Republicans also predicted that ObamaCare would increase the deficit. Wouldn't you know it, a former Director of CBO has projected that the health care law will add $500 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years and more than $1.5 trillion in the second decade. We predicted middle-class families would see their taxes go up as a result of ObamaCare. When we look at the law, we see it includes no fewer than 11 taxes and penalties that directly impact the middle class, including taxes on medical devices, prescription drugs, and flexible spending accounts. In addition, Republicans predicted health insurance exchanges, where people go to sign up for ObamaCare's mandated insurance, and the system of verifying and approving premium and cost-sharing subsidies for people in those exchanges would be a nightmare to manage. This has been confirmed time and time again as the administration has continually missed deadlines and offered only scant details as to how these exchanges are going to work, even as they are set to go live on October 1. Studies from the Government Accountability Office have confirmed that the exchanges are not likely to be ready in time. In fact, just yesterday, the District of Columbia announced it will be delaying the implementation of its exchange because of ``high error rates.'' Two other States, Idaho and Minnesota, also might delay their exchanges. During the debate over ObamaCare, Republicans predicted that despite all the claims that ``health care reform is entitlement reform,'' the law would not shore up our unsustainable entitlement programs. We are set to spend more than $10 trillion on Medicare and Medicaid over the next 10 years. The CBO has called our health care entitlements our ``fundamental fiscal challenge.'' According to the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--the President's health care law hasn't done anything--has not done anything--to diminish the problems facing these massive programs. As I said, none of the problems we are seeing today were unforeseen. Republicans predicted all of these difficulties years ago. We weren't psychic; we just know how markets work and, more important, we have learned from experience just how inept government can be when it ventures into uncharted territory. The Democrats who drafted this monstrosity and forced it through Congress either didn't understand the inherent problems with the legislation or they just plain didn't care. I suspect it was a little of both. At the time, they were more concerned with just getting something passed so the President could claim victory on one of his central campaign promises than they were with passing something that would actually work. Now we are all seeing the results and only part of the results. I am only mentioning a few things today. Nearly every week we learn of another problem the administration is having with implementing ObamaCare. As I said, we constantly hear announcements that certain elements of the law are going to be delayed. We have heard this about the employer mandate, the small business health insurance market, and employee automatic enrollment in the exchanges. We got the latest announcement just today. Today we found out the Obama administration is postponing online enrollment in some of the small business exchanges that were scheduled to open this coming Tuesday. The administration makes these announcements almost nonchalantly, never acknowledging they are indications of larger problems with the law. Instead, they simply press forward, ignoring the warning signs and pushing our Nation's health care system even further toward the cliff. It is clear what needs to be done. It is not complicated or convoluted. On the contrary, it is quite simple. This law needs to be eliminated and Congress should do whatever is in its power to get that done. This has been my position since the day the law was passed, and it continues to be my position today. I have supported repealing ObamaCare, I have supported delaying it, and I support defunding it. I have introduced multiple pieces of legislation that would repeal the most egregious parts of ObamaCare, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the medical device tax, and the health insurance tax. With days to go before the exchanges go live on October 1, I have legislation backed by 31 of my colleagues delaying them until the GAO can certify that private and personal information of consumers and patients will be secure. I have come to the floor on numerous occasions to call for either repeal or a permanent delay to the implementation to the law. Regardless of how the debate over the continuing resolution plays out, I will continue to do so. This law costs more and will do far less than was promised when the bill was first drafted, debated, and passed. The Democrats who wrote this law and forced it through Congress may have thought the American people were naive enough to believe all the promises that came with ObamaCare, but from the beginning polls have shown the majority of Americans do not support it and with good cause. That is why I publicly applauded the House of Representatives for passing its continuing resolution that defunds ObamaCare. Getting rid of ObamaCare is just the first step. Once we do that, we need to work together on a bipartisan basis to find a way to reduce health care costs for the American people while also making sure we cover the American people. We have seen what happens when one party tries to fix health care on its own. What we got was a disaster of a law that has actually increased health care costs, all while imposing new taxes and mandates on the American people and creating chaos of the entire American health care system. The American people deserve better, and the legislation before us is the first step toward giving them that. I understand the Democrats are going to peel out the one provision the Republican side supports. Everyone on the Republican side supports the defunding of ObamaCare and starting over and doing it right in a bipartisan way, instead of this partisan way that has wound up with the biggest fiasco I have seen around here in my 37 years in Congress. I am concerned. We can do better. This has become too much of a partisan exercise and, frankly, I am very concerned that our country is going to suffer because some of our friends think they have to continue to support this dog of a bill, even though day after day after day we find more and more reasons to oppose it. We have brought up these things before, maybe not some of these because some of them have just occurred, as a matter of fact, just in the last day. Think of the fraud. Think of the open door for scam artists because they are going to go ahead on October 1 with individuals saying they think it is fine. But there has been no independent verification done by this administration, or by anybody, to make sure the private information of our individual citizens is protected. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that we are letting them get away with it, and it is a disgrace that is going to come back to hammer us as Members of Congress who didn't do our job right in the first place and who continuously keep supporting a bill that is eating us alive. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is an epidemic of abuse that is taking place in America today. Recent reports estimate that hundreds of thousands of children and youths are at risk of domestic sex trafficking. Individuals on the frontlines in the fight against domestic sexual trafficking of children report that instances are on the rise. They tell us former drug dealers have moved on to sex trafficking. They also tell us technological advances have made this type of trafficking easier as smart phones and other devices provide distance and increased levels of anonymity. Certain Web sites that post classified ads soliciting sexual partners also help facilitate trafficking. The risk of sex trafficking is compounded every year for up to 30,000 young people who are ``emancipated'' from foster care. Too many of these emancipated youth turn 18, pack their few belongings in a trash bag and are driven to a homeless shelter, leaving them vulnerable and exposed to traffickers and other predators. While in foster care, children and youth are also at increased risk for trafficking. In July of this year, the FBI's Innocence Lost National Initiative, which combats domestic sex trafficking of minors, launched Operation Cross Country, a 3-day effort. Operation Cross Country recovered 105 children and arrested 152 traffickers. The efforts of the Innocence Lost National Initiative and the results of Operation Cross Country are laudable. However, they also revealed a disturbing element of our Nation's child welfare and foster care systems. According to some reports, up to 60 percent of sexually exploited children are recruited out of the child welfare and foster care programs. That is an unbelievable statistic, but it is apparently true. Because of the trauma and past abuse suffered by children and youth in these systems, they are particularly vulnerable to traffickers. FBI officials involved in Operation Cross Country report: Law enforcement refers to these young children as ``children with a void.'' Once the pimp identifies that void and makes every attempt to fill it, a dependency between the child and the perpetrator develops. Law enforcement officers also report: The most vulnerable victims forced into sex trafficking range in age from 13 to 16. Most of the children come from either foster care homes or are considered runaways. In order to combat domestic sex trafficking and improve outcomes for children and youth in foster care, systemic changes need to be made in the current child welfare system. Therefore, today I am introducing the Improving Outcomes for Youth at Risk for Sex Trafficking Act of 2013. The short title of the bill is I O Youth. We do owe these youth. These are our country's most damaged and most vulnerable children. Yet most kids who age out of foster care face negative outcomes such as homelessness, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, and trafficking. We ought to