Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this amendment would repeal ObamaCare's medicine cabinet tax. The health care law now prohibits individuals from using funds in their medical savings accounts, such as an FSA or an HSA, to purchase over-the-counter medications without a prescription. Fifty million Americans participate in FSAs and other health savings accounts. These accounts allow individuals to set aside their own money each year on a pretax basis to pay for health care expenses such as copayments and prescriptions, or over-the-counter medications. Rather than promoting cost effectiveness and accessibility, this provision instead directs participants to potentially more costly, less convenient, more time-consuming alternatives. Further, it injects unnecessary confusion and complexity into a system that was previously straightforward and easy for consumers to utilize. This provision of ObamaCare restricts Americans' choice and flexibility in how they manage their health care expenses and adds yet another burden on our physicians. It should be repealed. Folks should be allowed to spend the funds in these accounts as they see fit. I hope for support for these two amendments when we begin the proceedings. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my amendment to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking bill that would make a minor but nevertheless important commonsense update to the current telecommunications law to provide law enforcement with access to information that should and could help locate individuals in life-or- death situations. My amendment--identical to the stand-alone legislation I plan to reintroduce later this month--is aptly named after the young Kansan whose life and bright future was cut short by a senseless act of violence and whose case is the inspiration for why we desperately need to update this law. Almost 8 years ago. On June 2, 2007, 18-year-old Kansan Kelsey Smith--a lovely girl--was abducted in broad daylight from an Overland Park, KS, parking lot. Kelsey's abduction was captured on the closed circuit camera, therefore leaving little doubt of the emergency situation. Here is the tragedy. Four days after Kelsey disappeared, authorities were finally able to locate her body after her wireless provider released the ``ping'' or call location information from her cell phone. It took 4 days to get that vital information. Providing this information as fast as possible is absolutely critical to ensure law enforcement officials can rescue victims in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm and hopefully prevent future cases similar to Kelsey's. This amendment is a culmination of years of work between legislatures at both the Federal and State level, industry stakeholders, private advocates and, most importantly, Kelsey's brave parents who spearheaded this initiative and advocated to create commonsense reforms that properly balance the needs of law enforcement with the Fourth Amendment protections of all citizens. Through their advocacy and tireless efforts, Missey and Greg Smith have helped enact laws in 17 States, including my home State of Kansas, to provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to rescue individuals in emergency situations where the threat of death or serious bodily injury is imminent. The impact of this law at the State level has been real and measurable. For example, in May of 2012, 1 month after the enactment of the State's version of the Kelsey Smith Act, local authorities in Tennessee were successful in saving the life of a child who had been abducted by a suspected child rapist. Because the child was believed to be in imminent danger, police were able to receive the location of the suspect's cell phone in a window of time that led to the safe recovery of the child alive and before she was assaulted. According to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the first 3 hours are critical to recovering a child alive. This is why it is necessary that in these few isolated instances where a person's very life is at stake, an exemption should be made to release the whereabouts of that individual. Understanding this, my amendment would provide law enforcement with the ability to recover the location of children and other missing individuals in only very specific emergency situations, namely when there is risk of death or serious bodily injury, but in order to obtain the location, law enforcement must first provide a sworn written statement to the telecommunications providers stating the facts that support probable cause to believe that disclosure of the location is required to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Furthermore, 48 hours after the location is disclosed to law enforcement, they must request a court order stating whether such agency had probable cause to believe the facts surrounding the rescue or recovery were warranted. The privacy of every Kansan, and every American for that matter, is extremely important and that is why my amendment includes this language to put into place safeguards against possible abuses of authority by law enforcement. I believe my amendment strikes the appropriate balance between the ability for law enforcement to help individuals in grave danger while also ensuring that proper checks are in place to guard against any overreach by the government. Kelsey was never given the opportunity to attend college or get married or have children and experience the American dream that many of us take for granted every day, but what she did do was inspire her mother and father to make it their mission in life to help educate and empower communities and children to help prevent another case like this from happening again. Kelsey's father, Greg, a former law enforcement officer himself and a Kansas State Senator representing parts of Johnson County, said it best when he quoted Abraham Lincoln to describe what Kelsey had accomplished: ``In the end, it's not the years in your life that counts. It's the life in your years.'' I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on the floor today, and I would have liked to have offered my commonsense amendment that would help prevent tragedies like Kelsey's, so I ask every colleague in this body to ask one question: If it were your child, your grandchild, your spouse, would you not want law enforcement to have immediate access to this information? Let's honor Kelsey's memory by passing this legislation whether it is stand-alone legislation or in amendment form. I had every intention to ask for a vote on my amendment. I believe I would have had my colleagues' support on both sides of the aisle. This legislation is long overdue and so is the trafficking bill. At this time we are grateful for those who use their abilities and skills in ways that promote justice and goodwill in our land and to promoting the good of every citizen. That is, unfortunately, not happening at this time. We have objections from the minority over a provision that has been in law for 36 years. This is delay again for Kelsey Smith and amendments such as mine that I think have bipartisan support. In this regard I am frustrated, and I think it is shameful. I yield the floor. It would appear to the Senator from Kansas that there is not a quorum. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in this new Congress we have an opportunity and a responsibility to address an issue of utmost importance to every American: the current dysfunction at the Internal Revenue Service. I do not use the word ``dysfunction'' lightly, but I reach that conclusion when I see the agency systematically suppress the political activity and free speech rights of American citizens. I also reach that judgment when I see the agency unable to effectively police its personnel, as seen in the tax delinquency levels of the agency's staff, when bonuses have been awarded to these same employees. These are critical issues we must address, particularly as we in Congress face our obligation to reform our tax system. The IRS targeting of conservative and other groups that came to light way back in May 2013 is neither a trivial issue, nor one we can ignore--no more back burner. This is a front-burner issue. We have hit many roadblocks in this investigation, and it is certainly premature for us to reach any conclusions or to make concrete recommendations on how to address the IRS targeting. That being said, we have a pretty clear sense of what happened. In my view, this egregious conduct and the condescending response by the top IRS officials should come to a screeching halt. For over 2 years the IRS targeted conservative and many other groups applying for tax-exempt status with inappropriately intrusive information requests. The IRS also delayed processing these applications, and according to recent reports has continued to delay processing applications. It hasn't stopped--amazing, simply amazing. When the targeting came to light, senior members of the agency tried to cover up the IRS' actions by providing incomplete and misleading information to Congress about what was being done. Very recently we learned the agency has found tens of thousands of pages of information relating to the targeting. The review of these documents has not yet begun. The good news is that the inspector general for the IRS has these records now. The bad news is that there are technical difficulties processing those records. The Senate Finance Committee has yet to receive this information as the investigation continues. There is no doubt the review will lead to further interviews with officials in the IRS and other government agencies. The actions of the IRS and its leadership have profound implications for reform of our overly complex and antiquated Federal tax system. Let me quote from the Internal Revenue Service mission statement: The IRS tries to provide America's taxpayers ``top quality service'' by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities. They are meant to do all this--this is the underlying, this is the one statement the IRS should remember every day--``with integrity and fairness to all.'' With integrity and fairness to all. Now in the targeting scandal, I believe the IRS is no longer the neutral tax collector its mission states it to be and that the IRS is inappropriately open to a partisan political agenda of the White House and its allies, if not to working as a direct tool or means of suppression to the right of free speech. The other issue with the IRS also showing its dysfunction relates to the tax compliance of IRS employees and in fact the compliance level of Federal employees all across our government. As of September 2013, Federal employees were delinquent on $3.4 billion in taxes. Yes, that is right--1,500 Treasury employees were delinquent, owing close to $10 million. While in the grand scheme of Federal finances it is a very small amount, it is tremendously galling and sends a terrible message to taxpayers to know that many of these employees were awarded bonuses--they were awarded bonuses--even though they owed back taxes. Let me be perfectly clear. Any employee who deliberately ignores the process and procedures for fulfilling their tax obligations like every other American must be held accountable. This is a basic principle upon which I think we can all agree. When these public employees serve at the IRS, their lack of willingness to pay their tax obligations calls into question the integrity of the agency. It is unconscionable that there are tax delinquents working as tax collectors. In these two matters, it is very clear that the IRS is again not conducting itself with integrity and fairness--far from it. The crux of the issue is that neither the Congress nor the tax-paying public can have any confidence that the agency acts in an evenhanded manner or with the best interest of the taxpayer at heart. This is a very troubling at a time when the IRS's role in the economy and in people's lives has been greatly expanded by ObamaCare. From the very first, the idea of using the IRS to implement and enforce ObamaCare is an anathema to common sense. It is bad enough now when taxpayers are audited. Nobody likes to hear that knock on the door or receive a telephone call or email after being targeted for their political beliefs and blocked from exercising their free speech rights. But to expand the role of this agency into everyone's health care decisions is just plain wrong. That is a box canyon we should not ride into. Tax reform presents us with the opportunity to look at these issues much more closely. When we have completed these investigations and have issued reports, I