[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 96 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3847-S3855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           IRS INVESTIGATION

  Madam President, about a year ago the American people learned that 
the IRS--one of the most feared and powerful agencies in our 
government--had engaged in political targeting. There is no doubt about 
that. Specifically, we learned that the IRS had, by its own admissions, 
singled out individual conservative groups applying for tax-exempt 
status for harassment and extra scrutiny during the runup to the 2010 
and 2012 elections, and the IRS admits it--at least some in the IRS 
admit it. Needless to say, the American people were outraged when this 
news became public, and the IRS's credibility was seriously damaged.
  We saw numerous groups and individuals come forward to acknowledge 
that they had been targeted. Politicians across the political spectrum, 
including the President of the United States, condemned these actions 
and vowed to get to the bottom of it.
  In the many months since the targeting scandal was revealed, I have 
said numerous times that the most important objective for the IRS and 
its leadership consisted of repairing its reputation with the American 
people. For a while there, it appeared as though the agency was serious 
about doing that. Sadly, over the last few days a new chapter in this 
scandal has been opened, and as a result the IRS's credibility has 
taken yet another serious hit.
  For more than a year the Senate Finance Committee has been engaged in 
a bipartisan investigation into the targeting scandal. During most of 
that time we were under the impression that the IRS was acting in 
relative good faith to cooperate with our inquiry. As of last week we 
believed we were close to completing our investigation. We had prepared 
the bipartisan majority report and the majority and minority views in 
addition. We were about ready to come out with that. The facts, we 
believed, were coming together. Then, in what I thought would be one of 
the last steps in the investigation, I insisted that we send a letter 
to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen demanding that he formally certify 
that the agency had produced

[[Page S3848]]

all documents that were relevant to our requests. It was then--after we 
sent that notice to them asking them to verify--that we learned there 
was an enormous hole in our factfinding. I am sure glad we sent the 
letter.
  On Friday of last week the IRS informed us that due to a hard drive 
crash, it was unable to produce thousands of pages of emails from Lois 
Lerner--the one who took the fifth amendment--the former Director of 
Exempt Organizations and one of the central figures, by anybody's 
estimation, if not the central figure, in this investigation. The gap 
in the emails was from 2009 through April 2011--a pivotal time in the 
activities under investigation.
  You heard that right, Madam President. A full year after our initial 
investigation request or information request, the IRS informed us that 
a huge chunk of relevant emails was mysteriously gone.
  Needless to say, this was disturbing. That is why Chairman Wyden and 
I demanded to meet with Commissioner Koskinen on Monday of this week. 
Sadly, this meeting produced even more bad news.
  The first thing we learned during the course of this meeting was that 
Ms. Lerner's emails were not going to be reproduced. The IRS's 
redundancy operations were apparently insufficient to ensure that these 
emails would be saved in the event of a hard drive crash. According to 
Commissioner Koskinen, the IRS only saves emails on its servers for 6 
months. Get that. The IRS only saves emails on its computer servers for 
6 months. Now, they require you and me and everybody else to save at 
least 3 years of our tax returns, but they only--according to them--
were saving emails on their servers for 6 months. I don't know about 
you, but I have a rough time believing that. I cannot believe it. That 
is what they do.
  The next thing we learned is that officials at the IRS became aware 
of this gap in Ms. Lerner's emails as early as February of this year 
and that the Commissioner was made aware of the hard drive crash about 
3 weeks or more prior to our meeting--he wasn't quite sure, but 
sometime around the end of March or the first part of April, is my 
recollection, but certainly more than 3 weeks before our meeting. It 
was never made clear to us why it took at the very least 3 weeks and a 
letter from us demanding a signed certification from the Commissioner 
for the IRS to inform the Finance Committee that the emails were 
missing. As of right now we still don't know why the agency failed to 
inform us immediately that the emails were gone.
  The IRS was more willing to share this information with others in the 
administration. Yesterday we learned that by April the IRS had already 
notified Treasury that some of Ms. Lerner's emails appeared to be 
missing. We also learned that in April Treasury informed the White 
House of this development, but they didn't inform us. The IRS has 
offered no explanation of why they waited 2 more months to inform 
Congress--and particularly the Senate Finance Committee, which is the 
crucial committee here in the Senate which was performing an active 
investigation into this very issue. You haven't heard from either me or 
the chairman, Senator Wyden, popping off about this. We conducted a 
reasonably good investigation, doing everything we thought we could do 
without mouthing off about it.