do better. This legislation I am introducing today addresses some of the widespread conditions in the child welfare and foster care systems that make these children and youth particularly vulnerable to being sexually trafficked. I am sure most Americans would be surprised to learn that most child welfare agencies will not serve trafficked children and youth who are not in the custody of a biological or foster family or living in a group home. Often these children, who are not legally able to give consent for sex, are arrested for prostitution and referred to the juvenile justice system. In many States, the courts and the juvenile justice system are ill-equipped to deal with the trauma these children and youth have endured. My bill requires that States provide services to youth who have been trafficked or are at risk of being trafficked. The bill also redirects resources to improve the current court system to better identify and address needs of trafficked youth. Many youth in foster care are routinely denied the opportunity to participate in normal age-appropriate activities and social events such as playing sports, participating in afterschool activities, and enjoying a social life with friends. This lack of contact and engagement in healthy and meaningful activities deprives young people of important social connections. Preventing youth from having normal experiences impairs their healthy development and contributes to isolation and loneliness, which in turn makes them vulnerable to domestic sex trafficking, homelessness, drug abuse, poor educational outcomes, poverty, and, of course, other negative outcomes. My bill includes a number of provisions to encourage, enhance, support youth in foster care, facilitate their participation in age- appropriate activities and social events. I hope these provisions will promote healthy development, increase meaningful opportunities to form meaningful connections, reduce the risk of vulnerability to domestic sex trafficking, and other negative outcomes. Another major risk factor for vulnerability to sex trafficking and other negative outcomes for older youth in care is a continued reliance on congregate care facilities. These facilities are routinely targeted by traffickers and are often warehouses for youth who are rarely, if ever, allowed to engage in healthy age-appropriate activities and social events. I understand that many of the children and youth in foster care are deeply traumatized and present with many acute physical and mental conditions. Some of these children and youth need intensive treatment to help them manage or overcome these conditions. I am pleased to report there are many good providers who are doing this work who support the legislation I am introducing today. I O Youth refocuses Federal priorities of connecting vulnerable youth with caring, permanent families. For those remaining in congregate care facilities, my legislation requires that youth have improved access to normal, age-appropriate activities. Youth in foster care report that they feel uninvolved, unaware, and disconnected to any planning around their care or their future. They are not informed of their rights while in foster care. This can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement and a lack of connection to siblings, relatives, or other caring adults. In many cases, this lack of connection contributes to the void so often preyed upon by traffickers. My bill requires that State child welfare agencies provide ongoing family finding for older youth in foster care. I O Youth, this bill, also requires greater participation of youth in planning for their future and encourages States to find individuals willing to be involved on an ongoing basis with the youth in foster care. Individuals who work with victims of domestic sex trafficking tell us the single biggest challenge with access to these victims is the lack of accessible and affordable housing. For older youth who have been emancipated from foster care, not having a place to sleep is often a reason why they enter into the sex trade. In order to improve housing options for these at-risk youth, my bill redirects funds from the social services block grant in order to provide housing to trafficked and other vulnerable youth. We live in very contentious times. There are fierce policy and partisan divides on many political issues. Domestic sex trafficking of children and youth from foster care is not one of those issues. If there is any issue under the Sun that is without controversy, it is this one. Last June, the Senate Finance Committee heard from a courageous survivor of domestic sex trafficking. She told us that she had been sold: to several other pimps that had sex with me and forced me to have sex with other men. My story is sad, but it's common. And, girls like me are all around, but people don't see them so they remain victims. This young gentlelady went on to change her life, hold a regular job, and to testify against some of these so-called pimps. What a courageous young woman. It is time for us to pay attention to these girls and to all the children and youth in the foster care system. I expect my legislation to have broad, bipartisan support in the Senate. I am pleased that a number of organizations already support the bill, and I am particularly gratified that organizations that work directly with young people have come out so strongly in support of my legislation. I have received letters from support for I O Youth from FosterClub, Children's Home Society of America, the National Network for Young People in Foster Care, the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, Covenant House International, Human Rights Project for Girls, The Children's Village, National Children's Alliance, and the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. I am hopeful the Senate can come together to act quickly on my legislation. We owe these youth that much.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is an epidemic of abuse that is taking place in America today. Recent reports estimate that hundreds of thousands of children and youths are at risk of domestic sex trafficking. Individuals on the frontlines in the fight against domestic sexual trafficking of children report that instances are on the rise. They tell us former drug dealers have moved on to sex trafficking. They also tell us technological advances have made this type of trafficking easier as smart phones and other devices provide distance and increased levels of anonymity. Certain Web sites that post classified ads soliciting sexual partners also help facilitate trafficking. The risk of sex trafficking is compounded every year for up to 30,000 young people who are ``emancipated'' from foster care. Too many of these emancipated youth turn 18, pack their few belongings in a trash bag and are driven to a homeless shelter, leaving them vulnerable and exposed to traffickers and other predators. While in foster care, children and youth are also at increased risk for trafficking. In July of this year, the FBI's Innocence Lost National Initiative, which combats domestic sex trafficking of minors, launched Operation Cross Country, a 3-day effort. Operation Cross Country recovered 105 children and arrested 152 traffickers. The efforts of the Innocence Lost National Initiative and the results of Operation Cross Country are laudable. However, they also revealed a disturbing element of our Nation's child welfare and foster care systems. According to some reports, up to 60 percent of sexually exploited children are recruited out of the child welfare and foster care programs. That is an unbelievable statistic, but it is apparently true. Because of the trauma and past abuse suffered by children and youth in these systems, they are particularly vulnerable to traffickers. FBI officials involved in Operation Cross Country report: Law enforcement refers to these young children as ``children with a void.'' Once the pimp identifies that void and makes every attempt to fill it, a dependency between the child and the perpetrator develops. Law enforcement officers also report: The most vulnerable victims forced into sex trafficking range in age from 13 to 16. Most of the children come from either foster care homes or are considered runaways. In order to combat domestic sex trafficking and improve outcomes for children and youth in foster care, systemic changes need to be made in the current child welfare system. Therefore, today I am introducing the Improving Outcomes for Youth at Risk for Sex Trafficking Act of 2013. The short title of the bill is I O Youth. We do owe these youth. These are our country's most damaged and most vulnerable children. Yet most kids who age out of foster care face negative outcomes such as homelessness, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, and trafficking. We ought to do better. This legislation I am introducing today addresses some of the widespread conditions in the child welfare and foster care systems that make these children and youth particularly vulnerable to being sexually trafficked. I am sure most Americans would be surprised to learn that most child welfare agencies will not serve trafficked children and youth who are not in the custody of a biological or foster family or living in a group home. Often these children, who are not legally able to give consent for sex, are arrested for prostitution and referred to the juvenile justice system. In many States, the courts and the juvenile justice system are ill-equipped to deal with the trauma these children and youth have endured. My bill requires that States provide services to youth who have been trafficked or are at risk of being trafficked. The bill also redirects resources to improve the current court system to better identify and address needs of trafficked youth. Many youth in foster care are routinely denied the opportunity to participate in normal age-appropriate activities and social events such as playing sports, participating in afterschool activities, and enjoying a social life with friends. This lack of contact and engagement in healthy and meaningful activities deprives young people of important social