will review the results very carefully to see what legislative fixes to the IRS and the Tax Code may be necessary. Make no mistake about it, I am not going to let this slip from the radar, and we should not let this slip from the radar with regard to the Senate Finance Committee. There are too many blips on the screen--large blips. I hear from Kansans every day who are fed up with the IRS. I think most Members in this body feel the same way. There is a lot of discontent with the tax system and its enforcement, and there are regular calls for even scrapping the whole collection apparatus. I agree we need to take a hard look at tax reform in the agency. Of course we have an immediate obligation to take up tax reform, and the Finance Committee will do so, but the question remains: If we are successful in reforming the Tax Code--truly climbing that mountain--how can we turn a reformed code over to an IRS that is so rife with scandal? The other action we must take immediately is to block the IRS from taking any further steps to restrict constitutional free speech rights. This is why just yesterday I joined with my colleague from Arizona Senator Flake to again introduce legislation to prevent the IRS from moving forward with a regulation project on the political activities of social welfare groups, the 501(c)(4) regulations. It is completely inappropriate for the agency to move forward with this project until we understand what went on and what structural and procedural changes are needed at the Internal Revenue Service to prevent the targeting of political opponents from ever happening again. Senator Flake and I have proposed a very straightforward and commonsense approach to this challenge. We simply halt further action on the proposed regulations until the congressional investigations into the IRS actions are completed. The bill we have introduced freezes further IRS actions for 2 years and would make it clear the IRS can only enforce the regulations that were in place before all the targeting began. I also wish to make it clear that we can no longer tolerate rewarding government workers who cannot be bothered to comply with our tax laws. So today I am offering legislation to block Federal employees who are delinquent on their Federal taxes--here is the key--and making no effort to pay their tax liability; we will block them from receiving a bonus or award from the Federal Government. If someone is a Federal employee, they should not be receiving a bonus if they are not making an effort to pay back taxes. I think the purpose of my bill is very simple. If someone is a Federal worker, they should be making a good-faith effort to pay their taxes like everybody else or at least work with the IRS to pay down their debt. Holding Federal employees accountable for their tax debt may even foster public confidence again in our tax system. Amazingly there are Federal employees at almost every agency, including the Internal Revenue Service, who are significantly delinquent in their taxes and not working to pay their debts. That is wrong. That is not fair. It is not good government practice. That is an understatement. My bill will put a stop to this practice. It is no wonder, given the IRS's behavior and the behavior of these Federal tax delinquents, that Kansans and virtually every American doubt that the government can administer the tax laws in good faith. The lack of faith in the Internal Revenue Service is an important reason why Congress must rewrite the Tax Code, simplify how we pay taxes, and reduce the government's intrusion into economic and other affairs of the public. We don't need the IRS regulating constitutionally guaranteed free speech and muzzling lawful political activity. We also do not need to reward Federal employees who do not even make the most minimal effort to pay their tax debt and then give them bonuses. The hypocrisy of IRS agents getting bonuses when they don't pay their taxes has to stop. Finally, there are other issues at the Internal Revenue Service. There was a recent statement by the IRS Commissioner warning-- threatening--the tax-paying public, during tax-filing season no less, that the agency is drastically cutting taxpayer service functions. I am talking about answering calls, tax return help, and other programs that assist the average American to fulfill their tax obligation. The Commissioner blames the budget sequester. I understand that. Every Federal agency is now upset about the sequester. I am upset about the sequester with regard to our national security and the spending caps setting these cuts. The IRS Commissioner is upset about that as well. That is beyond amazing when we have learned that the agency has made so many poor decisions, such as entering into a contract with the IT company that was just fired by Massachusetts, Vermont, and the Department of Health and Human Services for its failure in implementing the healthcare.gov Web site. The historic rollout was a total disaster. I expect we will get into this in detail next week when the Commissioner comes before the Finance Committee. I am going to be asking him questions about the same topics I brought up in these remarks. In the meantime, just a suggestion to the IRS--from the Commissioner on down--take a hard look at the mission statement, concentrate on serving the taxpayer, stop threatening the American public with the loss of service, and try to do the best you can in a most difficult budget environment. We have an obligation to have the IRS serve with integrity and fairness to the American public, and that is not happening now. Let's work together to make sure it does happen. I yield the floor, and after careful inspection, it appears to me we do not have a quorum present. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, for his very comprehensive review of where we are with the economy and the need for the Keystone Pipeline to pass. As always, Senator Thune in a very articulate manner made the case for our country to become more energy independent and also touched on national security and the stagnant situation we face with our economy. I thank the Senator for his remarks.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Stabenow, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I rise today to talk about a problem that affects virtually every American, and that would be government regulations; to be more accurate, government overregulation. Let me point out something. In 2014, the administration issued 3,541 rules in 1 year. That cost $181 billion. The first week of this new year brought us 35 new rules which added another 1,326 pages to the Federal Register. I would urge people back home in the business community or any other endeavor in which they are bothered by regulations to read the Federal Register as opposed to the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record deals with natural gas. The Federal Register deals with facts and regulations. Yet just last night we learned that President Obama has threatened to veto a significant regulatory reform proposal now being considered by the House of Representatives. It is interesting to me that the President is now threatening to veto his own ideas. Back in January of 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order. It was entitled ``Improve Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' That is in quotes. Unfortunately, despite claims otherwise, the Executive order has largely been ignored. My bill takes this order and gives it the force of law. My bill would require that all regulations put forth by the current and future administrations consider the economic burden on American businesses and ensure stakeholder input during the regulatory process, thus promoting innovation and new jobs. Just as the President said in his order, this egregious assault on our economy must stop; it must end. Like many of my colleagues, I have had a longstanding concern with the regulatory process. Like other States, from every corner of Kansas, the No. 1 topic of concern for all businesses, including agriculture, energy, small shops on Main Street, healthcare, education, lending-- virtually every enterprise is harmed by overly burdensome and costly regulations. Whether it is the EPA'S Waters of the United States proposed rule or listing of the infamous lesser prairie chicken as an endangered species, the public is losing faith in our government. Obamacare is a prime example of this administration's vast regulatory overreach. The bill, as signed into law by the President, as most of us know, was no short read. It was over 2,000 pages. But as the rollout continues, the administration has now expanded Obamacare into over 24,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register. Here is one example of the overly intrusive regulations this administration used the Affordable Health Care Act to implement. It is Health and Human Services' mandate requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and emergency contraceptives. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court had to intervene and determine that the HHS mandate placed an excessive burden on the religious freedom of owners of family business. Regrettably, costly and intrusive regulations are not limited to HHS and Obamacare and CMS and all of those regulations. Not to be outdone by HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency has its own set of overly burdensome regulations. Let's take the proposed Waters of the United States rule. For example, as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas knows, this proposal has caused a firestorm of opposition all throughout farm country. The EPA claims that the proposed Waters of the United States rule simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction. Well, therein lies the problem. Farmers and ranchers do not believe it. I don't believe it. They fear the rule would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private property under the guise of the Clean Water Act. If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for ordinary field work, construction of a fence, or even planting crops near certain waters. Kansans are justifiably worried the permits would be time consuming, costly, and that the EPA could ultimate deny the permits, even for longstanding and normal cropping practices. This is another prime example of why many Kansans feel their way of life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and overregulation. Simply put, they feel ruled, not governed. Let's not forget the burdensome carbon regulations now being proposed by the EPA. Over the last 6 years, this administration's EPA has pursued an agenda that can only be described as a war on fossil fuels and coal. Just last week, in fact, the EPA announced that by June of this year it would finalize carbon reduction rules for both new and existing powerplants. That is going to be a move that will drive up the energy cost for all Kansans, all Americans, hoping to heat their homes during extremely cold winters or hot summers such as the ones we are experiencing now. This decision, which the EPA itself admitted would do nothing to reduce global temperature if similar plans are not adopted by Russia, China, India and Brazil, will have unbelievable costs. According to a recent study about the American Action Forum which cites the administration's own estimates these rules are anticipated to cost industry $8.8 billion to comply. That translates into a 6-percent rise in electricity prices. Sadly, these regulations will hurt low-income individuals the most--folks who can least afford it and who spend a greater percentage of their income to heat their homes and feed their families. Now let's look at what the Department of Labor is trying to do with President Obama's pen-and-paper dictates. Currently the Department of Labor has a regulation to eliminate the companion care exemption put forth by this body 40 years ago. This important exemption allows seniors and the disabled community access to affordable in-home care. If eliminated, those who need in-home care the most, and their families, would be forced to determine which hours are the most crucial in the day they receive assistance. In addition, caregivers who currently work over 40 hours would see their hours and paychecks cut because of this rule. As the Department of Labor issued this rule and geared up for implementation on January 1 of this year, benefit recipients, individual States, and Members of this Chamber stood together to shine a light on the negative effects this would have on communities all across the Nation. At the same time, a judge issued a partial determination