  Moreover, we do not know what discussions have taken place since 
April between the White House, Treasury, and the IRS about the lost 
emails.
  That would be bad enough, but it gets worse.
  After our meeting on Monday, we were surprised to learn, via a press 
release from the House Ways and Means Committee, that even more emails 
relevant to our investigation may be missing. Apparently the IRS had 
informed the Ways and Means Committee, but not us, knowing we were 
conducting an investigation, that it might have lost the emails for six 
IRS employees, all of whom were covered by the Finance Committee's 
document requests. Think about that.
  One of these employees is reported to be Nikole Flax, who was the 
chief of staff to former Acting Commissioner Steve Miller. In that role 
Ms. Flax helped oversee the processing of tax-exempt applications. From 
our investigation, we also know that she directly dealt with the White 
House and the Office of Management and Budget on a number of issues.
  It seems there is an epidemic of hard-drive crashes going on at the 
IRS, and it seems to be particularly focused on individuals relevant to 
the targeting scandal and the ongoing congressional investigations. 
Chairman Wyden and I just wanted to get to the truth on these matters, 
but it is going to be difficult to ever get there now.
  Needless to say, it is very troubling that even more emails might be 
missing and may never be recovered. It is also troubling that neither 
Commissioner Koskinen nor his staff thought they should reveal this 
information to Chairman Wyden and myself during our long conversation 
earlier this week. They knew about it, but they didn't tell the people 
who were conducting the investigation about it at all.
  It is obvious from the timing of the revelations that people in that 
room were aware of the additional missing emails. Yet it didn't occur 
to any of them that they should disclose this information to the 
chairman and ranking member of the only Senate committee with oversight 
authority over this agency.
  As I said, the Finance Committee was getting close to completing its 
investigation last week. We were getting close to issuing our report, 
and we were moving forward under the assumption that the IRS had been 
cooperating. It took me a week to read the bipartisan report and the 
majority and minority views that were added to it--not because I am a 
slow reader, but because I was interrupted all day long every day. I 
had to set aside various times when I could read it. We were moving 
forward under the assumption that the IRS had been honestly 
cooperating--we thought. Now we have to ask ourselves whether we can 
trust any of the statements coming out of this agency.
  Our investigation is important. We need to have a full and complete 
account of what went on at the IRS during the 2010 and 2012 election 
campaigns. Sadly, it seems that in order to get such an account, we are 
going to need to also delve into what has gone on at the IRS during the 
months the agency was supposedly trying to respond to our reasonable 
document requests.
  One way or another, I am going to get to the bottom of this, and I am 
prepared to take any steps that are necessary to do so. We need to get 
to closure on what the facts are before we can close out the 
investigation. Otherwise, the conclusions in the investigation will be 
based on a faulty factual premise.
  Earlier today, I sent a letter to Commissioner Koskinen demanding to 
know what he knew about the additional missing emails and why the 
chairman and I were not informed about them during our meeting this 
last Monday. He had three others with him, and at least one of them 
fully knew about the additional six hard drives that crashed.
  I am not naive. I do a lot in the IT world, and I can tell you this: 
These are the first hard drives that crashed--that I have known about--
that some of our IT, information technology, experts could not get into 
and find some of the data. That is possible but not probable in seven 
different cases. Once again, it appears that either the Commissioner or 
his staff were less than forthcoming in the meeting and someone needs 
to be held responsible.
  This is important. If we can't trust these agencies to be truthful to 
congressional leaders, we have serious problems. This letter is only 
the first step. More action needs to be taken. There needs to be an 
independent review of the fiasco surrounding all of these lost emails 
and crashed servers.
  We need an independent arbiter to determine if the agency's account 
of the computer problems is accurate and whether the relevant emails 
are, in fact, unrecoverable. We also need a review to determine if 
there are more missing emails. As I said, this review needs to be 
independent as we apparently can't trust the IRS to be fully 
forthcoming on these issues. This is what we are going to need to get 
to the bottom of it, but sadly, even that won't be enough.
  The problem with these missing emails is that we won't have any 
assurances that we will ever get a complete

[[Page S3849]]

picture of what went on. We need to take the necessary steps to find 
out what communications these individuals were making during the time 
in question.
  We have received many of these employees' emails from the IRS because 
for obvious reasons they tended to include the email addresses of other 
IRS employees. However, what we don't have are emails sent by these 
individuals to parties outside the IRS. If the computer problems at the 
agency have indeed made these emails impossible to recover on the IRS's 
end, the only way to recover them is to extend the inquiry to agencies 
outside the IRS.
  Let me say, this is a mess. Honestly, I don't see how any reasonable 
person cannot conclude that there is a very real possibility that 
something is wrong in Washington, something is wrong at the IRS, 
something is wrong at Treasury, and something is wrong at the White 
House.
  Communications to agencies such as the Treasury Department, Justice 
Department, and the Federal Election Commission are all relevant, as 
are emails sent to the White House.
  I plan to send document requests to all of these parties, asking them 
to produce any communications they received from the seven IRS 
employees whose emails have been lost.

  Of course, in an ideal world none of this would be necessary, but we 
are not living in an ideal world. Instead, we are living in a world 
where apparently hard drives crash every day and administration 
officials decide to withhold information from congressional 
investigators. As a result, additional steps are necessary in order for 
the truth to finally come out.
  In conclusion, I want to make one thing clear. While I am angered and 
disappointed by this recent turn of events, I am not the aggrieved 
party here. That unfortunate distinction belongs to the American 
people.
  Once again, the IRS is one of the most powerful and feared agencies 
in our government. It is one that millions of Americans have to deal 
with on a daily basis. The American people have a right to expect this 
agency will conduct itself in a fair manner without regard to parties 
and politics, and that trust was broken last year when the targeting 
scandal was made public.
  Now, a year later, after all the work we have done to hold this 
agency accountable and to get to the bottom of these matters, that 
trust has been broken again.
  I have to say that Chairman Wyden has been very good on these 
matters. He has tried to be bipartisan in every way, and I personally 
appreciate it. I think he will continue to work in a bipartisan way as 
we try to get the real facts about all of these matters.
  It is a shame, but once again I am going to get to the bottom of this 
one way or the other. It is going to be difficult because it appears 
that going forward we will not be able to trust anything the IRS says 
to Congress. That is why we are going to have to bring other parties 
into the inquiry. This is unfortunate. As I said, this is the world we 
are living in.
  I am discouraged about this. I mean, the administration knows I am as 
fair as a person can be on our side, and all I want to do is get to the 
facts and the truth and resolve these problems in the best interest of 
the American people.
  Why some of these were not brought up when they were known is beyond 
me. It is beyond me that only after we sent a letter saying: Will you 
verify this is everything, then all of a sudden there were other emails 
that were found, but not from these servers, and not for 2 years in the 
case of the Lois Lerner server.
  Lois Lerner took the Fifth Amendment, which is her right. I am not 
about to condemn her as a guilty criminal around here, but I think the 
best thing she could have done was help provide these emails that would 
hopefully exonerate her, but I believe would not. Otherwise I don't 
think there would have been a crash of the computer.
  What really bothers me is this too: When computers in the Federal 
Government crash, they usually have backups, and the backups will allow 
us to get the computer up and working. For some reason there apparently 
were not backups here either. Not only that, they were only keeping 
track of the prior 6 months, so you would have never gotten the 2 years 
no matter what you did if the computer crashed. But we don't have those 
2 years, which were relevant years, in anybody's estimation.
  There is something rotten in Washington. I am not sure who is 
responsible for it. I have to say I like Mr. Koskinen. I helped put him 
through in a very ready fashion and got him confirmed. I believed he 
was telling us the truth. But I am disturbed that the only way we even 
got the rest of the available emails--none from 2009 to 2011. And who 
knows, as to the other six servers, how many of those crashed and how 
many of those emails are gone forever.
  The administration will say, well, we did look at the addresses and 
we got the emails in some respect from some of the people they were 
sent to, but that is not what the real investigation would show 
either. They don't have a bit of an excuse here. It just makes one 
wonder, why did Lois Lerner take the protections of the Fifth 
Amendment? Why has not the administration been outraged as much as we 
are? I can say I believe our distinguished chairman is as outraged as I 
am. I can't speak for him, naturally, but I know him, and he is as 
upset as I am because we sat right there last Monday and they never 
told us about the six servers. As far as I know, they disposed of the 
crashed server of Lois Lerner. So nobody will ever be able to examine 
it and determine whether there is the possibility of getting the emails 
for that crucial period between 2009 and 2011, which is probably the 
most crucial period of the whole investigation.