connections. Preventing youth from having normal experiences impairs their healthy development and contributes to isolation and loneliness, which in turn makes them vulnerable to domestic sex trafficking, homelessness, drug abuse, poor educational outcomes, poverty, and, of course, other negative outcomes. My bill includes a number of provisions to encourage, enhance, support youth in foster care, facilitate their participation in age- appropriate activities and social events. I hope these provisions will promote healthy development, increase meaningful opportunities to form meaningful connections, reduce the risk of vulnerability to domestic sex trafficking, and other negative outcomes. Another major risk factor for vulnerability to sex trafficking and other negative outcomes for older youth in care is a continued reliance on congregate care facilities. These facilities are routinely targeted by traffickers and are often warehouses for youth who are rarely, if ever, allowed to engage in healthy age-appropriate activities and social events. I understand that many of the children and youth in foster care are deeply traumatized and present with many acute physical and mental conditions. Some of these children and youth need intensive treatment to help them manage or overcome these conditions. I am pleased to report there are many good providers who are doing this work who support the legislation I am introducing today. I O Youth refocuses Federal priorities of connecting vulnerable youth with caring, permanent families. For those remaining in congregate care facilities, my legislation requires that youth have improved access to normal, age-appropriate activities. Youth in foster care report that they feel uninvolved, unaware, and disconnected to any planning around their care or their future. They are not informed of their rights while in foster care. This can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement and a lack of connection to siblings, relatives, or other caring adults. In many cases, this lack of connection contributes to the void so often preyed upon by traffickers. My bill requires that State child welfare agencies provide ongoing family finding for older youth in foster care. I O Youth, this bill, also requires greater participation of youth in planning for their future and encourages States to find individuals willing to be involved on an ongoing basis with the youth in foster care. Individuals who work with victims of domestic sex trafficking tell us the single biggest challenge with access to these victims is the lack of accessible and affordable housing. For older youth who have been emancipated from foster care, not having a place to sleep is often a reason why they enter into the sex trade. In order to improve housing options for these at-risk youth, my bill redirects funds from the social services block grant in order to provide housing to trafficked and other vulnerable youth. We live in very contentious times. There are fierce policy and partisan divides on many political issues. Domestic sex trafficking of children and youth from foster care is not one of those issues. If there is any issue under the Sun that is without controversy, it is this one. Last June, the Senate Finance Committee heard from a courageous survivor of domestic sex trafficking. She told us that she had been sold: to several other pimps that had sex with me and forced me to have sex with other men. My story is sad, but it's common. And, girls like me are all around, but people don't see them so they remain victims. This young gentlelady went on to change her life, hold a regular job, and to testify against some of these so-called pimps. What a courageous young woman. It is time for us to pay attention to these girls and to all the children and youth in the foster care system. I expect my legislation to have broad, bipartisan support in the Senate. I am pleased that a number of organizations already support the bill, and I am particularly gratified that organizations that work directly with young people have come out so strongly in support of my legislation. I have received letters from support for I O Youth from FosterClub, Children's Home Society of America, the National Network for Young People in Foster Care, the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, Covenant House International, Human Rights Project for Girls, The Children's Village, National Children's Alliance, and the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. I am hopeful the Senate can come together to act quickly on my legislation. We owe these youth that much.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, to begin, my thoughts and prayers certainly go out to everyone who was impacted by the horrific events of yesterday at the Navy Yard, particularly to those whose loved ones lost their lives or were injured in what is a senseless tragedy. Having said that, I also want to express my gratitude to the brave men and women who serve in our Nation's military for the sacrifices they make for each and every one of us and to the first responders and law enforcement personnel who work tirelessly to assist those in need and to keep us all safe throughout the day. It was a dreadful day. I know there is little I can say or do to bring comfort to those who are suffering today, but I hope and pray they will find some measure of peace in the coming days. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to speak about some of the problems we face as the administration continues to struggle with the implementation of the so-called Affordable Care Act. It seems as though nearly every week we learn about another problem facing the Obama administration as they seek to implement this misguided law. More often than not, those problems are revealed through statements announcing delays in certain elements of the law. The employer mandate? Delayed. The small businesses health insurance market? Delayed. Employee automatic enrollment in the exchanges? Delayed. Of course, this should not come as a surprise to anyone. This is, after all, the largest expansion of government in a generation. And it is not as though it was carefully crafted. No. The President's health care law was rushed through Congress in a partisan fashion, virtually ensuring it would face problems when the rubber meets the proverbial road. For months now, experts have been warning us about ObamaCare's failings and the challenges those failings pose as the administration tries desperately to have something ready to implement by October 1. One of the major parts of ObamaCare is the health care exchanges. These are designed to be online marketplaces where those without health insurance will be required by law to shop for coverage. Millions of people are expected to sign up to purchase insurance through the exchanges. As a result, the exchanges are expected to have a massive impact on the overall insurance market, even affecting those who get their insurance elsewhere. Make no mistake, ObamaCare's health insurance exchanges will have an impact on every American, regardless of where they get their health insurance. That being the case, one would reasonably assume the administration would not move forward on the exchanges until they were ready. Unfortunately, when it comes to implementing the President's health care law, reason does not appear to enter into the equation. Despite countless red flags, the administration is charging ahead. They are, to say the least, desperate to avoid another delay when it comes to ObamaCare. So come hell or high water, the exchanges will go live on October 1 of this year. This is problematic for numerous reasons, not the least of which are the privacy and security considerations that up to now appear to have been ignored by the administration officials. When people sign up for insurance through an exchange, they will be required to submit their Social Security number, tax returns, household income information, and the like. This is, to say the least, highly sensitive information. In recent months, we have seen government-certified security systems have been shown to be less than reliable when it comes to protecting personal information. This past July, for example, the IRS accidentally posted thousands of Social Security numbers on its Web site. That was a small mistake with potentially devastating consequences for those who had their information exposed. The information collected when people sign up for the exchanges will be entered into a Federal services data hub, a new information-sharing network that will allow State and Federal agencies, including the IRS, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Homeland Security, to verify a person's information. It is at this point unclear whether the data hub has adequate security in place to prevent enrollees' information from falling into the hands of data thieves. There are plenty of them out there. Last month the HHS Office of Inspector General issued a report indicating the government had failed to meet several deadlines for testing operations and reporting data security vulnerabilities involved with the data hub. This, as you might expect, led to an outcry from Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle. As a result, on September 10, the White House conveniently announced that all testing has been completed and that the data hub was ready to launch. This announcement came a mere 3 weeks before the exchanges were set to go live. Of course, no independent entity will get a chance to verify the testing and to certify that there are, as the administration claims, no security problems. No third party will be able to make recommendations to improve safeguards in order to better protect the privacy of consumers. Instead, we are supposed to simply rely on the administration's internal testing of the data hub security and stop asking questions. This, sadly, is par for the course with the Obama administration. So here we are. We are mere days away from the launch of the exchanges, and we have yet to definitively prove whether the massive IT or information technology system that will be compiling enrollees' information is secure. What a state of events. To