on this regulation, and he stated the following: The fact that the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking after all six of these bills failed to move is nothing short of yet another thinly-veiled effort to do through regulation what could not be done through legislation. Such conduct bespeaks an arrogance to not only disregard Congress's intent but seize unprecedented authority to impose overtime and minimum wage requirements in defiance of the plain language of Section 213. It cannot stand. My legislation addresses these abuses. Far too often the good intentions of regulations lead to job loss and red-tape that strangles business. Worse still, the agenda of bureaucrats drives bad policies and stifles economy. I have a solution. My comprehensive bill requires agencies to promote economic growth and job creation by ensuring the benefits outweigh the cost of regulations. It is as simple as that. We need to be listening to the folks as well who have to live with and pay for the effects of these rules. I am hearing from stakeholders that they are weighing the time and expense of responding to regulations against the fact that this administration keeps giving them the minimum allowable time and then doesn't even consider their input. Bottom line, fewer Americans are bothering to participate in the comment period process. Stakeholder input is crucial and needs to be considered. Right now, time varies on how long the comment period stays open. Sometimes it is as little as 2 weeks. My bill would ensure the period stay open for at least 60 days. My colleagues, as we all well know, sometimes the people who are most affected by these rules don't even know they are subject to the changes. My bill would mandate that agencies provide warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements to the public. Right now, just the opposite takes place. The administration skirts stakeholder input by issuing interim final rules--called IFRs--and they become effective immediately upon publication. My bill allows delay of implementation if that rule is challenged in court and until the court makes a decision. All too often new regulations are proposed and finalized while existing regulations are not being enforced. I have heard from a lot of folks in Kansas that the problems these new regulations claim to fix could be solved if the current regulations were properly monitored. Simply put, the solution is not more rules and regulations; it is considering the existing ones. My bill mandates an ongoing review of regulatory actions to identify those outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome rules--or, as the President himself once put it, ``rules that are just plain dumb''--and allows agencies to streamline, expand, or repeal those regulations. We need regulatory reform. My bill codifies the President's Executive order while closing the loopholes and gives it the rule of law. I do not know how the President could disagree with that. The U.S. Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Farm Bureau, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have all endorsed my bill. Last year I had 35 cosponsors. We have about thirteen. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and stay engaged as this process continues.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, he indicated this was his maiden speech on the floor of the Senate. If that is so, I urge him to make additional speeches. I don't think I ever heard a more concise summary with regard to the pipeline issue than he just gave. We can certainly see why the people of Louisiana sent him here. It was perfect, it was cogent, and it was short. It was interesting. He had a bill very similar to this and Senator Cassidy passed it in the House and he is now in the Senate. We hope that with enough debate we can have truly a bipartisan effort with comity. This is a new beginning. We are so happy to have the Senator here. I thank him for his remarks.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I rise today to talk about a problem that affects virtually every American, and that would be government regulations; to be more accurate, government overregulation. Let me point out something. In 2014, the administration issued 3,541 rules in 1 year. That cost $181 billion. The first week of this new year brought us 35 new rules which added another 1,326 pages to the Federal Register. I would urge people back home in the business community or any other endeavor in which they are bothered by regulations to read the Federal Register as opposed to the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record deals with natural gas. The Federal Register deals with facts and regulations. Yet just last night we learned that President Obama has threatened to veto a significant regulatory reform proposal now being considered by the House of Representatives. It is interesting to me that the President is now threatening to veto his own ideas. Back in January of 2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order. It was entitled ``Improve Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' That is in quotes. Unfortunately, despite claims otherwise, the Executive order has largely been ignored. My bill takes this order and gives it the force of law. My bill would require that all regulations put forth by the current and future administrations consider the economic burden on American businesses and ensure stakeholder input during the regulatory process, thus promoting innovation and new jobs. Just as the President said in his order, this egregious assault on our economy must stop; it must end. Like many of my colleagues, I have had a longstanding concern with the regulatory process. Like other States, from every corner of Kansas, the No. 1 topic of concern for all businesses, including agriculture, energy, small shops on Main Street, healthcare, education, lending-- virtually every enterprise is harmed by overly burdensome and costly regulations. Whether it is the EPA'S Waters of the United States proposed rule or listing of the infamous lesser prairie chicken as an endangered species, the public is losing faith in our government. Obamacare is a prime example of this administration's vast regulatory overreach. The bill, as signed into law by the President, as most of us know, was no short read. It was over 2,000 pages. But as the rollout continues, the administration has now expanded Obamacare into over 24,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register. Here is one example of the overly intrusive regulations this administration used the Affordable Health Care Act to implement. It is Health and Human Services' mandate requiring religious institutions to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and emergency contraceptives. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court had to intervene and determine that the HHS mandate placed an excessive burden on the religious freedom of owners of family business. Regrettably, costly and intrusive regulations are not limited to HHS and Obamacare and CMS and all of those regulations. Not to be outdone by HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency has its own set of overly burdensome regulations. Let's take the proposed Waters of the United States rule. For example, as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas knows, this proposal has caused a firestorm of opposition all throughout farm country. The EPA claims that the proposed Waters of the United States rule simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction. Well, therein lies the problem. Farmers and ranchers do not believe it. I don't believe it. They fear the rule would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private property under the guise of the Clean Water Act. If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for ordinary field work, construction of a fence, or even planting crops near certain waters. Kansans are justifiably worried the permits would be time consuming, costly, and that the EPA could ultimate deny the permits, even for longstanding and normal cropping practices. This is another prime example of why many Kansans feel their way of life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and overregulation. Simply put, they feel ruled, not governed. Let's not forget the burdensome carbon regulations now being proposed by the EPA. Over the last 6 years, this administration's EPA has pursued an agenda that can only be described as a war on fossil fuels and coal. Just last week, in fact, the EPA announced that by June of this year it would finalize carbon reduction rules for both new and existing powerplants. That is going to be a move that will drive up the energy cost for all Kansans, all Americans, hoping to heat their homes during extremely cold winters or hot summers such as the ones we are experiencing now. This decision, which the EPA itself admitted would do nothing to reduce global temperature if similar plans are not adopted by Russia, China, India and Brazil, will have unbelievable costs. According to a recent study about the American Action Forum which cites the administration's own estimates these rules are anticipated to cost industry $8.8 billion to comply. That translates into a 6-percent rise in electricity prices. Sadly, these regulations will hurt low-income individuals the most--folks who can least afford it and who spend a greater percentage of their income to heat their homes and feed their families. Now let's look at what the Department of Labor is trying to do with President Obama's pen-and-paper dictates. Currently the Department of Labor has a regulation to eliminate the companion care exemption put forth by this body 40 years ago. This important exemption allows seniors and the disabled community access to affordable in-home care. If eliminated, those who need in-home care the most, and their families, would be forced to determine which hours are the most crucial in the day they receive assistance. In addition, caregivers who currently work over 40 hours would see their hours and paychecks cut because of this rule. As the Department of Labor issued this rule and geared up for implementation on January 1 of this year, benefit recipients, individual States, and Members of this Chamber stood together to shine a light on the negative effects this would have on communities all across the Nation. At the same time, a judge issued a partial determination on this regulation, and he stated the following: The fact that the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking after all six of these bills failed to move is nothing short of yet another thinly-veiled effort to do through regulation what could not be done through legislation. Such conduct bespeaks an arrogance to not only disregard Congress's intent but seize unprecedented authority to impose overtime and minimum wage requirements in defiance of the plain language of Section 213. It cannot stand. My legislation addresses these abuses. Far too often the good intentions of regulations lead to job loss and red-tape that strangles business. Worse still, the agenda of bureaucrats drives bad policies and stifles economy. I have a solution. My comprehensive bill requires agencies to promote economic growth and job creation by ensuring the benefits outweigh the cost of regulations. It is as simple as that. We need to be listening to the folks as well who have to live with and pay for the effects of these rules. I am hearing from stakeholders that they are weighing the time and expense of responding to regulations against the fact that this administration keeps giving them the minimum allowable time and then doesn't even consider their input. Bottom line, fewer Americans are bothering to participate in the comment period process. Stakeholder input is crucial and needs to be considered. Right now, time varies on how long the comment period stays open. Sometimes it is as little as 2 weeks. My bill would ensure the period stay open for at least 60 days. My colleagues, as we all well know, sometimes the people who are most affected by these rules don't even know they are subject to the changes. My bill would mandate that agencies provide warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements to the public. Right now, just the opposite takes place. The administration skirts stakeholder input by issuing interim final rules--called IFRs--and they become effective immediately upon publication. My bill allows delay of implementation if that rule is challenged in court and until the court makes a decision. All too often new regulations are proposed and finalized while existing regulations are not being enforced. I have heard from a lot of folks in Kansas that the problems these new regulations claim to fix could be solved if the current regulations were properly monitored. Simply put, the solution is not more rules and regulations; it is considering the existing ones. My bill mandates an ongoing review of regulatory actions to identify those outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome rules--or, as the President himself once put it, ``rules that are just plain dumb''--and allows agencies to streamline, expand, or repeal those regulations. We need regulatory reform. My bill codifies the President's Executive order while closing the loopholes and gives it the rule of law. I do not know how the President could disagree with that. The U.S. Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Farm Bureau, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have all endorsed my bill. Last year I had 35 cosponsors. We have about thirteen. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and stay engaged as this process continues.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my colleague, Senator Hoeven, for leading this colloquy and I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for her remarks. In the Washington Times today, Jack Gerard, the President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute said: Falling oil prices have empowered the United States and weakened OPEC and Russia. The result is that increased U.S. production in North Dakota has ``fundamentally reordered the world's energy markets.'' This is a national security issue. This is an issue where Russia--I think the break-even point for them is about $110 a barrel. Right now it is at $48. They never dreamed this would happen. Their entire economy is at stake, and hopefully it will cause Mr. Vladimir Putin to start thinking about some of his adventuresome antics around the world. In addition, the pipeline represents not only everything that the distinguished Senator has brought out but it is a symbol that says that we are going to go ahead with all of our energy production. We are going to go ``all of the above'' here. This is not either-or with green projects or fossil fuels or whatever. So if you vote for the pipeline you are voting for something that really affects our national security. Think about potential exports to Europe. They could be less dependent on Russia and so Vladimir does not have his choke hold on them, if you will. There is a lot going on with regard to this issue that people haven't thought about. Additionally, the President told us at a meeting with a group of Republicans 2 years ago--2 years ago--that he would make a decision between 2 and 3 months and that it was just a matter of tying down some legal matters. Now he says he is not for it and obviously he will never be for it. You can make whatever conclusion you want to make about that, but it is not a good conclusion. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, the first time I met Mike Johanns was in Hutchison, KS. Hutchison, KS, is where we have the State fair every year. I was somebody then. I was the chairman of the sometimes powerful House Committee on Agriculture, and I had made a pitch to get the Secretary of Agriculture to actually come to the fair, thinking that Mike Johanns would be a far better speaker than myself and maybe I could avoid some trouble. So I had the Secretary come and I made the promise that every farmer who wanted to ask the Secretary of Agriculture a question would have that opportunity. I hadn't bothered to tell Mike about it, but when he arrived on the scene, he nodded his head and said: Fine. He had this yellow tablet under his arm, and with ample staff, some who used to work for me, but that is beside the point. So cutting things short, all the activities in the State fair he attended, and he dutifully went around to every exhibit, and we finally ended up in the amphitheater and there must have been 150 to 175 farmers all lined up waiting to speak to or to question the Secretary of Agriculture. I thought to myself: Oh, my gosh, what have I done? The Secretary is coming in--I didn't know Mike that well at that particular time--and what have I gotten him into? But Mike didn't seem to be bothered at all. He was absolutely comfortable, unflappable. He had the microphone and he sat down at a table, put down the yellow tablet and said: Yes, sir, and what is your first question and what is your name? The individual would give his name and the question, and Mike would write down the question. He said: Thank you very much for that. It will receive all of our attention. Next. He went through the whole 125 or 150 and never answered a question, but he wrote it down. Every farmer who came up later to me said: You know, the Secretary wrote down my question. They were tremendously impressed, as opposed to me. Silly me, I would have tried to answer their questions, and we would have been there 2 or 3 hours, Lord knows how long. So I asked Mike: How do you get by with that? He said: Well, it saves a lot of time and you never get in trouble by what you don't say, which always sort of stuck with me and what a class act he was. County commissioner, mayor of Lincoln, Governor, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Senate. I suppose if I floated a balloon for you to be President that you might--no, Stephanie wouldn't buy it and you wouldn't either. But that would be the logical next step, Mike, and I think we certainly could and probably will do a lot worse. But at any rate, since I brought up Stephanie, Franki and I extend our very best wishes and love. I do have somewhat of a minor discomfort, it isn't a quarrel--I would never quarrel with Stephanie--but some degree of discomfort. We have to have meetings around here a lot, and some of us stay for the whole thing. We would always look around for Mike. He would be around for the fireworks and then he would leave and he would always go home--because he had a home very close on Capitol Hill--to be with Stephanie. She is absolutely wonderful. She has the best smile ever. You cannot be unhappy or in a bad mood ever when you see Stephanie. So I would come to work in the Hart Building or here in the Capitol and I would happen to run into Stephanie and she would always come up with that big smile on her face and say: Hi, Pat. How are things going? What are you going to do? I mean, I am trying to be the curmudgeon of the Senate, but Grassley keeps edging me out. So here I would be in sort of a bad or a grumpy mood and she would flash that smile, and I would say: Just fine. Then I would be feeling pretty good and I would go into the office. They would say: What is wrong? You have a smile on your face. I would say, ``I've been Stephanized.'' I am truly going to miss that. I remember the time we were sitting probably right about here in the back. We had just concluded the farm bill for the first time, and then it took us 400 days to get the rest of it. Mike is an expert on agriculture program policy. Ask anybody else if they would like to talk about agriculture program policy and you would get a high glaze after about 8 seconds--but not Michael. Mike knows agriculture farm program policy. We call it farm program policy in Nebraska and Kansas, but he knows an awful lot about it. I asked him: How many people do you think in this body, in this Senate, absolutely understand farm program policy? He retorted: How many people want to understand agriculture program policy? We decided there were about 5 in the Senate and maybe about 10 in the House--which shows you why we have a tough time getting the farm bill done. I relied on his advice and counsel when I was the ranking member. I am so sorry--I regret--should I have the privilege of becoming chairman of the Senate agriculture committee, I would look forward to a dynamic duo with regard to what we could accomplish. But Senator Johanns is like Shane: Come back, Shane. Come back, Mike. But Shane rode away, and the Senator is going to ride back to Nebraska. I give him that, and I give him all of the success he can possibly have. Six years is all this man has served. Some people have been here a lot longer. I have. You can accomplish a lot in 6 years. People say: What can you do in 6 years? No. 1, you can work on legislation and you can know what you are talking about and you can earn people's respect and you can be smart about it. I don't mean smart smart. I mean just smart, so that what you say and when you say it, people pay attention. That is precisely the kind of person Mike is. You can have all the integrity in the world and you can do exactly what he says when he talks about the people of Nebraska. The people of Kansas are very similar to the people of Nebraska. My only complaint with the people of Nebraska is they chose to go play in the Big Ten and are finding it a little more difficult than running the track meets they used to run against Kansas State and KU. But if you want to go to the Big Ten and do that, why that is your business--but we have the same kind of roots. I have always said there are no self-made men or women in public office. It is our friends and the people we represent who make us what we are, and Senator Johanns has spoken so eloquently to that. Michael, I was trying to think of a tag I could label you with that might be noteworthy of everything you stand for. Others will do better than I and others have already said that. I simply come up by saying that you are an uncommon man with a very common touch, and I am going to miss you--and everybody in the conference is going to miss you and I suspect everybody in the Senate is going to miss you for the way you have conducted yourself and the job you have done for Nebraska. We wish you all the best and we love you.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I would like to amplify the remarks made recently by my colleague from Utah Senator Hatch, our distinguished ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, concerning the year-end tax legislation--what is called the tax extenders bill. Senator Hatch was entirely correct, it seems to me, when he said that getting this legislation through the Senate had been an ordeal, an unnecessary ordeal not only for the Senate but more particularly for every person in business back home in my State of Kansas and also throughout the country--Utah, Kansas, wherever in the United States. I am talking about farmers, ranchers, small business owners, manufacturers and all of their employees; in other words, the backbone of our economy. It is a real shame that the longer term extenders deal developed by the chairmen of the tax committees and the leaders in the House and Senate--yes, you heard me right, both chairmen in the House and Senate and both leaders--have agreed that basically this deal that was reached before the Thanksgiving holiday has collapsed. The deal included a number of very critical items, including a permanent simplification of the research credit that would help businesses plan and invest in job-creating innovation. The package also included a number of provisions for which I had worked very hard, including special depreciation and expensing rules that are very important to agriculture and small business. The plan also included bipartisan legislation I developed with Senator Schumer to modify the research and development tax credit so it could be more easily used by smaller businesses, where the bulk of technological innovation occurs. The plan also included long-term extension of legislation I have pushed to make sure smaller businesses are able to access the capital they need to grow and hire new employees. These provisions are not giveaways. They free up capital and cash that can be invested and recycled into economic growth. That is a good thing. We should have done that. These provisions do not fit within the class warfare debate--actually, it is not a debate but rather a diversionary tactic that actually took place, that shouldn't have even been mentioned. A veto should never have even been forthcoming from the White House. I have heard the complaint the proposal was too business focused. Since business today is mired in a swamp of regulation and guessing games and unpredictability, the focus of a so-called tax-extenders bill should have darn well been focused on business. Not every person in America works for our growing government. The deal would have also helped individual taxpayers, from teachers taking a deduction for school supplies they purchase with their own money to help for homeowners who have defaulted on a mortgage or faced