  Now Senator Wyden and I have to rework our report on this, and 
hopefully we can do that, even though we don't have all the information 
that anybody with common decency would expect us to have.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Iraq

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, we all continue to follow the events in 
Iraq that have significant national security implications for the 
United States now and in the years to come. The President spoke on this 
issue a few moments ago, and I wish to share a few thoughts before we 
return to our States for the next few days and then come back to 
Washington early next week to continue our work.
  The first thing I wish to say about this issue of Iraq is, while I 
certainly respect those Members who have served in this body and those 
commentators who have either served in government and now are out and 
others who have strong opinions about the decisions that were made 
regarding Iraq in the past, I would say I hope what we spend our time 
around here doing during this process is focused on what is happening 
now and what lies ahead. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a debate 
about the decisions made in 2003 and beyond. Those are important 
debates to have, primarily because we learn from history. We learn from 
the successes and the mistakes, but I think we are spending a lot of 
time around this process these days talking about the past. We have the 
rest of history to debate who was right and who was wrong with regard 
to the war in 2003 or the surge thereafter. I have strong opinions 
about it, and we should certainly spend time talking about that so we 
can learn from it and so we can apply it to new decisions that are 
being made, for example, in Afghanistan, but I would hope that 90 to 95 
percent of what we spend our time on is talking about how to deal with 
this threat now--the one that is right before us.
  The President today announced--and it is going to be covered--that 
they are going to send close to 300 additional American trainers and 
advisers into Iraq. I have no direct objection to that decision. I am 
hopeful, however, that it is but the first step in a multistep process 
in this counterterrorism risk we now face. I am hopeful what this is 
designed to do is set the framework for the United States to achieve a 
number of important goals that directly impact the national security of 
the United States.
  The first, of course, is I believe the United States, working in 
conjunction

[[Page S3850]]

with others in the region, needs to do everything we can to cut off 
ISIL's supply lines. Many people may not be fully aware of this, but 
ISIL or ISIS--the same group involved in Syria--is not simply a bunch 
of Sunni Syrians or Sunni Iraqis; these are foreign fighters, including 
hundreds who are estimated to have come from the West, who have flocked 
to Syria and now Iraq to participate in this fight.
  In addition, this group, in order to make the advances and the gains 
it is now making in Iraq, requires--as any force would--distinct supply 
lines that allow them to transport individuals and weapons and 
ammunition, in addition to, by the way, the things they are now getting 
their hands on as they make these advances. So one of the goals the 
United States must have, working in conjunction with others, is to 
sever those supply lines so they cannot continue to make these gains.
  Secondly, I hope what the President announced today as the beginning 
of a process will, in part, also focus on the command and control areas 
they currently operate from within Syria. Without those safe havens, 
they would not possibly be able to expand the reach they now have. So I 
hope, again, that what the President announced today is but a first 
step toward a multistep process that allows us to address those two 
issues.
  In addition, I think it is important to continue to revisit the issue 
of the opposition in Syria. When people read about the opposition in 
Syria, it is important to note there is no such thing as the 
opposition. There are a handful of groups operating within Syria 
against the Assad regime, but these groups also fight each other, and 
there is a group of nonjihadists, nonradical terrorists who are 
fighting in Syria to topple Assad, but this group also takes on the al-
Nusra Front and ISIS. I have for many months now been calling on the 
administration to do more to capacitate these groups, the nonjihadists. 
I felt it was a mistake not to do so early on because that actually 
created the possibility or the eventuality that now we face; that is, 
that the best organized, best equipped, best trained groups in Syria 
happen to be the most radical ones. That includes ISIL and of course 
al-Nusra. By the way, al-Nusra and ISIL fight each other, which adds 
further complexity.
  Last but not least, I think it is important to spend a significant 
amount of focus on helping our allies in Jordan. If we play out what is 
happening--if, in fact, ISIS is able to erase this border between Syria 
and Iraq and establish this Sunni caliphate, their next move logically 
will be to threaten the Kingdom of Jordan, an incredibly important ally 
to the United States, to the stability of the region, to Israel, and to 
others. So we should continue to provide assistance to Jordan in 
protecting their borders and their future.
  These are four goals I hope we will continue to move toward, and I am 
hopeful that with the announcement the President made today, it is a 
first step as we work toward those goals.
  A couple of points are important to make, and I do so every time I 
address this issue of Iraq. The first is this is not about the United 
States taking sides in a Sunni-Shia civil war. The future of Iraq 
depends on the people of Iraq. It is up to them to establish a 
government that functions. It is up to them to provide a secure and 
safe country where people can prosper. It is up to them to create a 
political system and a social system where both Sunni and Shia feel as 
though they have a voice in the governance of their country. This is 
not about the United States stepping in and saying, We are on the Shia 
side. In fact, I can tell my colleagues that while this is not uniform, 
there are many Sunnis within Iraq who do not necessarily sympathize 
with ISIL and what they are doing. So this is not about the United 
States engaging itself in a civil war.
  This is also not about the United States trying to build a country. 
This is not about the United States going into Iraq and saying, We have 
to rebuild Iraq. This is about counterterrorism and this is about the 
future security of the United States.
  Every time I come to the floor, I remind everyone that the reason 9/
11 was possible was because Al Qaeda was able to establish a safe haven 
in Afghanistan, under the protection of the Taliban, and from that safe 
haven they raised money, they recruited, they plotted, they planned, 
and they ultimately carried out the most devastating terrorist attack 
in U.S. history, and we can never allow another similar safe haven to 
take root.
  This is especially true when the group trying to establish such a 
safe haven--in fact, not just a safe haven but a caliphate run by a 
radical government--is a group whose expressed goal is to establish 
that caliphate, to use it to terrorize the people of the United States 
by attacking us in the United States, in the hopes of driving us out of 
the Middle East and then destroying Israel and establishing their brand 
of Islam and forcing it on all the peoples and countries of the region.
  We cannot allow such a safe haven to take root. If they are 
successful in their goal of creating a new country, a new State, this 
Islamic radical caliphate, we will have in the future grave risks and 
potentially severe and devastating terrorist attacks against Americans 
both abroad and here in the homeland. This group has a very clear 
mandate. They have been very clear about what their goals are, but in 
order to carry that out successfully, they need an operational space, 
and we cannot allow them to create one in Iraq. That is what this issue 
is about. That is why this issue matters.
  I know when I say what I have said, I open myself to those voices 
that say there are warmongers and people who want to go back to war. 
Absolutely not. On the contrary. What has happened is, after looking at 
this issue, studying the lessons of the past 20 years and what we have 
learned after 9/11 especially, it becomes evident to me that we are 
going to have to deal with this group. That is not what we are 
debating. The issue before us that we have to decide is when do we deal 
with them? Do we deal with them now, when they still have not created 
that caliphate, or do we deal with them 5 or 10 years down the road 
when they have established a safe haven and significant operational 
capacity? It is going to cost a lot more money, potentially many more 
lives and, in the process, significant terrorist attacks and terrorist 
risks if we deal with it later. It will cost less money, be more 
effective, and be a lot less dangerous if we deal with it now.
  That must be our goal, to not allow this group ISIS to establish a 
safe haven of operation in Iraq, or in Syria for that matter, and then 
give the people of Iraq the opportunity to decide a future for 
themselves. That is important, which is why this issue of Iran is 
important.
  I have been asked by reporters and others: Should we be working with 
Iran? My opinion, based on all I have learned regarding this situation 
and based on factors that are obvious for anyone to see, is we do not 
share the same goal Iran does. We don't have the same goal. Iran's goal 
is not simply to defeat ISIL. Iran's goal is to establish a Shia 
government that oppresses Sunnis and that is responsive to them. That 
is their goal. What they want to set up in Iraq is a public government 
under the control of Iran. That is not our goal, that should not be our 
goal, and it never has been our goal.
  Our goal is to ensure that a terrorist organization cannot establish 
a safe haven, and our hope is that the Iraqi people can create for 
themselves a government and a country where both Shia and Sunni can 
live in peace and harmony among each other. That is up to them. We can 
help them do that, but we can't make them do that. What we can do is 
everything we can to ensure that this terrorist group doesn't take 
root. So I think our goals are completely incompatible with Iran.
  The other point I would make is we should not do anything to 
legitimize that regime. That regime is the world's greatest State 
sponsor of terrorism. In virtually every continent on this planet, Iran 
has a hand in sponsoring terrorism. So I am not sure how we could 
possibly work side by side to wipe out terrorism with a government that 
sponsors terrorism more than any other government on the planet. I 
caution against that approach as well.
  To close the loop, I hope we will spend most of our time focused on 
what we need to do now and in the future. We have forever to debate who 
was right and who was wrong about the war in 2003 or the surge in 2007.
  Also, I hope the announcement the President made today was the first