the millions of consumers about to enroll in the exchanges, this could end up being their worst nightmare. As if the potential disaster surrounding the data hub were not enough, we also have lax regulations regarding the hiring of the so- called navigators who are to help people get through these problems. As you will recall, under ObamaCare, organizations will receive grants to assist the uninsured in determining what type of coverage they qualify for in States where the Federal Government will be running the exchange. The individuals working with those organizations are called navigators. Under the law, they will often have access to enrollees' personal information. In April HHS published its proposed rule regarding the certification of navigators. Almost immediately Members of Congress recognized the regulations were far too lenient, cutting corners on things such as training and background checks and threatening to leave patients and consumers with inadequate protection. A group of my colleagues and I sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius outlining our concerns regarding this rule. Our hope was the requirements for navigators would be enhanced to ensure consumers were not harmed by unqualified navigators or imposters serving as government counselors. Sadly, our request fell on deaf ears. We never received a response. In late July HHS issued its final navigator rule keeping in place the very weak privacy protections, opening the door for private information to fall into the wrong hands. Consumer watchdog groups are already warning of scams leading to fraud and identify theft with regard to the exchanges. Indeed, it seems criminals and fraudsters are already lining up to game the system and prey on the innocent. Over the last few years I have come to the floor several times to talk about the shortcomings of ObamaCare. I continue to believe the law is beyond saving, that it should be repealed in its entirety. That remains my No. 1 goal when it comes to ObamaCare. However, I also believe those of us who opposed this law, which, according to recent polls, is a growing percentage of the population, cannot stand on the sidelines and let this law inflict harm on the American people. While we continue to push for a full repeal of the law, we need to do all we can to mitigate the damage that could come from this law. With regard to privacy and data security, we need to ensure the administration does not expose the personal data of millions of Americans to more fraud. That is why I am introducing the Trust But Verify Act. If enacted, this important legislation would delay the implementation of the Federal and State health insurance exchanges until the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the HHS inspector general, can attest that the necessary privacy and data security parameters are in place. It would simply be irresponsible to open the exchanges without adequate safeguards to protect and secure consumers' personal information. While the administration claims these safeguards exist, there is simply no way to verify these claims absent an independent review, which they are not taking. Until we can demonstrate to the public their personal information is secure, we should not move forward with enrollment in the exchanges. It is that simple. My legislation would ensure the exchanges remain on ice until this threshold issue is addressed. These are not frivolous concerns; these are real problems. I hope all of my colleagues, even those who continue to support the President's health law, will work with me to help address these issues.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President. I appreciate the opportunity today to honor a true Utah hero--Sergeant Derek Johnson. Sadly, Sergeant Johnson lost his life in Draper, UT on the morning of September 1, 2013 in the line of duty. From a very young age, Johnson always knew he wanted to be a police officer. His childhood aspirations became reality as he worked in various aspects of law enforcement. While he was still in high school he was an Explorer Scout for the Sandy City Police Department; followed by time as a police dispatcher, and then completion of police academy training. He has worked for the Draper City Police Department for the past 8 years, first as a reserve officer and then a full-time officer, and recently as Sergeant. In 2012, Johnson was presented with the Distinguished Service Medal for his role in the investigation and prosecution of a child abuse homicide in 2012. He also received the Life Saving Award, and the 2012 Community Policing Officer of the Year. Those who knew Johnson said he loved his family, and he loved his work as a police officer. Johnson has been described as someone with a good nature and a sense of humor that could light up any room; and the ability to make anyone his friend. Draper City Mayor Darrell Smith stated: ``I have known Derek for many years. He is one of the best and most qualified sergeants on our force.'' Johnson leaves behind his childhood sweetheart and wife Shante' Sidwell Johnson, their 7-year-old son, Bensen who he called his ``little buddy,'' his parents Randy and Laura Johnson, and many other family and friends. I have the highest personal regard for those who not only enter law enforcement but put their lives on the line each day to protect and serve our fellow men, women and children in communities across America. Sergeant Johnson did just that--he sacrificed to keep his community safe and we owe a debt of gratitude to him for his courage and selfless service. It is my sincere hope that Shante' and Bensen and the many family members and friends who love Sergeant Johnson will find peace and hope in the life he lived and the example he set for so many to follow.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I am grateful for this opportunity today to pay tribute to a truly extraordinary woman--Marreen Casper. Sadly, Marreen passed away on September 14, 2013, while she was serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with her husband Ron Casper in Tennessee. I had the wonderful opportunity of working with Marreen while she served on my staff for 13 years. She retired at the end of last year to pursue new opportunities in life, and to spend time with her family whom she greatly loved. Throughout her years of service in my Senate Office, she distinguished herself as someone who truly cared about our great State and its citizens. For many years she worked as my Southern Utah Field Director and became immersed in the many communities she served. She had a dogged determination and a great compassion for the citizens of southern Utah and had a ready smile and helping hand for all. She literally had friends in every corner of Utah through associations she has made and help she has rendered. There has been no assignment ever given to Marreen that she did not fulfill willingly and with enthusiasm. She was a world-class volunteer for schools, campaigns, and other causes she believed in; dedicated Senate employee who fulfilled her duties in a professional, caring manner; faithful servant in her church; and loving wife and mother. Marreen was absolutely loyal and always approached challenges and obstacles with grit and determination. To know Marreen was to know one irrefutable truth--she truly loved her family. She was very proud of her children and grandchildren. Family photos adorned her office walls, and conversations with Marreen were always peppered with anecdotes and stories of events and accomplishments taking place within her family. She was very careful to always balance her work responsibilities with family time. In fact, most of her vacation days were spent traveling to visit and participate in important events in the lives of family members. I know she attended sports events, graduations, baptisms, mission farewells, and so many other milestones in her children and grandchildren's lives and loved to regale her peers and friends with memories from these experiences. Marreen loved her family with her whole heart and soul and believed wholly in the power and strength of family. Marreen also deeply loved the Gospel of Jesus Christ and had a strong and firm testimony of eternal life and in the teachings of our Savior. She served in many positions in the church and had a profound influence in the lives of those she worked with and through her beautiful example. Marreen and Ron had planned on serving a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for many years and carefully prepared for this opportunity to serve. She was thrilled to be called to Tennessee to spread the message of the Gospel and to help those in need. She was a true disciple of Jesus Christ and a loving example of missionary work going forward throughout the world. It is my firm hope that Ron and her family will find some peace and comfort knowing that Marreen died while in the service of her Heavenly Father whom she deeply loved. I am grateful I had the opportunity to work and share a friendship with Marreen Casper. Her life although not as long as many would have hoped for; was a life well-lived. She was a woman deeply admired and loved. Elaine and I extend our deepest sympathies to Ron and her five children and many grandchildren. May they find peace and comfort in the cherished memories they have shared with this noble woman.