financial hardship, to deductions for college tuition and expenses. These provisions would keep more money in the pocket of taxpayers, a better place for it. The package represented months of good-faith work by the tax committees and leadership in both Houses of Congress, something unique that we have not experienced around here for quite a while. Obviously, the deal wasn't perfect by any stretch, but it would have been a great downpayment for true tax reform. Most of all, it would have brought certainty and clarity to tax policy, something we sorely need and which is long overdue. Let me give an example of what I mean. Earlier this week I visited with farmers in Kansas at the annual Kansas Farm Bureau meeting--about 1,000 farmers attended. One farmer, who shared his views so pretty much everybody around him could hear, told me he had recently purchased new farm equipment--combines and tractors so his family could step up work on their land, expand their operation, and he was upset. Actually, he was not upset, he was mad because, according to him, ``we've been messing around in Washington too much with the extenders bill.'' He was mad because if the equipment expensing rules aren't extended, he is out many thousands of dollars. That is just a portion of what has been spent. But that is money he would have used to buy more equipment or more land--the productive use of capital--and not some trivial amount used for a vacation or something else. It is not just this farmer. My phone has been ringing off the hook all month with calls from farmers, ranchers, equipment dealers, and other businesses that need to know whether this will get extended, and they, too, are upset--make that mad. They are frustrated, and they need us to get to work to help them run their businesses and their lives. Yes, even with the recent blowup, we will extend these tax provisions but only for 1 year--a month--and then we will be back at it again next year, and these folks will be in the same position, the same kind of purgatory, wondering whether we will ever come to our senses, wondering whether to buy that new tractor or buy the new production line or to hire new employees. Every day when I visit with business owners and taxpayers in Kansas I hear over and over one simple refrain: Senator, we need certainty in the Tax Code. We need to be able to rely on a stable tax system so we can plan and grow our business. Senator Pat, the Congress needs to do something about these tax extenders. I couldn't agree more, and I think most of us, if not all of us on the Senate Finance Committee, couldn't agree more. The lack of certainty about these tax provisions is bad for American families. It is bad for business looking to create jobs, and it is bad for our economy. It leaves businesses unable to plan ahead and invest because they are left in the dark about what tax provisions will affect their operations. So what happened to the deal? Why are we at this point debating another kick of the can down the road? The imperial Presidency has happened. The President has decided that instituting an Executive amnesty was the best course of action before the end of the year. President Obama's immigration grenade doomed the tax extenders deal. Real negotiations unraveled, a veto threat was issued, and the bipartisan compromises were killed. Because of President Obama's my- way-or-the-highway approach to leadership and to amnesty, Congress is now forced to once again cobble together a 1-year tax policy patch that basically nobody wants. This hurts families, job creators, farmers, ranchers, teachers--everyone who needs to plan ahead to succeed. So instead of working with Congress to develop an immigration reform compromise, we have the most arrogant attack on the Constitution I have ever seen. Once again the President placed partisan politics above the needs of the middle class--our workers and business owners, our students, our teachers, and indeed our entire economy. Without this unprecedented illegal Executive order, we would right now be discussing a long-term extension of these vital tax provisions. We could maybe even have voted on it as of this year--as of this week-- laying a strong base for comprehensive tax reform. Instead, the President has sacrificed job-producing tax policy for the expedience of Executive action. As I have said elsewhere, the President has seemingly no interest in a constructive working relationship with Congress. He didn't have any intention of listening to the will of the American people, and he has no respect for the constitutional boundaries of his office. This is beyond troubling, but its spillover into other areas, such as tax policy, does not bode well for the bipartisan development of policy to build the economy we so desperately need and that we were so close to achieving. But let us be hopeful. Maybe something good will come out of this whole situation. Maybe we will recognize the level of dysfunction illustrated by the Executive order, and I hope it will point us back to regular order. It is critically important that we return to regular order in the Senate, in particular with all of the major fiscal issues we face. Bringing the extenders package to the Finance Committee was a strong sign that we mean business and that we are ready to move on a bipartisan basis to address the fiscal issues that are facing the country. Sadly, that effort was sabotaged. Without that action, we would be moving toward a more sensible, bipartisan, progrowth extenders bill and perhaps well on our way to tax reform. That we are not is a shame. It didn't have to be this way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I intend to speak under the time reserved by Senator Hoeven. Could the Presiding Officer tell me how much time remains?

Mr. ROBERTS. Splendid. I intend to speak for about 8 minutes. I admire the commitment, the perseverance, and the oratory skills of my colleague from the State of California. I know how strongly she feels about this issue. I rise today without a portfolio. I do not have the charts my distinguished colleague has. Senator Hoeven has six in the Cloakroom. There are 12 over there. I thought at one time I would introduce legislation to ban charts from the floor, but that didn't go very far. I rise today in support of the bipartisan, bicameral legislation offered by Representative Cassidy from the House and Senator Landrieu from here in the Senate to approve the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. (Mrs. BOXER assumed the Chair.) Simply put, my point would be that this project is long overdue. It has been said time and again, but it is worth repeating: 6 years of delays and five separate environmental impact statements, and finally we are voting on this legislation--already passed by the House last week--to grant approval of the project. Let me repeat myself. Five environmental impact statements have been rolled out since the year 2010, all five concluding that construction of the pipeline would neither exasperate carbon emissions nor increase development of the Canadian oil sands. Let's briefly take a look at the conclusion reached by each of the five environmental impact statements to see what President Obama's own State Department had to say about whether construction of the Keystone Pipeline is in the national interest. In April 2010, after a 1\1/2\-year review of TransCanada's application to construct the pipeline, the State Department published the findings of its draft environmental impact statement, which concluded that the pipeline's construction would have limited environmental impact and would help reduce U.S. reliance on crude oil imports from other less stable regions of the world. ``Less stable'' is an understatement as of today. Considering what is going on right now in the Middle East and Russia, it cannot be understated how important this project is from a global security perspective and also from a national security perspective. A year later, in April 2011, the State Department issued a supplemental environmental impact statement to consider alternatives to the Keystone Pipeline and to address some of the concerns raised by agencies, groups, and individuals who submitted comments on the project's construction. Keep in mind that the State Department did this despite the fact that it believed the original environmental impact statement sufficiently addressed all concerns. Four months later, in August 2011, the State Department released its final environmental impact statement concluding yet again that this project should be built. The State Department concluded that construction would ``result in a project that would have a degree of safety greater than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system under current regulations.'' Despite this conclusion--which under law triggered a 90-day window for the State Department to make yet another final national interest determination--the State Department decided to delay the final decision rather conveniently until after the 2012 elections. After three earlier reviews, in March of 2013 the State Department issued its draft supplemental environmental impact statement to consider potential impacts of the new route which would avoid the Sand Hills region in Nebraska. Once again, the State Department concluded that this project should be built. Finally, on January 31, 2014--about a year ago--the State Department issued its fifth and final environmental impact statement. Nevertheless, it concluded that the Keystone Pipeline poses no serious environmental dangers, would create thousands of jobs, and would decrease our reliance on crude from despotic regimes--more of them today--around the world and expand trade with our closest ally, Canada. We have two options. The first is to finalize construction of the Keystone Pipeline, which will immediately result in thousands of construction jobs all throughout the United States. The second option is we can reject construction of this pipeline and instead transport the crude to the United States by rail or allow Canada to simply export the crude to other countries, such as our good friend China. China is so concerned with the environmental standards that it may--it may, according to the bargain so highly publicized by the administration-- begin reducing carbon emissions by 2030 if the leaders of China 16 years from now feel like it or make that decision. What is the big deal about China's carbon-reduction commitment, by the way? It is meaningless. There is simply no option available that would somehow prevent Canada from developing these oil sands. Despite what any Senator says or any charts that may be used, it is happening and it will continue to happen. Facts are stubborn things. We either move this oil by pipeline, which is the safest way to transport oil, or we allow it to be exported to other countries that will refine it under far less stringent environmental regulations. If CO2 is a world problem, that is something you ought to really think about. This project would support 42,000 U.S. jobs, hundreds of those in my home State of Kansas; it would provide over 800,000 barrels of oil per day from our closest trading partner, Canada; and it would have a $3 billion impact on the U.S. economy. I have long supported this legislation. Now we need to hear from President Obama, yes or no. No waffling around any longer. If this bill passes today will the President sign it into law or will the President simply continue to straddle the pipeline until after the runoff election in Louisiana? It seems to me the President owes the American people an answer as to whether he supports this project. The question is--it is pretty obvious--if the President opposed this project from ever being built, then why are we waiting? Why wouldn't you just say from the get-go that you hold the views of a few above those of most Americans, which includes everybody from labor unions, to pro-energy trade associations, to manufacturing, et cetera? I would ask the President: Why didn't you just come out in 2008 and say, no, we are never going to build this as long as I am in the White House. Because I think that is exactly what is happening. It is time to quit straddling the pipeline. Let's get on with it or get off. I want to make myself clear. If we pass this bill and President Obama vetoes it, then that is his decision, that is his prerogative, but the responsibility will lie squarely upon his desk. Because when we come back in January under a Republican majority, our task will be to not only pass this legislation but, with a veto-proof majority, to override whatever obstacles the President tries to put in its way. Again, this project makes sense economically, environmentally, and from a national security perspective. I believe we should get this finally moving. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in a State where cattle outnumber people, the Kansas livestock industry is one of the leading economic and cultural drivers of our State. Across the Midwest, ranchers and their families work hard every day to provide protein for a growing and hungry world, often without the appreciation or recognition they deserve. I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations and thanks to a trusted leader and friend. Thomas ``Dee'' Likes has served for the last 31 years as the chief executive officer and executive vice president of the Kansas Livestock Association. Under his leadership, the 5,500- member trade association has grown into one of the most influential and respected agricultural organizations in Kansas and across the nation. Dee Likes has made a distinguished impact on the livestock industry. As the longest tenured State affiliate organization CEO in the history of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, he helped lead the industry through the 1996 merger between the National Cattlemen's Association and the Beef Industry Council of the National Live Stock and Meat Board. In addition to his service as CEO of the Kansas Livestock Association, Dee Likes has been a true partner in government. He has successfully represented the livestock industry in front of Congress and has served two terms as president of the Kansas Agricultural Alliance, a coalition that represents over 20 Kansas agricultural associations before the Kansas Legislature. I am grateful to Dee for his friendship, his advice, and his counsel over the years. Kansas agriculture has been fortunate to have Dee's commitment and dedication. I hope he and his wife Terry will enjoy their next chapter in life.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, agriculture is one of the leading economic and cultural drivers in Kansas. Across our State, farmers and ranchers work hard every day to feed a growing world, often without the appreciation or recognition they deserve. I rise today to offer my sincere congratulations and thanks to a special Kansas farmer and friend. Steve Baccus is a native Kansan, a veteran, a husband, a father of five, and a grandfather whose fourth- generation family farm in Ottawa County continues to produce wheat, corn, soybeans, and occasionally sunflowers and sorghum. For the past 17 years, Steve has served on the board of directors for Kansas Farm Bureau, including the last 12 as its president. Kansas Farm Bureau is our State's largest general farm organization, with nearly 105,000 members. Under his leadership the organization has successfully influenced State and national agriculture policy, promoted rural values, and worked to show an increasingly urban populace how food is truly produced. In addition to his service as president of the Kansas Farm Bureau, Steve Baccus has been a true partner in government. He has led trade missions, presented testimony before Congress and State legislative committees, and told the complex story of agriculture for much of his adult life. Steve Baccus embodies many traits we can all admire: a deep love for the great State of Kansas, gratitude for the many hard-working families who provide the food, fuel, and fiber Americans rely on, and the respect of his peers across the Nation. I personally am grateful for Steve's many years of wise counsel to me and for his service to Kansas and agriculture. I wish him and his wife Patricia all the best in their next chapter.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I wish to return to the discussion of the constitutional amendment to restrict speech. I made considerable comments yesterday, and there are some other comments I feel should be said about this--probably a dozen or more things. However, I wish to return to that discussion. We have heard a lot in this debate about commercials. Everybody is concerned about commercials--those 30-second ads that are driving everybody crazy, that everyone wants taken off the air, and that we want to regulate and restrict and punish. We don't like them. No one likes them. We want to make them go away. Well, let's forget about the commercials for just a second. Let's talk about the show. Does anybody watch the show? It sometimes seems as though the only thing on TV that my colleagues care about are the commercials about themselves. But there actually are other things on TV. There are actual programs that fill up the time between the commercials. Let's talk about those. There is, of course, all sorts of programming on television: sports, movies, sitcoms, reality shows. Pretty much everything--and I mean everything--is on TV now. There are a lot of politics on TV. The politics come in a range of formats. It comes unvarnished on C-SPAN. It is delivered through news and commentary on cable channels. It is satirized and made fun of on the late night shows. It appears in documentaries and feature films. The Citizens United case itself was the result of a political film--a film about Hillary Clinton. During the litigation there were arguments over whether the film and its advertisements could be treated as ``electioneering communications'' and, therefore, regulated and restricted by campaign finance laws. In rendering its decision, the Court properly saw, in my view, the film for what it was: An encouragement for people to vote against Hillary Clinton. This is what the Court said in its holding: The movie, in essence, is a feature- length negative advertisement that urges viewers to vote against then- Senator Clinton for President. In light of this historical footage, interviews with persons critical of her, and voiceover narration, the film would be understood by most viewers as an extended criticism of the Senator's character and her fitness for the Office of the Presidency. The narrative may contain more suggestions and arguments than facts, but there is little doubt that the thesis of the film is that she is unfit for the Presidency. Then the Court went on to say: The narrator reminds viewers that Americans have never been keen on dynasties and that a vote for Hillary is a vote to continue 20 years of a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Then the Court found this: There is no reasonable interpretation of Hillary other than as an appeal to vote against Senator Clinton. The film qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy. Having made that determination, the question then becomes, Should the government be able to prevent it from being seen? The court held the answer to that question was no and struck down as unconstitutional the laws that would prevent or constrain the distribution of the film. My colleagues on the other side want those laws to be put back in place. They believe the government should be able to control the content, the financing, the distribution of films that reference candidates for office, and they are pushing this constitutional amendment to make that possible. Now, we can expect there will be a lot more about Hillary Clinton on TV over the next couple of years. Some of it will be favorable and some of it will be unfavorable. Thanks to the Citizens United decision, the government won't be able to control what is said about her or any other potential candidate for the presidency--either party. My colleagues do not have much to worry about when it comes to programming about Hillary Clinton. I don't think they need to worry about the show. They know there are a small number of conservative film makers who will attack her and whatever they produce is unlikely to reach a wide audience. On the other hand, there is a huge multitude of liberal film producers, directors, and writers who like--if not love--Hillary Clinton and want to see her get elected to the Presidency, and they will do whatever they can to help her achieve that goal. Secretary Clinton's recent book tour provided a good preview of the kind of programming we can expect to see more of should she decide to run for President. And luckily for her, there are plenty of television personalities who will help her sell herself to Americans, not just her book. For example, one recent appearance on the Stephen Colbert show was clearly designed to soften her image. In an extended segment that could be seen as either amusing or nauseating, depending on your perspective, Colbert conducted a phony interview designed to show his viewers how smart and funny Hillary Clinton is. Of course, Colbert can do whatever he wants with his show. No one questions that. But it should be obvious that the show amounts to a corporate-financed and political expenditure. Everything on the show-- the studio, the host, the equipment, the writers, the director, the cameraman--everything is paid for by a corporation. Is there anyone in the Chamber who thinks that a corporation doesn't have the right to do that? Of course not. They like the show. And those on the other side know they can expect all sorts of similar programming in the months and years ahead. That doesn't bother them. But the commercials are a different story. What if someone wanted to buy a 30-second ad during the show to present an alternative perspective. Well, we can't have that, can we? That would be intolerable. It would present a threat to our democracy. We have to amend the Constitution to prevent that. The absurdity is evident. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle think our First Amendment allows one sort of programming to have unrestricted and unhindered access to the media, while other sorts must be limited and constrained. I submit that is preposterous. In our system of government, all voices have the right to be heard. The First Amendment gives them that right. There is so much nonsense in this debate about buying elections and drowning out voices. We have a system that allows all voices to be heard, even those that oppose the majority. That is not the antithetical to democracy; it is the essence of democracy. So it is time, it seems to me, to stop pretending that allowing more voices to be heard somehow poses a danger just because we don't like what they are saying. Elections can't be bought. Voters will decide who wins them. They will make that decision based on what they think of the candidates, and what they think will be based on what they see and hear of the candidates. Then they will vote. When they do so, their vote will be equal to that of every other citizen. It doesn't matter how rich they are or what they do for a living or whether they even have their own TV show or never even watch TV. Every citizen gets one vote. As they make their decision about how we are going to cast it, we need to make sure they are able to hear all voices. That is what the First Amendment does. It ensures that all voices have the right to be heard, and we don't need to change it to make that happen. Those who are pushing this constitutional amendment don't want more voices to be heard, they want less. There should never be any confusion about the intent of this constitutional amendment. It is to allow this majority to pass laws that will silence their opponents and ignores all the pious claims about the grand intent to recognize it for what it is--a cynical attempt to protect themselves from criticism. Don't be fooled.