[[Page S3851]]

step in a multistep process that will allow us to prevent ISIL from 
establishing the kingdom, the caliphate, and the safe haven they seek. 
I hope we make clear to the American people what the stakes are for us, 
that the reason we care about what is happening in Iraq is not because 
we want to nation build or because we want to force any sort of 
government on the people of Iraq. Their future belongs to them. It is 
because we cannot allow a terrorist group that has the stated goal and 
the increasing capacity of attacking the United States to establish an 
operational space such as Afghanistan was for Al Qaeda before 9/11.
  I hope we will continue to play the important role the Senate plays 
in speaking out and hoping to give guidance and advice to the Commander 
in Chief. But as I said yesterday, ultimately, the role of leading on 
this matter corresponds to the President. Only the President of the 
United States can come up with a plan that hopefully all of us can 
unite behind because it is that important for our country and for our 
future and for our security.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the deteriorating 
situation in Iraq. There has been considerable debate in recent days 
about what we want to achieve in that country and the importance of 
achieving so-called political reconciliation in Baghdad. I wish to 
propose three simple principles that should guide any action we take in 
Iraq.
  No. 1, we should do everything possible to secure our people. No. 2, 
we should defend our national security interests. No. 3, we should not 
partner with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  First and foremost, we need to be certain we are doing everything 
humanly possible to secure the Americans who are still in Iraq. The 
instability of the situation in the north of that country could quickly 
devolve into nationwide chaos, and it requires our immediate attention.
  We need to be developing and implementing an immediate plan to get 
out all nonessential American personnel, to get them to safety now. I 
am deeply concerned, as all of us should be, that our people on the 
ground will become pawns in a sectarian conflict we cannot control. I 
am concerned the up to 275 marines who may be deployed to assist in 
embassy security, along with the 300 additional military advisers that 
President Obama announced today, will also become targets, isolated in 
Baghdad.
  It is not at all reassuring to have the security in Baghdad provided 
by either Shia militias, loosely controlled by the al-Maliki 
government, or by the Iranian Quds forces themselves or their agents. 
If we have to rely on either to keep our people safe, we should not be 
there. Let me repeat that. If we have to rely on either to keep our 
people safe, we should not be there.
  Second, we need to define and then to defend the national security 
interests of the United States in Iraq. There has been extensive 
discussion of ``political reconciliation'' in Iraq and of making any 
American military action contingent on achieving that ephemeral 
objective. This makes no sense. Although a political solution to Iraq's 
troubles may have been an appropriate goal in 2005 or 2011, it simply 
may not be feasible in 2014. The time for this sort of argument would 
have been 3 years ago when America was the most influential voice in 
Baghdad and we were completing our largest embassy on the planet on the 
banks of the Tigris River.
  But we chose to relinquish that influence when we did not 
successfully negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with the Iraqis. 
Much of the blame for that diplomatic impasse lies with the al-Maliki 
government, but the Obama administration bears considerable 
responsibility as well. The President campaigned on ``ending the war in 
Iraq'' which he defined by removing all of our forces, not winning. So 
immediate troop withdrawal, not negotiating a proper status-of-forces 
agreement, was the priority. In the words of Secretary Clinton on CNN 
on Tuesday, ``We did not get it done.'' The result is that today we 
have little or no influence in Baghdad.
  It is not my purpose today to relitigate the history of U.S. 
involvement in Iraq but, rather, to propose what we can do with the 
circumstances in which we find ourselves right now. Given our current 
circumstances, any attempt to reconcile a Sunni-Shiite religious 
conflict that has waged for more than 1,500 years seems either the 
height of hubris or naivete or both.
  Rather than prioritizing an unachievable political solution we have 
no power to effect, it seems much more practical to focus on what is in 
the actual national security interests of the United States of America. 
The most acute security threat to the United States in Iraq is the 
aggressive movement of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS, 
forces out of Syria and into Iraq over the last 6 months. These vicious 
Sunni fanatics may be relatively small in number, but they make up for 
it in shear brutality. Although President Obama dismissed their 
aggression into Fallujah in January of this year as the terrorist 
equivalent of the ``junior varsity,'' recent events suggest they are of 
a much higher capability.
  Indeed, an obvious question the administration should answer is, has 
the Obama administration ever armed ISIS? Has the administration given 
lethal weapons to ISIS? We are doing so to rebels who are fighting 
alongside ISIS in Syria. It is an obvious question to ask, whether we 
have, in fact, armed these radical Islamic terrorists as well.
  ISIS is much more than a local or even regional threat. They are 
among the worst of the radical jihadists who attacked us on September 
1, 2001, and again on September 11, 2012. They are so bad, in fact, 
that the ``core Al Qaeda,'' as President Obama likes to call the 
terrorist cells in Pakistan and Afghanistan, have renounced them. Their 
goal is to establish a new Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and 
northern Africa, from Syria to Iraq. They have publicly announced that 
when they achieve their ambition in Syria and Iraq, their goal is to 
move on to Jordan, to Israel, and to the United States of America.
  Because of their actions and their stated intent, it would seem a 
targeted mission to seriously degrade the lethality of ISIS could well 
be in the national security interests of the United States. Such an 
action would not require the commitment of American combat forces, but 
it would require a commitment from the Commander in Chief that this 
action would not be merely a symbolic message or an effort simply to 
perpetuate the al-Maliki government in Baghdad.
  Instead, it would need to be an expeditious and emphatic 
demonstration of America's ability to strike at the terrorists at the 
time and means of our choosing. If the President needs to respond to an 
imminent threat to the national security interests of the United 