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, especially in times of crisis but also in times of ease, Americans have reason to reflect on the foundation of the life we enjoy as a Nation. More than the citizens of any other country, when Americans think of their collective lives or their individual liberties, we think of a document. On this day, 226 years ago, a group of America's Founders signed the Constitution of the United States. In May of 1787, 55 of the 70 delegates chosen by 12 of the 13 States gathered in the Pennsylvania Statehouse, where both the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence had been signed. Just 115 days later, 39 of those delegates signed the Constitution and within 18 months it had been ratified and was the supreme law of the land. The Constitution is special both for whose it is and for what it does. The Constitution's first three words identify its ownership when it says ``we the people.'' The Constitution belongs to the people. The Constitution is also special for what it does. It both empowers and limits government. The Constitution gives powers to government by delegating enumerated powers to the Federal Government and reserving the others to the States and the people. And the Constitution limits those powers in multiple ways, including the very fact of being written down. As the Supreme Court put it in Marbury v. Madison, the Constitution was written so that the limits on government would be neither mistaken nor forgotten. Put these two principles together and we see that the Constitution is the primary tool for the people to control their government. That is both the genius of its design and the source of its vitality. The Constitution lives because of whose it is and what it does. Departing from that design kills the Constitution. President George Washington said in his farewell address that the very basis of our political system is the people's right to control their Constitution. Take away that right, undermine that control, strikes at the heart of the system of government that has given us liberty unparalleled in human history. That is why, for example, we contend over the appointment of Federal judges, many of whom appear willing or even determined to control the Constitution rather than to be controlled by it. In times of crisis, we often look to the powers of government and in times of ease, we may emphasize more the limits on those powers. But let us never mistake or forget whose the Constitution is and what it does so that it may continue to fulfill the purposes stated in its preamble: to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am both saddened and heartened by the departure of Dave Schiappa from the Senate family. I share the sadness felt on both sides of the aisle that the Senate is going to lose a valuable, dedicated, and inspiring resource. I am heartened to know, without doubt, that Dave will move on to pursuits in which everyone around him will benefit from his productive presence. I am heartened to think, also, that his family might be able to see him a bit more often. Dave's work in the Senate involves a challenging schedule, often involving brutal hours. He is often here morning, noon, and night--and sometimes overnight--helping to ensure that the Senate operates. With Dave at the helm, the operations are smooth, predictable, and disciplined. When things go smooth, as they normally do with Dave around, rest assured that much of that is the direct cause of Dave's tireless work and devotion. Amazingly, with all of his tireless devotion, Dave always has a positive and uplifting disposition, and is always a pleasure to be around. Whether it is idle friendly chat, or discussions of Senate-rule intricacies, discourse with Dave always leaves you in a better place. As Leaders McConnell and Reid and many others have attested, Dave always tells you the truth and is a straight-shooter, whether you like it or not. He tells the truth to any Senator on the floor, no matter what side of the aisle. That is what has helped the Senate work smoothly for the many years Dave has been at the steering wheel on our side. Dave's tenure in the Senate began almost 30 years ago when he began working in the cloakroom. Since those earlier days, he has moved up the ranks to be one of the few people around here who understands all of the intricacies of the Senate, and he uses that understanding to help all of us and to make this place work. Dave is ending his illustrious Senate career with more Senate years under his belt than most Senators he works with on the floor. Dave Schiappa has been a true treasure for me, for the Senate, and for the American people. The Senate is losing a valuable resource, and I am sad to see him go. I, and I am sure all of my colleagues, wish Dave and his family all the very best, and I am confident that in whatever Dave chooses in his future endeavors, we will continue to see nothing but the very best from him. When people talk about America's best and brightest, they refer to folks like Dave who is truly one of our best and brightest. In addition to thanking Dave for his counsel, camaraderie, guidance, and hard work, I also would like to give sincere thanks to Dave's wife and family. They have endured the often-grueling schedule demanded by Senate hours, which for Dave often stretches well before and well after when the Senate is actually in session. We owe Dave's family an enormous amount of gratitude for the time demands that the Senate has placed on them. I am going to miss Dave Schiappa, as will the entire Senate as a collection of people and as an institution which Dave has nurtured and preserved.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the status of the ongoing Finance Committee investigation into the targeting scandal at the Internal Revenue Service. As you can tell, my voice is a bit hoarse this afternoon. I am feeling a little bit under the weather. With the Senate about to go into recess, I thought it was important that I say a few words about this investigation, particularly with some of the statements we have heard coming from the administration this week. In May, when the news broke that the IRS had been targeting conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status with additional scrutiny, President Obama promised his administration would fully cooperate with Congress in its investigations. He also stated he directed Treasury Secretary Lew to follow up on the IRS inspector general audit to get more information as to how this happened, who was responsible, to make sure the public understood all of the facts. I was encouraged by this initial response. As you recall, I worked to clear the way for Secretary Lew's confirmation in this Senate, even though many of my colleagues had expressed legitimate concerns about his nomination. I did so, in large part, because I believed him when he promised to be fully transparent and cooperative with Congress. When the President said he had ordered the Secretary to get to the bottom of this, I expected him to live up to his promises to do so and to work with us as we tried to do the same. Imagine my surprise then to hear both the President and Secretary Lew state over the past week, with our investigations into the IRS targeting, Congress was creating a ``phony scandal.'' It started with the President who said: With this endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals, Washington is taking its eye off the ball. And I'm here to say, this needs to stop. That is what the President said. That was followed by Secretary Lew stating on last Sunday's shows this past weekend that ``there is no evidence that this went to any political official'' and that congressional investigators' efforts to find evidence is ``creating the kind of sense of a phony scandal.'' In essence, they are saying our efforts to look into this mess are illegitimate and that the American people should simply ignore them. That is a far cry from the position the President and his administration took when this scandal was made public. As I said at that time, they were contrite. Officials were even apologizing for what went on at the IRS. Today, however, it is a ``phony scandal.'' It is not worthy of the public's attention, they say. I have to wonder what they are basing their dismissal on, certainly not a thorough review of all the relevant documents, that is for sure. In a letter to congressional leaders on June 4, Danny Werfel, the Acting IRS Commissioner, stated that the IRS had collected some 646 gigabytes of raw, electronically stored information, which is equal to 65 million pages' worth of documents relevant to this investigation. Let me repeat that. The man in charge, Danny Werfel, stated that the IRS had collected some 646 gigabytes of raw, electronically stored information, which is equal to 65 million pages' worth of documents relevant to this administration. However, to date, only about 21,500 pages have been given to us--21,500 pages of documents. Those are the only documents produced to the Finance Committee to fulfill our comprehensive document request from May 20 of this year. The pace at which documents have been provided to our committee has been slow and often with long delays in between document productions. Despite their initial pledges to be cooperative and responsive, the Obama administration has been slow-walking the Senate Finance Committee. We aren't the only ones being slow-walked. Only last week, my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee, chairman Dave Camp and ranking member Sander Levin, wrote to Danny Werfel, who is currently the principal Deputy IRS Commissioner, that at the rate the IRS is producing documents, a full and responsive production will take months. It is actually much worse than that. Let me refer to this pie chart. Look at the documents we received from the IRS, 6,000 pages of, guess what, training materials. Come on, give me a break. There were 500 pages of Steven Miller, Douglas Shulman, and William Wilkins, and 15,000 pages of nonpriority custodians. That is what we have gotten from them since May. It is pathetic. As that chart illustrates, given the intermittent document production and the very small number of priority documents we have received thus far, it could be 2016 before we ever would be able to draw any conclusions about what happened at the IRS. That is pathetic. I have a feeling that is exactly what this administration wants, and that is what I call slow-walking. Since the initial report confirming the inappropriate targeting released by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, or TIGTA, on May 14, this ``phony scandal'' has evolved from what the IRS first claimed was a couple of rogue employees in Cincinnati to direct IRS involvement from high-level officials in Washington, DC, including, at the very least, individuals in the IRS's Office of Chief Counsel. I should note that the IRS Chief Counsel is also an Assistant General Counsel in the Treasury Department, and he reports to the Treasury's General Counsel. Clearly, much more needs to be learned about who was involved, why decisions were made, and what motivated these decisions. This is why the Senate Finance Committee has been conducting a thorough, balanced, and fact-based bipartisan investigation that carefully examines every aspect of this in order to get to the truth. We are not interested----