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. This evening the Senate will vote on whether it should proceed to the consideration of a constitutional amendment that would, of all things, alter the Bill of Rights. Specifically, it seeks to amend the First Amendment to permit this Congress to regulate the speech and political activity of American citizens. As written, the First Amendment does not permit regulation of the sort the majority wishes to impose, so they have decided to rewrite it. This is incredible and a sad demonstration of the lengths to which this majority is willing to go in its quest to retain power. It is particularly sad when you realize that in just over 2 weeks we will be celebrating the anniversary of the Senate action that made ratification of the First Amendment possible. It was on September 25, 1789, that this body passed the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States. That was 225 years ago. The ratification process was completed when Virginia became the 11th State to approve the amendments on December 15, 1791. Since then, for over two centuries, the First Amendment has guaranteed all Americans will have the right to express themselves and participate in the political process without fear of government reprisal. While other nations have struggled to build and sustain democracy, the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution have given us a stability that allowed the United States of America to grow, to prosper, and to become a beacon of freedom around the globe. Our Founders knew that the free expression of ideas was essential to the life and health of our democracy. Many other nations have yet to learn this lesson and still punish and imprison their citizens for daring to speak out and challenge those in power. That does not happen here because of the system our Founders gave us. It does not happen because of the First Amendment. These things should be obvious. We might even call them self-evident. One would think that even in these polarized times we would have a consensus or could have a consensus on the wisdom of the Founders on this point. You would think that Senators on both sides of the aisle would recognize and agree that the First Amendment, which has preserved our liberty, must itself be preserved. I am very sorry to say that if you thought that, you would be wrong. I am very sorry to say that as we stand here today in September 2014 those on the other side of the aisle now want to reverse the decision this body made that September 225 years ago. Forty-nine Members of the majority have chosen to cosponsor S.J. Res. 19, an amendment to the Bill of Rights. I am pleased to say that not a single one of my Republican colleagues has joined them, but I am saddened that so many of those across the aisle have taken the extraordinary step of supporting it. I think the reason is clear. They want to silence their opponents. The First Amendment does not allow them to do so, so they are going to try and change it. The First Amendment begins with ``Congress shall make no law''--for a reason. Our Founders knew a great deal about human nature. They knew that those in power would be inclined to retain it and unless constrained would use their power to punish those who would seek to challenge them or remove them from office. The First Amendment denies us that power. It explicitly prohibits this Congress from passing laws that restrict the speech of the American people. Now the majority wants to remove that prohibition. They want to grant themselves the power to control speech, to silence their opposition. We will hear from the other side that there is nothing to worry about, that all they wish to do is impose reasonable regulations. Of course, the point of the First Amendment is to prevent this Congress from making determinations about what speech is reasonable-- and, therefore, permitted--and what is unreasonable and, therefore, prohibited. We don't need to speculate about what the majority will deem reasonable and what it will deem unreasonable. As I described at a recent Rules Committee hearing on the DISCLOSE Act, prior consideration of that legislation has shown us what the majority regards as reasonable. The DISCLOSE Act is the majority's most recent version of their now biannual attempt to create a new regulatory structure to deter speech. It is precisely the kind of legislation we can expect to see more of if the majority grants itself the power to regulate speech through the amendment we are debating today. So with past as prologue, let us recall what happened when the DISCLOSE Act was considered by the House in 2010. Not surprisingly, the restrictions and obligations it imposed were applied to groups disfavored by the majority at that time. A number of corporations were simply prohibited from speaking. Government contractors and TARP recipients were prohibited from making independent expenditures. During floor consideration an amendment was added also to prohibit speech by companies that explore and produce oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill was on the floor soon after the Deepwater Horizon spill, so this was an easy target. Not surprisingly, the majority thought it was perfectly reasonable to prevent any of these companies from speaking but did not think it was necessary to extend those restrictions to the unions that might represent the workforce in these companies. Republican amendments to extend the restrictions to those unions were rejected. The majority did not find them reasonable, apparently. In some cases groups were excluded from the disclosure obligation solely because the votes were not there to include them. That is what happens once the Congress starts imposing speech restrictions-- restrictions get applied to whoever doesn't have enough votes in the Congress to prevent them. Imposing speech regulations based on the whims of whatever party happens to be in the majority in the Congress at a given time is not reasonable, but it is exactly what happens once we start down this path and the majority has not deviated from it. The Rules Committee hearing revealed the DISCLOSE Act continues to exempt groups sympathetic to the majority from the obligations it would impose on others. It may be a natural impulse to wish those who are criticizing us would stop--everybody understands that--but the First Amendment does not allow us to make it stop. We should not have the power to silence our critics and we should never have it. I know many Members on the other side of the aisle are upset about the ads that are attacking them and their agenda. I know they want those ads to stop. Well, we don't get to choose who gets to speak. The proponents of this amendment and the critics of the Citizens United decision are clearly exercised by the prospects of corporate speech. It is obvious they fear how such speech might influence public policy debate in this country and their own electoral prospects. They have decided these voices should not be heard and must be suppressed. They claim to be motivated only by a desire to promote the health of this democracy. They claim they just want all voices to be heard and want to make sure powerful corporations do not drown out the voices of others. This claim is belied by one simple fact that there are and always have been powerful and wealthy corporations that have exerted enormous influence over our politics in this country and in our culture even. But the majority has not had a problem with them. I am speaking, of course, of media corporations. They were never limited by the electioneering restrictions imposed on other corporations. The Citizens United decision simply leveled the playing field and ended that nonsensical distinction. That logical and constitutional result alarms the majority, though, because they fear that other corporations may not be as sympathetic to them as media corporations have been. They therefore regard it as perfectly reasonable to allow media corporations to say whatever they want, while at the same time regarding it as intolerable that other corporations be permitted to do the same. While the amendment they propose would allow them to prohibit speech by any corporation--including the media--we can expect their allies will continue to enjoy the right to free expression. Their opponents, however, will be targeted. Those whose views align with the majority should draw no comfort from this fact though. Majorities do change. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that the people's right to speak is not dependent on the whims of whatever majority happens to be in power at a given time in the Senate. People have a right to express themselves and that right is not limited to whatever this body might deem to be reasonable. We have a free marketplace of ideas. We do not entrust this Congress with the power to decide what ideas will get expressed or how much they will be expressed. Again, we don't entrust this Congress with the power to decide what ideas will get expressed or how much they will be expressed. The majority proposes this amendment because they want that power, but they should never have it, and neither should any future majority. We have already seen from the rule change they imposed unilaterally only a few months ago that this majority is willing to jettison longstanding traditions and practices for short-term political gain. This mentality has already done serious and possibly irreparable damage to this body, but apparently destruction of the Senate rules will not suffice. Now the Constitution itself must yield. The interests of the majority are paramount and everything--even our most basic principles-- must be sacrificed on the altar of the majority. Well, thankfully, the rules for ratification cannot be discarded as easily as the rules of this body. To ensure against precisely what the majority wishes to do--to alter the Constitution for their own benefit--the Founders made it very hard to amend. Two-thirds of each House of Congress must agree to an amendment. Then three-quarters of the States must ratify it. That is just not going to happen. But the fact that they will not succeed does not mean that we should not take their threat seriously. To even begin down this path shows a remarkable contempt for our political traditions and founding documents. It reveals the desperation of the majority and at the same time it reveals the wisdom of our Founders. In seeking to amend the First Amendment to protect themselves, the majority reminds us again how lucky we are to live in a country with a Constitution that prevents such abuses. I am profoundly grateful for the wisdom of the Founders and proud to stand here today to defend the First Amendment that they gave us. I will oppose this amendment today, tomorrow, and forever, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both parties.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Committee on Rules and Administration with oversight of the Congressional Research Service, I offer my congratulations on the occasion of its centennial. While it began in 1914 as a modest reference service, today it is an organization of nearly 600 analysts, attorneys, information professionals, and support staff with the core mission of providing timely and authoritative research and analysis on legislative issues of interest to Congress. These highly trained and professional experts are dedicated to supporting the work of the Congress in an objective, unbiased, and nonpartisan manner. Congratulations to the Congressional Research Service for 100 years of excellent service to the Congress.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. I thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership on this issue and for bringing this issue to the attention of all Members, more especially those of us in our conference, but this should be a bipartisan effort. I rise today to join my colleagues in discussing yet another--yet another--job-stifling and unjustified regulation proposed by this administration. The EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Agriculture--what? the three horsemen of the regulatory apocalypse-- have proposed a rule that after careful review and study we believe would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private property-- control of private property--under the guise of the Clean Water Act. They claim that the proposed ``Waters of the United States'' rule ``simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction.'' Well, here is the catch: The ``clarification'' is from categorically classifying so- called ``other waters'' as regulated, even if the water cannot be navigated and was previously outside of their authority. This proposal is another example of why many Kansans, many farmers and ranchers from Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, feel their way of life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and overregulation. To date, the Kansas associations of grain and feed, agribusiness retailers, ethanol producers, soybeans, wheat growers, pork producers, livestock, watersheds, golf course superintendents, and the Kansas Cooperative Council all have opposed this rule. Similar organizations in Wyoming and North Dakota and South Dakota and all across farm country have also been in contact with their Senators. These organizations and their members fear the EPA will use this rule to further regulate farmers and ranchers, as well as other normal land uses, such as building homes. If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for ordinary fieldwork or for the construction of a fence or for even planting crops near certain waters. Kansans are justifiably worried that the permits would be time- consuming, costly, and that the EPA could ultimately deny the permits, even for longstanding and normal practices--even practices that help the environment. A friend