States, or to act to an imminent threat to the lives of Americans in 
Iraq, he has the constitutional authority to do so. However, Congress 
has the constitutional authority to declare war. So if the President is 
planning on launching a concerted offensive attack that is not 
constrained by the exigency of the circumstances, he should come to 
Congress to seek and to receive authorization for the use of military 
force. A precondition for any such mission in Iraq should be the utter 
rejection of any partnership with the Islamic Republic of Iran on which 
the al-Maliki government is increasingly dependent.
  Iran has been the implacable enemy of the United States since 1979, 
when revolutionaries took 54 American citizens hostage for 444 days, 
some of the darkest days of our history. Earlier this year, Iran 
demonstrated that this rapid anti-American hostility is alive and well 
by trying to get a U.S. visa for one of those hostage takers to serve 
as their Ambassador to the United Nations, to live in Manhattan with 
diplomatic immunity. It was one of my proudest days in the Senate to 
introduce the legislation countering this action that passed 
unanimously through both Houses of Congress, and that was signed into 
law by President Obama, stopping known terrorists from entering the 
United States.
  When push comes to shove, the American people understand that Iran

[[Page S3852]]

is our enemy. We need to bring that same clarity, that same bipartisan 
unity to current circumstances in Iraq.
  Just because Iran fears ISIS jihadists, it does not follow that we 
should partner with them in this fight. The enemy of our enemy, in this 
instance, is not our friend. If we cannot secure our people absent 
Iranian involvement, we need to get them out. If we cannot strike ISIS 
in Iraq without Iranian involvement, then we need to look for another 
means of doing so.
  ISIS consists of radical Islamist terrorists who seek to murder 
Americans. Yet the Iranian regime has over and over demonstrated the 
same hostile intent. Indeed, it is the leading sponsor of terrorism 
across the world.
  It is deeply concerning that not only Secretary of State John Kerry 
but also former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of 
Defense Chuck Hagel have all signaled in recent days they are actively 
interested in exploring a partnership with Iran to deal with Iraq.
  Indeed, today President Obama publicly suggested: ``Iran can play a 
constructive role.'' This is the height of foolishness. It is deeply 
disturbing that so many current and former senior Obama administration 
officials would share this same misguided and naive view.
  There could be no more ill-advised or counter-productive policy for 
the United States at this moment than to partner with the Islamic 
Republic of Iran. Rather than partnering with Iran, we should be all 
the more mindful of the dangers of taking our eye off the ball of 
Iran's nuclear program, as no doubt Tehran hopes we will in this most 
recent crisis.
  As grim as the threat of ISIS is, it pales in comparison to the 
threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, given their long and well-documented 
history of state-sponsored terrorism. Indeed, Iran is working now and 
has been working for years now to develop nuclear ICBMs for one reason 
and one reason only, and that is to strike at America and potentially 
murder millions of Americans. It would be the height of folly to take 
any action in Iraq that would further embolden Iran, which is already 
moving to make Iraq a client state in its pursuit of regional hegemony.
  We already know how that script plays out. We have seen it in our 
ally Ukraine, where former President Viktor Yanukovych acted as 
Vladimir Putin's stooge and planted pro-Russian agents throughout the 
Ukrainian government and armed forces. But the Ukrainian people refused 
to accept Russia's attempt to reintegrate them into a 21st century 
reincarnation of the Soviet Union.
  They stood in the Maidan Square, a place I visited just a few weeks 
ago, and they braved the freezing cold. They braved the murderous army 
snipers who shot the protesters down in that square, and they stood and 
demanded freedom. They demanded to stand with America, with Europe, and 
the West.
  Iran, in its attempt to create a modern version, a new version of the 
Persian Empire, has attempted a similar play on behalf of so-called 
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei through the means of the Iraqi regime of 
Nouri al-Maliki.
  Sadly, Iranian forces today permeate both the Government of Iraq and 
the Iraqi security forces.
  America has demonstrated, beyond any shadow of doubt, our offer of 
liberty to the people of Iraq. Indeed, thousands of our sons and 
daughters have given their lives in pursuit of freedom in Iraq. But if 
the Iraqi Government is more interested in forging a relationship with 
Iran than with the United States, we should not and we cannot attempt 
to force them to adhere to our political goals for them.
  Absent active partners in Iraq who want a closer alliance with 
America and with our allies, our key objective should be, quite simply, 
to secure our people, to counteract terrorist threats to our national 
security, and to make sure that we do not further embolden the Islamic 
Republic of Iran.
  These objectives--not the fantasy of resolving the Sunni-Shiite 
conflict that has been raging since the death of Muhammad in 632 A.D. 
or the illusion that we can magically find productive common ground 
with Iran--should define our policy toward Iraq.
  I would like to make one final note. It is my hope that my colleagues 
will think more broadly about what is happening in the world in Iraq, 
in Iran, in Russia, and in Libya. We are being faced with options of 
options of options that have been created by the bad choices our 
leaders make.
  Those guiding our foreign policy at the White House, the State 
Department, and even, unfortunately, in the Senate have refused to 
address true dangers posed to Americans at home and abroad. Bad choices 
inevitably leave us with bad options.
  Refusing to recognize the radical religious extremism of individuals 
who are committed to jihad and have pledged to murder Americans is a 
bad choice. Refusing to utter the words ``radical Islamic terrorists'' 
is a bad choice. Negotiating with terrorists to release terrorist 
leaders is a bad choice, and considering any kind of deal with Iran is 
a very bad choice.
  In the last 5 years America has receded from leadership in the world. 
Into that vacuum have stepped nations such as Iran, such as Russia, 
such as China. As we have abandoned our allies, the consequences have 
been to make the world a much more dangerous place. America's 
leadership has never been more critical than it is today.
  Until the leaders of our government stop making these bad choices, we 
will continue to be left with bad options.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           CJS Appropriations