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. That is right.

Mr. HATCH. It may be beyond that. It may actually go beyond that.

Mr. HATCH. You got that right.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Kansas. All I can say is: Look, we were promised full cooperation, and we are not getting it. I don't blame Mr. Werfel for this, although he is a very close friend of Mr. Lew's. I think he has wanted to be more cooperative. When I chatted with him today again, he indicated the attorneys are going over everything. Let me just say, are we going to get the right papers? Are we going to get the truth? We are not interested in some perceptions of the truth based on limited documents and limited facts. We wish to know precisely what happened, and we are going to find out. Today, in addition to the small number of documents we have been able to review, the Finance Committee investigators have interviewed 14 individuals from IRS offices in both Cincinnati and Washington, DC. So far those interviews have yielded more questions than answers. In fact, the list of additional questions keeps growing as the investigation wears on. After more than 2 months of investigation, here are just a few of the questions I have. I will not take too much of the Senate's time tonight, but I have a lot more questions than this, and I am going to ask these in a bipartisan manner. Why did IRS Commissioner Shulman visit the White House 157 times? That is the number we have been given. That is unheard of. It has never happened before. I admit ObamaCare has taken some time, but you can't justify 157 times. It sounds to me as if there is something fishy going on. Why is it that the unions get tax-exempt status under 501(c)(5)? There was a surge in the 501(c)(5) applications in recent years. Why weren't they subject to some of the scrutiny? Did the IRS give extra scrutiny to union applications for tax-exempt status? The answer to that is, no, they didn't. I am not suggesting they should, but they certainly shouldn't have traded preelection of so-called conservative groups the way they treated them. Everybody knows that is a scandal. Yet they call this not a scandal? Once Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin learned from Inspector General Russell George of the TIGTA audit regarding IRS targeting of conservative groups on June 4, 2012, did he tell anyone else at the Treasury Department or the White House about his findings, including then-Treasury Secretary Geithner? Not that I can understand, because we don't know. They are not answering these questions. When did Assistant General Counsel for Treasury William Wilkins, who also holds the title of IRS Chief Counsel, first find out that the IRS was targeting conservative groups? When did he find that out? Why can't we get a simple answer on that? Whom did Mr. Wilkins inform about this targeting when he found out about it? What was the extent of the Treasury Department's role regarding Lois Lerner revealing, in response to a planted question, that the IRS had targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status at an American Bar Association conference? When did any employee of the Treasury Department first have involvement regarding the IRS targeting of conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status? What was first date that any White House official was informed about the IRS targeting of conservative applicants for tax-exempt status? It has been reported that ProPublica obtained private information from the IRS about conservative groups that had applied for tax-exempt status. In addition, it has been reported that the National Organization for Marriage alleges that the IRS illegally leaked information about its donors. What action, if any, has been taken by the IRS and the Department of Justice with respect to any IRS employee who may have illegally disclosed private taxpayer information in either of these cases? These are important questions. Are there other cases where a conservative group or its members have had their private taxpayer information unlawfully disclosed? It has been reported that the IRS attempted to impose gift taxes on donors to the conservative group Freedom's Watch. Did the IRS attempt to impose gift taxes on the donors of other tax-exempt groups? Has the IRS targeted individuals for an audit of their personal tax returns based on their membership in or donations to a conservative tax-exempt group? It has been reported that Lois Lerner communicated with an attorney at the Federal Election Commission regarding a case before the FEC. Did Lois Lerner violate section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code dealing with the protection of taxpayer privacy in her communications with the Federal Election Commission? She had a right to take the Fifth Amendment, but was that why she took it if she violated section 6103? These are questions that have to be answered. Why did Sarah Hall- Ingram, who was in charge of the IRS's efforts in implementing ObamaCare, attend a meeting with then-IRS Commissioner Steve Miller in May 2012 regarding the IRS's targeting of conservative groups' applications for tax-exempt status? It has been reported in the media that Christine O'Donnell had a tax lien put on her property the day she declared her candidacy for the Senate. There is something wrong here. Anybody who is fair ought to be concerned about what is wrong here--not just this but in all these questions. As part of the IRS internal investigation the President charged Secretary Lew with conducting, has the IRS examined whether any political candidates were inappropriately targeted? Much has been made of the employees who have been ``relieved of duty'' and had ``administrative actions'' taken against them, allegedly in direct response to the inappropriate targeting. Once again, the facts do not add up, as the administrative actions discovered thus far were against low-level employees for actions that were not directly tied to the allegations of inappropriate targeting. So my question is, Who was relieved of duty? Lois Lerner supposedly was after she took the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify. But even she was able to log in to her computer after being allegedly relieved, and she is still being paid her full salary. Who else has been relieved of duty? What does Lois Lerner know that prompted her to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination? Former IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Doug Shulman were both aware of the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status and the systematic practice of subjecting those conservative groups to intrusive and unwarranted scrutiny about their activities. Why did they both deceive the Senate by failing to inform us that these practices were going on? Why? I was disappointed in Commissioner Shulman because he came to my office long before this all came up and I was quite impressed. But I think he had an obligation to come clean. Why did the tea party cases sit for months at the IRS, through the 2010 election cycle without activity? Why? Why did Lois Lerner direct the IRS Chief Counsel's Office--an office that was purportedly slow in its response to requests for assistance from other IRS components--to get involved in reviewing tea party cases? Why did the IRS demand that tea party organizations seeking tax-exempt status provide a list of their donors to the IRS when that was not required? Why? These types of inappropriate actions, as I said, are just some of the many questions we have about the IRS targeting scam. These questions will simply not go away, and our investigation will not stop until all of them are answered. And we are doing this in a bipartisan way. Just today we learned President Obama has selected a new nominee to serve as the next Commissioner of the IRS. I have to say I was a bit surprised, although perhaps I really shouldn't be. Given the dark cloud that currently hangs over the IRS, I would have thought the President would have taken the time to consult Congress before choosing the agency's next leader. Yet I am the ranking member of the appropriate committee with sole jurisdiction over the IRS, and today's announcement is the first I have heard of this decision, and it was only after the decision was made. I like the President. I think we are friends. But that was improper, and it was a slight that should not have happened. I asked Senator Baucus if he was informed by the President, and he said: About 3 hours ago. And he sounded a little disgusted himself. I won't go into the merits of John Koskinen's nomination today. I have no intention of prejudging him. He will be fairly considered by the Finance Committee, and I have the reputation that he will be fairly considered. His record and qualifications will be thoroughly examined. But I want to assure my colleagues that I will demand significant answers from Mr. Koskinen when he comes before the committee, and I think other Republicans will as well. My purpose will be twofold. First, we need to get to the truth about what happened at the IRS and, perhaps just as important, we need to make sure the Obama administration is fully cooperating with our efforts rather than using phony statements about phony scandals. So today I want to call on President Obama and Secretary Lew to stop closing the door on this investigation that has just started and hasn't even been given a chance. If this is indeed a phony scandal, the burden is on them to prove it is. And just saying that it is isn't good enough. They should have the IRS produce all the requested documents and let the documents speak for themselves. There is no reason to hide these things, nor is there a reason to have a whole bunch of attorneys determining what can be released