of mine, Kansas farmer Jim Sipes--he is out there in Manter, KS; that is way out there; that is way out there by the Colorado border; he still has not gotten much rain after 3 years--he explains his view and said: ``The only thing that is clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make changes to the land--even if those changes would benefit the environment.'' He knows what he is talking about. For the folks back home, the issue of the EPA trying to control more water, whether it is actually ``navigable,'' is not new. We have had this before. We have been down a similar road before with the agency wanting to regulate all of the water in the country, even small farm ponds, I would tell my colleagues, that no self-respecting duck would ever land on. Now, I think maybe there is a file, I say to Senator Hoeven--I think there is a file down there in the basement of the EPA. It must be a big one: rural fugitive dust; the navigable waters situation; endangered species, so there is the taking of farmers' ground to force them to plant native prairie grass to save the lesser prairie chicken, which we cannot even find; and on and on and on and on. I think it must be labeled: What Drives Farmers and Ranchers Crazy. And about every second foggy night, why, somebody pulls open that file and we go through the whole thing again. It is not as though we have not done this before on this issue. After personally calling on the EPA and Army Corps to withdraw the proposed rule, I want to make sure the expansion of regulatory jurisdiction over ``Waters of the United States''--let's shelve it for good. Let's shelve it for good. Last week I joined the distinguished Senator from Wyoming Mr. Barrasso and the majority of our caucus in introducing straightforward legislation that prohibits the Administrator of the EPA and the Secretary of the Army--the Secretary of the Army, for goodness sakes-- from finalizing the rule or trying a similar regulation in the future. Put the file back. Just file it away. Maybe put it somewhere where the hard drive is that Lois Lerner lost. We will continue working here in the Senate, as well as the House, to either convince the administration to back off of this proposal or, if necessary, to block the agencies from moving forward. We have stopped this type of foolishness before, and I expect we will be successful again. I thank my colleagues for their arduous efforts. I say to Senator Hoeven, thank you for leading this effort.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I first congratulate my colleague Senator Isakson for doing a good job of summarizing exactly where we are and the problems we are experiencing with the complexity of the Affordable Care Act and the hope that the new Secretary will be responsive, as the Senator so eloquently pointed out when he questioned her when she came before the committee. I thank the Senator for making an excellent speech and making excellent points, and I will endeavor to do the same, as we are talking about the same subject. My remarks are once again on the Affordable Care Act. I know we have other issues, many important issues--the Veterans' Administration, the release of terrorists in an exchange--but it is equally important we continue to shed light on the many failings of this law. During the very first debate on the Affordable Care Act, I distinctly remember comparing this rush to government health care as akin to riding hell-for-leather into a box canyon to find the only alternative would be to turn around, ride back out, and get on a more realistic, market-oriented health reform trail. Then I put it another way. I said: There are a lot of cactuses out there. We didn't have to sit on every one of them. We never even saw the bill before we voted on it. I think everybody understands that. I voted no and so did every Republican Senator and Member of Congress. This was not a bipartisan effort. I regret to say to my colleagues that I told you so, and here we are in a box canyon. Until the administration provides us more details to the contrary, we have to assume that more Americans are losing the care they liked, through cancellation notices, than they have enrolled in the exchanges. They are in a box canyon. It is now estimated that ObamaCare will cost the Nation nearly $2 trillion and has created higher premiums, higher taxes, less choice, confusion, delays, and problem after problem. Unfortunately, the President and his allies in the Congress continue to protect this law, despite its toll on our economy, our patients, and our providers. The President promised, as we all remember: We'll lower premiums for a typical family by $2,500 per year. Valerie from Wichita, KS, wrote me a letter to share her story on this broken promise. She writes: I wanted to let you know that I had to drop my company health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act. My premium before the Act was $250 a month and my employer paid $100 a month toward the premium. My insurance year expired April 1st and the new year is under the ACA health insurance. The new plan is now much higher at $565 a month and my employer can only afford to pitch in $150 a month. I had to drop my plan due to unaffordability. I could not pay the $415 a month. The President also promised, highly publicized: ``If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period,'' and, ``If you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor.'' This law has significantly disrupted the individual health insurance market by imposing mandates and causing at least 5 million Americans to lose the insurance they had or have. Doug, also from Wichita, wrote to share his personal story on this one. He said: I am a small business owner who just got my family's health insurance cancelled. I have talked it through with [the insurance company] and at a minimum I will be paying 63% more per month for coverage that has a deductible 3 times greater than what I had and my doctor may or may not be in the network. Doug continues on to say: The only topic that matters in Washington is stopping the insanity of [ObamaCare]. Most important, the President promised, ``I will protect Medicare.'' This law cuts over $700 billion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare. Part of those cuts come from the establishment, the establishment of an Independent Payment Advisory Board--what a wonderful acronym for this board--IPAB. This Board is supposed to be made up of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will decide which treatments in Medicare coverage should be taken away with regard to reimbursement. As I have stated on the Senate floor before, the IPAB has no accountability and their decisions are practically impossible to overturn. The administration continues to give us piecemeal data on exchange enrollments, delays provisions of the law that they can't implement on time or simply wants to delay--a large serving of politics involved-- and is providing exclusive waivers and special deals to unions and others from the yoke of ObamaCare. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirmed that the administration has missed half of the mandated deadlines of this law. Most recently, press reports have indicated the government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health care plans in the new Federal insurance exchanges, and they have so far been unable to fix the errors. Obviously, this poses a lot of problems for a lot of people. Unfortunately, the President and his allies in Congress continue to protect this law despite its toll on our economy, patients, and providers. A new Health and Human Services Secretary has been nominated, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, as Senator Isakson referred to, but with ObamaCare, nothing will alter. We are headed for socialized medicine. ObamaCare is the President's legacy. The President will unilaterally change what suits him best. The hard-working taxpayers who are paying for this law, in large part from the 21 tax increases contained in it, have a right to some answers. That is right, I said 21 tax increases. Just some of these taxes include the following: the individual mandate tax, where people have to pay the government for not having insurance, even if they can't afford it; the employer mandate tax, where an employer pays a tax because they may have chosen to forgo providing insurance to their employees instead of having to lay off workers; the health insurance tax, which will be passed along to individuals in the form of higher premiums; the medical device tax. I could go on and on. Many of these taxes have bipartisan support to be repealed, but we can't even get a vote on those. With a $1.8 trillion pricetag, this bill is so far-reaching it is difficult to find a Federal agency that doesn't have a hand in this pot; from your doctor's office to your wallet, to your privacy. That is why I am introducing today a bill to require a special inspector general for monitoring the Affordable Care Act. We call it the SIGMA Act. It is the Special Inspector General for Monitoring the Affordable Health Care Act. While all of the Federal agencies charged with implementing the Affordable Care Act have Offices of the Inspector General--and they do, they are all investigating this law in their own silo--where have we heard that before with a lot of problems within the Federal Government--the Health and Human Services inspector general isn't talking to the Treasury IG or the Department of Labor IG or the Homeland Security IG or any one of those with each other. This bill would give appropriate authority to investigate and to audit any programs or activities related to this law across the many Federal departments, State exchanges, and private contractors. The legislation will require a report to be submitted to Congress and the American people 6 months after enactment and quarterly reports for the duration of time the Affordable Care Act is on the books. They have broad authority to review all aspects of the law. Things such as the following: Changes in the health insurance marketplace, the amount of folks who have seen their premiums and out-of-pocket costs increased, shrinking physician and other provider networks. We have a right to know that. The employer mandate, its effect on worker hours, employers' hiring, and the number of businesses subjected to the penalty. We have a right to know that. The healthcare.gov Web site, its security, functionality, and verification systems. We have read a lot about that, but we have a right to know. Duties of the Internal Revenue Service, plans for calculating subsidy overpayments and underpayments, how they will notify these individuals and what their plans are for recapturing these overpayments. Medicare cuts via the IPAB, they will provide an analysis of the impact on medical outcomes for our seniors as a result of these cuts. We should know that. All of these questions could and should be answered by a special inspector general. The bill would equip the special IG with the same investigative and law enforcement authority as standing inspectors general, including subpoena and audit powers to compel responses from the administration. President Obama has claimed that his--his--is ``the most transparent administration in history'' and that his administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. Given these statements, I think the President should embrace the idea of a special inspector general for his health care law. After all, we need to know the outcomes of the 41 changes he has already made to the law. It would provide increased transparency so the general public has a better understanding about this law. It would protect taxpayer dollars, and by providing an independent analysis of this law, it will allow the administration and Congress to make more informed decisions and work together on how we move forward with reforms to our health care system. I believe we need to do everything possible to repeal and replace this law with real health care reform--reforms that lower costs and restore the all-important relationship between a patient and a doctor. However, as long as this law is on the books, we need a watchdog or a special inspector general to investigate the implementation of this law and ensure that our scarce taxpayer dollars are being spent in an appropriate manner. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill in calling for increased oversight of the affordable--or unaffordable--health care law. Let's ride out of the box canyon. Let's get on a better health care reform trail, and on the way we certainly don't have to sit on every cactus that comes along.