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the appropriations 
minibus that many of us were prepared to move forward on today. I am 
deeply disappointed that the Republican minority is effectively 
blocking another bill on this floor from moving forward for 
consideration and ultimately approval by the Congress.
  It is disappointing because I know that the bipartisan work that was 
done in the committee was absolutely critical and extremely productive. 
The Appropriations Committee, which I have the privilege of serving on, 
presented us, this Senate, with three very excellent pieces of 
legislation. I am disappointed that we are not moving forward to pass 
them. It is also disappointing because this process gives us the 
opportunity to shape the spending priorities of the government, to 
focus on the needs of the American people, and to do so in a way that 
will be responsive to their needs and we hope improves their 
opportunities to grow this economy and participate in the economy.
  Without appropriations bills, we run the risk of being stuck with a 
continuing resolution--funding just what we did the last year--perhaps 
a little less, perhaps a little more in some areas. But it deprives us 
of focusing on issues that are more sensitive and more critical at this 
moment to the American public.
  Chairman Mikulski has done an excellent job leading the 
Appropriations Committee. As I said from the beginning, she was 
determined to make it a substantive, respectful, and bipartisan 
process. The results are reflected in the unanimous or near unanimous 
committee votes on the bills that are coming to this floor in this 
minibus, as we call it. So I thank her, obviously, for her leadership.
  I also want to thank my colleagues on the relevant subcommittees, 
Senator Murray, in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 
and Related Agencies Subcommittee; Senator Pryor, the chair of the 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies Subcommittee. Together they have prepared balanced 
bills that invest in our people, our infrastructure, and in science.
  The transportation-HUD bill includes $550 million for the important 
TIGER Discretionary Grant Program, which is shared by the entire 
country but has been particularly critical to Rhode Island in helping 
us improve our commercial ports and in jump-starting major road 
projects, including the replacement of a major bridge, the Providence 
Viaduct on route 95.
  Indeed, it is one of the potential choke points on route 95 that will 
not only affect Rhode Island, but it will affect Massachusetts, the 
home of the Presiding Officer. It will affect Connecticut. It will 
bottle up traffic if we don't continue to fix it, improve it, and

[[Page S3853]]