and what can't be released. Let them show how their partisan targeting began and why it continued for years. Let them show who was or was not involved and to what level within the IRS or elsewhere in government these activities were discussed and directed. Until then, this is certainly not a phony scandal. It is a legitimate bipartisan investigation being conducted in a fair and balanced way that seeks to let the facts dictate the outcome. I have a reputation around here for being fair and honest, and I resent the way the Finance Committee is being treated. I can't speak for the chairman, but I believe he feels pretty much the same way because we are being mistreated with regard to our requests for information. This isn't some itty-bitty phony scandal. This is big-time stuff that should get into why the IRS was doing this to begin with. People in this country are scared to death of the IRS, and with good reason. If they can do this to you, can you imagine what else they can do? And I have listed just a few things here today. I have a lot more I could say. This is an important investigation, and Senator Baucus and I intend to do it in a bipartisan way. But when we ask for documents, we want documents, and we don't want some bunch of partisan lawyers in the department stopping us from getting the documents they must provide. It sure looks as though they are deliberately trying to delay this as long as they can so they can say: Well, nobody cares about it. Well, I have to tell you, everybody in this country must care about it. If they can do this to these small, conservative tax-exempt organizations, then they can do it to every other organization when the time comes. This is an important investigation, and this administration ought to be at the forefront of trying to get to the bottom of it instead of pulling from behind, saying there is nothing here when they know there is a lot here. I would like these questions answered. They are important questions. This is an important investigation. We should not allow the IRS to run rampant like this. That is the beginning of tyranny--except it began before 2010--and we should get to the bottom of it so it never, ever happens again. I think there are a lot of people at the IRS who would like to see us get to the bottom of it because they are being besmirched by the bad things that have happened. There are a lot of decent, honorable people working at the IRS, and they have to be as concerned as I am about the mistreatment that occurred prior to the last election and after. Is it going to happen again? Are these agencies of government going to be used by partisan people in the way they has been used up until now? It is enough to scare the daylights out of anybody, and it is enough to think, are we moving toward a totalitarian system where the people in government can get away with anything they want to and especially an agency as powerful and scary as the IRS? I hope we can get the answers to these questions. If we can't, this isn't going to stop until we do. And these are just preliminary questions; I will come back with some more in the coming weeks. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to pay special tribute to a man I admired for many years, former U.S. Senator Harry Byrd Jr. Sadly, Harry passed away July 30, 2013, leaving behind a lasting legacy that garnered the respect of many throughout our State and Nation. Senator Byrd made history in 1970 when he became the first person to win election to the U.S. Senate as an independent candidate. He used that independence to be a voice for good and was someone people respected for his deliberative manner. Senator Byrd was not one to introduce unnecessary legislation and in fact believed legislation was not always the answer. However one of his proudest moments as a legislator was his work on a bill that mandated a balanced Federal budget in 1978. He set the tone for my own commitment to this principle that I have continued to fight for throughout my service in the Senate. I had the pleasure of getting to know Harry during my early years as a Senator. In fact, after the important and difficult Labor Law Reform battle I waged 2-years into office, I received a note from Harry that I treasure to this day. This Independent Senator praised my work and declared that ``. . . the American people are indebted to you.'' Strong words from a strong man that I looked up to and admired as a very junior Senator just learning the ropes. Senator Byrd not only conquered the political world--he was a highly respected voice in the newspaper business--two entities not always known for cohesive relationships. He spent many decades in publishing and served as editor and publisher for two newspapers; as well as the vice president of the Associated Press. His service in the Senate was matched by his service to his country in the U.S. Navy as a Lieutenant Commander during World War II. His love for America and the ideals it represents could be found throughout the good works he performed throughout his life. Our nation lost a truly wonderful man. I know that many people will truly miss his strength, leadership, and wisdom. Elaine and I convey our deepest sympathies to his three children and their families. May our Heavenly Father bless them with peace and comfort at this time. The contributions and impact Senator Byrd made on his family, his community, and our Nation will be felt and appreciated for generations to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to my colleague Rohit Kumar, who will soon, unfortunately, be leaving Senate service for other pursuits. Rohit stood by me and others here in the Senate as we navigated through deep challenges faced by our Nation, and he has consistently and vigilantly worked for the American people to promote a lot of good, and to prevent a lot of bad from happening. Rohit is a consummate Senate professional whose skills and accomplishments have provided a long strand of service to this body and to the country. He is a rarity, combining a razor-sharp intellect, logical patterns of thought, and an ability to obtain fair and balanced assessments of challenges that typically involve tradeoffs across a host of competing interests. He adds to that an uplifting disposition and a keen wit. Rohit possesses mastery of policy, politics, rules of the Congress, and more. While most of us would be content having mastery of any one of those realms, Rohit has managed to master them all. He is a complete package. Rohit has been an asset to me, to my caucus, to Senate Leadership, and to the country, and his presence will be missed by all of us. All of us here in the Senate are also indebted to Rohit's beautiful family, which has endured the often-rigorous demands that his Senate service has placed on them. I can think of more than a few occasions where Rohit was negotiating issues that are deeply important for the future of our Nation in stressful, around-the-clock marathon sessions. If you were to ask me to construct a template for an ideal person to have by your side to navigate through the tough decisions, tradeoffs, and negotiations we face in Congress, I would simply point to Rohit Kumar. We are all very sad to see Rohit leave. We trust that he will be able to take a bit more time with his family, and will pursue future endeavors with more of the same rigor and industriousness he has consistently shown in his service to the country while working in the Senate. Wherever he goes, without doubt, those around him will benefit tremendously. I wish to thank Rohit for the many years of outstanding assistance he has provided to me, to my colleagues in the Senate, and to the country. I also thank his family for sharing Rohit with us, and for persevering as we often tapped his talents around the clock. I am proud to have worked with Rohit.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to talk about an epidemic in the American workforce that has wreaked havoc on our labor markets and caused undue hardship for millions of our Nation's workers. I am talking, of course, about the eradication of the 40-hour workweek wrought by the so-called ``Affordable Care Act.'' As a result of this poorly named law, businesses around the country are instituting hiring freezes, downsizing their workforces or reducing worker hours. The President's health law requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to offer health coverage of a minimum value or pay a penalty. One of the unintended but not unforeseen consequences of the law is that a number of employers are opting to unilaterally limit the number of full-time employees in order to escape this burdensome mandate. The Affordable Care Act defines ``full-time employees'' as those working at least 30 hours a week. As a result of this odd definition, not every employer seeking to avoid paying penalties is laying off workers. Instead, an increasing number of businesses have opted to simply cap workers' hours. This is happening everywhere. For example, a recent Reuters survey of 52 Walmart stores found that half of the stores were only hiring temporary workers--something the stores typically only do during the holiday shopping season. According to a recent article in the Washington Times, Walmart has overall increased the share of its temporary staff from between 1 and 2 percent last year to 10 percent this year. Keep in mind that Walmart is our Nation's largest employer. Although the company has denied that this change in policy is as a result of ObamaCare, it is hard to believe this is all just a coincidence. Small businesses are also being impacted. For instance, there is the example cited recently in the Wall Street Journal where Rod Carstensen, an owner of several Del Taco restaurants in the Denver area, was forced to shift the majority of his workforce from full time to part time as a result of ObamaCare. Mr. Carstensen previously had 180 full-time employees and only 40 part-time workers. But providing benefits for those workers would have imposed as much as $400,000 a year in additional costs. As a result, he is now in the process of switching to 80 full-time and 320 part-time workers, none of whom will work more than 28 hours per week. As I said, this is happening everywhere. It is stupid. According to a survey conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 71 percent of small businesses say the President's health law makes it harder to hire new employees. Among small businesses that would be impacted by ObamaCare's employer mandate, 50 percent say they will either have to cut the hours of workers currently employed full time or replace their full-time employees with part-timers in order to avoid this vicious mandate. But it is not just happening in the private sector. Public schools, States, and municipalities are also limiting employees to part-time work in order to avoid paying costly benefits. For example, the second largest school district in my home State of Utah recently implemented a policy limiting part-timers to 29 hours a week. According to the Washington Post, this impacted roughly 1,200 employees--mostly substitute teachers. That is 1,200 employees in a single school district who will see their hours and their wages capped as a result of ObamaCare. Likewise, the State of Virginia recently enacted a policy reducing the hours for as many as 10,000--10,000--part-time employees who until recently worked more than 30 hours a week. Offering coverage to these workers would have cost the State as much as $110 million a year. Understandably, rather than paying those crippling costs, Virginia was forced to reduce workers' hours and therefore their pay thanks to the demands and the viciousness of ObamaCare. As I stated, this is reaching epidemic levels. It makes you wonder what is in the brains of those who support ObamaCare. Nationwide, employers have added far more part-time employees in 2013--averaging 93,000 a month--than full-time workers, which have averaged 22,000. Last year the reverse was true. It is not just businesses that are noticing this epidemic. Labor unions--some of the largest supporters of the law when it was originally drafted--have also weighed in on the matter. As was widely reported earlier this month, the leaders of three prominent labor unions sent a letter to the Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate expressing their concerns about some of the unintended consequences of the ``Affordable Care Act.'' One of their major concerns was that, in their own words: The law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees' hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits. According to these union leaders, ObamaCare threatens to ``destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the back bone of the American middle class.'' I could not agree more with that. President Obama is apparently starting to feel some of this pressure. Indeed, despite his recent efforts to paint a rosy picture of the impact of the health care law, I think President Obama knows full well that the ``Affordable Care Act'' is not living up to its name. Why else would he decide to delay the implementation of the employer mandate, as he did earlier this month? Obviously, there are political considerations. The recently announced 1-year delay on the employer mandate conveniently puts the implementation of the mandate past the 2014 midterm elections, so from that perspective I guess it makes perfect sense. Setting aside the politics, this delay also makes some sense in terms of policy. The epidemic of employers reducing workers' hours is taking a huge toll on the American workforce. Indeed, the policies established under the health law are killing jobs, reducing wages, and stagnating growth. That being the case, the bigger question is, Why is the President only delaying the employer mandate for a single year? Does he really believe these problems will simply go away if businesses have 1 additional year to prepare or is he just thinking to get to the next election and getting his people through who have voted for this? Regardless of when this mandate goes into effect, it is going to send shock waves throughout the business community. It is going to eliminate jobs. It is going to weaken our recovery--weak though it is today. That is why, despite the announcement of the 1-year delay, employers throughout the country are refusing to reverse course when it comes to downsizing their workforces and limiting employees' hours. Most news reports surrounding this issue are showing that this is precisely the case. That is likely the case for the State of Virginia. It is definitely the case for my home State of Utah and Utah's Granite School District, just to mention one aspect of our problems in Utah. If the President is serious about getting our economy back on track, he should work with Congress to ensure that this mandate never goes into effect. While we are at it, we should also permanently delay the individual mandate. For the life of me, I cannot see why President Obama would extend his limited lifeline to the business community and at the same time leave individuals and their families out in the cold. This is from a President who claims he is for the families and for the individuals and for the poor and for those who are middle class. They are being left out in the cold. If businesses are currently facing enough difficulties to necessitate delaying the employer mandate, shouldn't we assume individuals are going to face similar difficulties complying with the individual mandate? Isn't it only fair that we extend the same benefits to individuals and families that are being offered to businesses and employers? Why not get that beyond the next year's election too? Not according to the Obama administration. As it stands today, American businesses will get a 1-year reprieve from the job-killing employer mandate--American businesses. But the American people are still squarely in the sights of ObamaCare, as the individual mandate for them remains in place. This is the height of unfairness. It needs to be rectified. The House of Representatives for its part has acted responsibly. Two weeks ago the House passed two pieces of legislation--two pieces relating to ObamaCare. The first bill would simply codify President Obama's 1-year delay of the employer mandate. The second would provide similar relief to individuals and families struggling to comply with the individual mandate. Not surprisingly, President Obama has threatened to veto both bills--even the one that would simply put his own administration's policy into statutory form. Still, that should not stop us in the Senate. If we are serious about helping the business community as well as individuals and families, we should work to delay permanently this catastrophic law. If President Obama wants to officially deny the American people the same type of relief he has given to the business community by not working with Congress, then so be it. The Senate needs to act responsibly. If the President is refusing to do the same, we ought to at least act responsibly. Make no mistake--I do not think a 1-year delay on the employer and individual mandates is enough. We ought to get rid of them both. I am the author of two Senate bills that would repeal both of these egregious provisions of ObamaCare. In light of the President's recent recognition that the employer mandate should be delayed, I have publicly called for a permanent delay of the implementation of the entire law. Given what we know about the problems associated with ObamaCare and, quite frankly, given what we do not know, the sensible approach is to delay it permanently and to work together on reform that will actually lower health care costs--not just promise to do it but actually do it. I believe we can fix these problems for everyone, for employers and for individuals alike, but only if the law is permanently delayed to give us a chance to do so. It would give us a chance to be bipartisan for a change around here and work together for the good of this country. That is what makes sense. That is what fairness dictates. If we are serious about avoiding what even some of my Democratic colleagues have called a train wreck, that is the least we can do. I am really concerned about our country. We have increased taxes $1 trillion in ObamaCare. We have increased taxes $600 billion in the fiscal cliff legislation. Last week the majority leader and others--the President, Senator Schumer, and others--called for almost $1 trillion more in tax increases. It would be one thing if all of that money would go to reduce spending or if all of that money would go to balance our budget. But no, they are going to spend every dime of it. Here we are, headed toward problems that we have plenty of illustrative information on, problems like Greece has gone through and is going through and other countries as well that just are profligate when it comes to their economic wherewithal. I like the President personally, but for the life of me, as bright as he is, I do not see why he does not see all of this. I don't see why my colleagues on the other side don't see it--or should I say they ought to see it. They ought to know this is not what the American people want. They would like to have health care, there is no question, but this is going to diminish health care all over the country. We can see the high percentage of doctors who are giving up on Medicaid patients. They will not take them anymore. Only this week a high percentage of doctors are giving up on Medicare patients. They don't wish to take them anymore. What is the administration's answer to all of these spending programs? They are going to cut the providers. Already the providers-- the doctors, the hospitals, and the health care providers--are complaining they can't deliver the services that ObamaCare requires at the low-level costs that ObamaCare gives. We have to come up with a better system. We have to work together. We can't keep going down this pathway. I hope my friends on the other side will wake up and realize: Hey, this game is over. We have to find some way to solve these problems because they are just too large. They are going to wreck our country if we don't. What is worse, they are going to hurt the health care of millions and millions of people who will not be able to afford it. Madam President, I yield the floor.