make it traffic ready for another several decades.
  The bill also maintains robust support for the Airport Improvement 
Program. One of the things we are very pleased about is the T.F. Green 
Airport. We are investing about $100 million in safety improvements, a 
runway extension, and an expansion. I thank Chairman Murray for 
including this funding in the bill, this general category funding which 
has been very helpful to the Rhode Island Airport Corporation as it has 
applied for these grants.
  I was particularly delighted last month because Chairwoman Mikulski 
joined me at T.F. Green Airport to look at the improvements, to talk 
about the issues, and to get a firsthand sense of how her efforts and 
Senator Murray's efforts are translating into real projects throughout 
the United States.
  The bill also includes more than $3 billion for the Community 
Development Block Grant Program, again an important program critical to 
all communities in Rhode Island. It provides more than $2 billion for 
homeless assistance grants. There is no portion of the country today 
that is not facing a very real problem with homeless Americans who need 
help, assistance, and support.
  There is $75 million for the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, which 
again helps people who are struggling not only to find a place to live 
but also to deal with all of the issues of getting by in a very 
difficult economy.
  All of these programs are extremely worthwhile. They serve the 
Nation--not in one particular area or in one particular State--and they 
contribute to our productivity--not just for the moment but looking 
ahead.
  We can take, for example, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill with the 
strong support for NOAA, including funding for fisheries, aquaculture, 
Sea Grant, ocean exploration, and ocean education--again, initiatives 
that affect my home State of Rhode Island, the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, the State of Florida, the State of North Carolina, every 
coastal area, the gulf coast, et cetera, all critical to our country, 
to our productivity, to our commerce, and to the livelihood of so many 
Americans
  We are looking also at investments in the National Science 
Foundation, fully funding, for example, the request for the EPSCoR 
Program at nearly $160 million. This is absolutely critical for many 
reasons, particularly to make that connection between academic 
institutions and business enterprises and also to economic development.
  The bill also supports, with respect to our criminal justice system, 
$376 million for Byrne justice assistance grants and $181 million for 
COPS hiring grants--actually putting police officers on the street, 
increasing our ability to deal with crime and making our communities 
more livable. This is absolutely critical.
  We look at the Agriculture appropriations bill--and I thank Senator 
Pryor--because, today, agriculture includes aquaculture, the commercial 
growing, if you will, of shellfish and other seafood products.
  Again, in my State--but not just in my State, in other parts of the 
country--it is a growing and commercially thriving enterprise which 
deserves support. In fact, because of federal investments, we have been 
able to initiate in Rhode Island aquaculture projects that have taken 
on their own lives and own momentum and are extremely productive.
  I am disappointed we are here today only talking about these 
appropriations bills instead of actually moving forward and passing 
them.
  Another topic that is very frustrating is the fact that this body 
passed on a bipartisan basis an extension of unemployment insurance, 
fully paid for, fiscally responsible--a bipartisan bill that went 
through all of the rigorous steps that required 60 votes to get 
cloture, and a majority of votes to get final passage. We didn't cut 
any corners. That is what we had to do, and we did it.
  Unfortunately, it has languished in the House of Representatives so 
now the extension, which as we passed the bill would have been looking 
backward and forward several months--now it has been totally eclipsed. 
So we are back working.
  I have reached out, and fortunately Senator Dean Heller of Nevada has 
been an extraordinarily thoughtful and crucial leader, along with other 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and colleagues on this side 
of the aisle. So we are beginning again, but I have to express my 
frustration.
  Over 3 million Americans now are without benefits that they would 
have received had we been able to extend unemployment compensation 
benefits which were terminated December 28 of last year. These are 
modest benefits, about $300 a week, but for people who are looking 
desperately for work, it could mean the difference between staying in 
their homes or being forced out, repairing their car, having a 
telephone if they need it--which we all need to communicate to look for 
jobs.
  So we have to start again. Not only is this the right issue for 
individual Americans--millions of them--but it is the right issue for 
our economy.
  Economists who look at the unemployment problem will tell us--and in 
fact they did--if we would have extended the program last December for 
a full year, this economy would gain 200,000 jobs. We are in no 
position to turn down 200,000 jobs. In Rhode Island, that is 
particularly the case. It would have added to our GDP growth, some 
estimates as high as 0.2 percent, again helping to grow the economy.
  I hope we can rejoin this effort and move forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                              Health Care

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor because for those 
folks who picked up the Wall Street Journal this morning, this was the 
headline regarding the health care law: June 19, 2014, ``Large Health 
Plans Set to Raise Rates.''
  The picture emerging from proposed 2015 insurance rates in the 10 
States that have completed their filings, as the States have to do--
stretching from Rhode Island to Washington State, in all but one of 
those 10, the largest health insurer in the State is proposing to 
increase premiums between 8.5 percent and 22.8 percent for next year.
  That is not what the President of the United States promised the 
American people when he forced through a health care law with only 
Democrats voting for it in the House and in the Senate. What he said is 
that by the end of his first term, premiums for families would drop by 
$2,500 per family. That is not what we are seeing: Across the board, 
the largest insurer in each of those 10 States, anywhere between 8.5 
percent to 22 percent for next year. It makes us wonder how that is 
going to sit with the American public when they are faced with these 
bills.
  Republicans have been coming to this floor to talk about the health 
care law that Democrats in the Senate voted for, the President signed, 
and we talked about the many alarming side effects--the alarming side 
effects Americans have been feeling ever since the law has passed.
  People are still trying to understand the law, and they are asking 
the question: How is this actually helping me? That is what people want 
to know, is how is the law helping them. Much of what they are hearing 
is not how it is helping them, but how it is hurting them. Once again, 
an alarming side effect in the front page of the newspaper this 
morning.
  It seems like just about every day we pick up a newspaper and see 
headlines about another broken promise by the Democrats who voted for 
the health care law--Democrats who came to the Senate floor and the 
floor of the House of Representatives and said this is a good thing.
  But then, of course, it was Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, who 
said: First you have to pass it before you get to find out what is in 
it. As more Americans are finding out what is in it, they continue to 
be very unhappy with what they are getting.
  American families all across the country are finding out that the 
President's promises didn't come true. They weren't true.
  As chairman of the Republican policy committee, I have been looking 
at the damaging side effects of the health care law around the country 
and in different States and what I have found meeting people around the 
country. Here is what I found in North Carolina:
  Last Friday there was a headline in the Triangle Business Journal in 
the

[[Page S3854]]

Raleigh-Durham, NC, area on the Affordable Care Act: ``ACA forcing 
majority of [North Carolina] employers to change health care 
offerings.''
  The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. The 
headline in North Carolina is: The law is forcing a majority of 
employers to change their health care offerings.
  The article says:

       More than half of North Carolina companies are considering 
     radical changes to the health plans they offer employees----

  Not little changes, not little tweaks, radical changes to the health 
plans they offer employees.
  ``You might look at raising your deductible to keep premiums lower, 
or look at what you are covering,'' Hegeman says. ``Or charging more in 
terms of co-pay, in order to keep premiums lower.''
  It quotes one human resources executive says that companies `` . . . 
might look at raising your deductible to keep premiums lower, or look 
at what you are covering. . . . ''
  Those are all considerations because the President made a lot of 
promises that are not being able to be kept, and people who actually 
read the law as it was being proposed knew the President's promises 
were not going to be able to be kept.
  This is a terrifying side effect of the health care law for many 
people--people who now in North Carolina are worried about these 
radical changes to their insurance plans. That is what some companies 
are going to have to do to keep down the costs.
  But for many people, the costs keep going up anyway, and we are 
seeing higher premiums in those 10 States I mentioned in the headlines 
today, but specifically in North Carolina, here is what WTVD, a 
television station in Raleigh, reported last month. They did a story 
entitled, ``Blue Cross missing age sales target for ACA could mean 
higher bills.'' So higher bills for North Carolina.
  It turns out not enough young and healthy people signed up for the 
insurance in the State's ObamaCare exchange.
  The President said: Oh, we will get all these young, healthy people 
signing up, buying insurance that--in my opinion--they don't need, 
don't want, can't afford, will never use. The President said: We will 
get all these healthy people signing up.
  It didn't happen. They missed the sales targets in terms of what they 
expected in terms of the age of those signing up. So the biggest 
insurer in the State in North Carolina says it may have to raise rates 
next year.
  The news story quoted a woman named Amanda LaRoque. She and her 
husband own their own business, they pay their own health insurance, 
and they say their premiums have doubled since they signed up for the 
Obama health care law. They are now paying $999 a month for two 
people--almost $1,000 a month for two people.
  I remember listening to President Obama and President Bill Clinton 
having a discussion in New York a couple days before the exchange 
opened. The President was saying: Easier to use than Amazon, and he 
said: Cheaper than your cell phone bill.
  The plan was going to cost less than your cell phone bill.
  This couple in North Carolina says they are paying almost $1,000 a 
month and their rates are going even higher. So it makes us wonder was 
the President of the United States again trying to mislead the American 
people intentionally? Did he not understand the law which was written 
behind closed doors over there in Harry Reid's office? Did he not care? 
Does he still not care? But that is what people are seeing and 
experiencing as a result of the President's health care law.
  But this couple is not the only one paying more because of the health 
care law. According to a new analysis by the Manhattan Institute, 
people all over the country are going to have to pay more--much more--
than what the President told them, much more than they ever 
anticipated.
  The Manhattan Institute found that for an average 64-year-old woman 
in North Carolina, her premiums would have been $210 a month in 2013, 
before the ObamaCare mandates and everything else kicked in. In 2014, 1 
year later and all the mandates, buying insurance through the ObamaCare 
exchange her premiums almost triple to $623 a month. She is paying 
almost $5,000 a year more this year than last year because of the 
President's health care law that the Democrats voted for in the House 
and in the Senate. The President said it would lower premiums by $2,500 
a year. Yet she is seeing her premiums go up by $5,000 a year.
  For a 27-year-old man, he would have paid an average of $80 a month 
in 2013. Under the President's health care law, $217 a month--an extra 
$1,600 a year than last year. That is not what the President promised 
him.
  President Obama then goes and gives a speech not that long ago and 
said: Democrats who voted for this law--and there are a lot of Members 
of this body that fit this description. Democrats who voted for this 
law should forcefully defend and be proud of it--forcefully defend and 
be proud, the President of the United States said just a couple weeks 
ago. Is there a Senator in this body who is willing to stand and 
forcefully defend the fact that people in North Carolina are paying 
double or triple for insurance? Is there anyone who wants to defend 
this expensive side effect of the health care law?
  I know some people have been helped by the law. Some people are 
paying less for insurance than they would have before, but many people 
are paying much more. That is because the people who pay less are 
getting a subsidy from Washington to help hide the rate hikes that 
everybody else is facing.
  President Ronald Reagan once said, ``Government doesn't solve 
problems; it subsidizes them.'' That is exactly what is going on with 
the President's health care law. The Democrats who voted for this 
health care law did not solve the problem with our health care system. 
They just threw more money at it to hide the fact that the law actually 
made things worse. People wanted reform that gave them access to 
quality care, that gave them affordable care. No one wanted more 
expensive coverage.
  I will talk about one more example. That is the devastating side 
effect of smaller paychecks some families will be facing because of the 
Democrats' health care law. Another side effect, smaller paychecks.
  The law says employers--including State governments, including local 
governments, school districts, communities, counties--have to cover 
people who work 30 hours a week or more and treat them as full-time 
employees. They have to cover those people with insurance and treat 
them as full-time employees. That is what the law considers full-time 
employees.
  There was another story in Raleigh, NC, on WTVD. It said State 
agencies--we are not talking about for-profit businesses. State 
agencies are looking at cutting the hours of part-time workers to keep 
them under that 30-hour limit.
  The North Carolina Agriculture Department has about 240 part-time 
employees who are now working more than 30 hours--less than 40, more 
than 30--240 of these folks at the North Carolina Agriculture 
Department.
  How about the North Carolina Department of Transportation? They have 
almost 600 people in exactly the same situation. So North Carolina is 
going to have to look very closely at what to do with those 
individuals. If the hours are cut back to under 30 hours, that can mean 
smaller paychecks.
  One expert at Duke University told the TV station he expects the 
State will see 300,000 full-time workers be moved to part time. Local 
governments, State governments, private employers, they are all having 
to make these same decisions. Why? Because of the health care 
law. Those 300,000 workers moved to part time by the definition--not 
what the man or woman on the street thinks of as the definition of full 
time, but what the health care law defines it as. That is a big hit to 
people's paychecks, and it is another very harmful side effect in the 
health care law.

  It didn't have to be that way. Republicans have offered solutions for 
patient-centered health care reform such as increasing the ability of 
small businesses to get together, join together, negotiate for better 
rates, expand health savings accounts, allow people to buy insurance 
that works best for them and their family and shop in other States to 
do it, and not have to

[[Page S3855]]

buy this whole big list of insurance the President says they need when 
it is not what their family needs. It is not what they need for their 
kids, for their families, for their spouses, not what they want, not 
what they can afford, because the President essentially thinks he knows 
better than American families about their own personal situation. 
Republicans have offered ideas that would give people the care they 
need from a doctor they choose at lower costs--not lower costs as a 
subsidy for some people, but lower costs for everybody. That is what we 
are working on, lower cost of care.
  Republicans are going to keep coming to the floor. We are going to 
keep offering real solutions for better health care without all of 
these terrible side effects, because we know the list is there, one 
side effect after another. They are costly, harmful, some are 
irreversible, and nothing that the American people wanted.
  On the front-page headline today is ``Large Health Plans Set to Raise 
Rates.'' Insurance rates in 10 States that have completed their 
filings, stretching from Rhode Island to Washington State, all but one 
of them, the largest health insurer in the State is proposing to 
increase premiums between 8.5 and 22 percent for next year. The 
American people will once again realize that the Democrats and the 
President who voted for this health care law have broken their trust, 
broken their promises to the American people, and the American people 
deserve better.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hirono). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________