[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12615-12629]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  NOMINATION OF KENT YOSHIHO HIROZAWA TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL 
                    LABOR RELATIONS BOARD--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I would like to be recognized for the 
purpose of making brief remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                        Workforce Investment Act

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I am pleased to come to the floor--and 
I will be joined shortly by Senator Murray from the State of 
Washington--to announce that tomorrow in the HELP Committee--the 
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee--we will be introducing 
the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.
  Quite honestly, the Workforce Investment Act was passed in 1998 and 
has not been reauthorized in the last 15 years. During that period of 
time, our country--particularly in the last 6 years--has gone through a 
sustained period of high unemployment. We also have periods where 
employers cannot find the match of workers who are actually trained for 
the jobs they have.
  Workforce investment and training is important for those with 
disabilities, those without jobs, those with skill sets that need to be 
improved, and this bill addresses all of those areas.
  Senator Murray has been a tireless Senator in working to find common 
ground on issues that have been critical to both the Democratic Party 
and the Republican Party but, more important, to the workers of the 
United States of America.
  I wish to pay tribute to her staff who has worked tirelessly with my 
staff, and I wish to thank Tommy Nguyen on my staff, in particular, for 
his dedication and hard work.
  This bill represents a real step forward, and I am pleased that this 
morning the Business Roundtable issued a release of their endorsement 
of the base bill we are putting forward tomorrow in the committee. 
Hopefully, it will be on the floor this fall when we return from the 
summer recess and we can move forward on job training, job opportunity, 
and lowering the unemployment rate in the United States of America.
  In particular, I am very pleased this bill provides flexibility to 
our Governors in terms of transferability of funds. It provides for 
business majorities on the board and a business member to be a board 
chairman and the State chairman could also be a businessperson, which 
means those who are doing the employing will be those who will be 
guiding the Workforce Investment Act in their State.
  I am also particularly proud of the fact that we focus on a regional 
approach to workforce investment. So often times, you get so many 
workforce investment boards in one metropolitan area that you have a 
very individualized focus and not a regional focus. A regional focus is 
important for workers. It is important for all of us.
  So I am pleased to announce today on my behalf--Senator Isakson on 
the HELP Committee--that along with Senator Murray, today we are 
introducing and tomorrow we will mark up

[[Page 12616]]

in committee the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.
  I look forward to the support of all Members of the Senate to help us 
do a better job providing jobs for working Americans.
  I yield back my time and--no, I do not yield back my time. I can brag 
about Senator Murray while she is here now because I have been saying 
nice things while she was on her way.
  I thank Senator Murray for her cooperation, the spirit of cooperation 
she has given us, and the fact that we are finally reaching an 
agreement between ourselves and our staffs. I met with my side this 
morning. I know the Senator has done the same. We have a good platform 
to move forward on the first reauthorization of the Workforce 
Investment Act since 1998.
  I defer to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator. Senator Isakson 
has been absolutely great to work with. We have been spending a lot of 
time on this.
  Let me make a few remarks.
  Over the past several weeks and months, we have spent a lot of time 
in the Senate debating everything from the Federal budget to separate 
spending bills, and throughout those debates Members of both parties 
have agreed it is absolutely critical that we are working to write laws 
and policies that put hardworking Americans back to work, help our 
businesses grow and invest, and position our economy to compete and win 
in the 21st century.
  We have had some disagreement on how to achieve those goals, but as 
our Nation now recovers from the recession, our first priority has to 
be getting Americans back on the job. So I wish to join with Senator 
Isakson to talk about the tremendous progress we have made in the HELP 
Committee; that is, the work to reauthorize the Workforce Investment 
Act--and to do just that: put Americans back to work.
  Before I get to the importance of the bill itself, I do wish to take 
some time to talk about the bipartisan process we have had at the 
committee level to move this forward.
  From the very beginning of this process I have worked very closely 
with my Republican cosponsor Senator Isakson, whom you just heard from, 
and though I know we represent very different States with different 
industries and different issues, we have each remained very committed 
to writing a bill that works for all American businesses and workers.
  This process has never been about scoring political points or pitting 
interests against each other. I think it has been a rare and needed 
example of true bipartisan legislating, and I thank my friend Senator 
Isakson, again, for his hard work and commitment throughout this 
process.
  I also wish to thank our committee chairman and ranking member--
Senator Harkin and Senator Alexander--who have both worked extensively 
on this legislation and have now signed on as cosponsors as well.
  It has been 15 years since we first passed the Workforce Investment 
Act or WIA. But perhaps more important, it has been a full decade since 
the legislation was due to be reauthorized. So this law--which was 
first written in the late 1990s--was designed to be changed and updated 
back in 2003. Since then, as we all know, our country and our economy 
have changed a lot.
  In the late 1990s, the Internet was changing the way we do business 
and driving our economy, and the housing sector was as strong as ever. 
But as we all know, unfortunately, both of these industries went bust.
  But back then, we in Congress were willing to take the long view and 
make meaningful commitments to and investments in our workforce 
development systems. So back in 1998, we wrote and passed the Workforce 
Investment Act to help our workers and educators and businesses respond 
to an economy that was changing faster than ever before.
  Lately, we have not done much of that, but I am very optimistic that 
by improving and reauthorizing WIA, we can get back on track. This is 
the very law that was written to help us respond to a changing economy 
and provide the framework for our Nation's workforce development 
system. But it is still written to address the issues we faced more 
than 10 years ago.
  So working with Senators from both sides of the aisle and the 
business, labor, and education communities, we are bringing to our 
committee tomorrow a very strong reauthorization bill that brings WIA 
into the 21st century.
  This bill puts more than a decade of experience and data to use by 
doing a few things. It requires a single unified workforce plan in each 
State and replaces all the overlap and confusion between separate State 
agencies.
  It recognizes that we need data and analysis to understand which 
workforce programs are working well, what makes them work well and how 
to improve them and, just as important, which programs are 
underperforming, why, and how to fix them. It makes changes to align 
our workforce systems with regional economic development and labor 
markets.
  This bill is focused on using real-world data to measure the returns 
we get on our workforce investments, and getting good return on the 
Federal dollars we invest is exactly what Americans are calling for 
today.
  So while we are making important changes to the existing version of 
WIA, I wish to finish my remarks with an example of the incredible 
success this law has already had in helping our economy.
  Last year, the WIA adult and dislocated worker programs produced some 
remarkable statistics. Over 1 million adults and dislocated workers 
were placed in jobs. Those workers earned more than $12 billion over 
just the first 6 months of their employment. In that same period, WIA 
funds spent on those programs came to about $2 billion.
  Let me say that again. In just 6 months, an investment of $2 billion 
yielded a return of more than $12 billion. So the investments we make 
through WIA programs are having an incredible impact on our economy. 
The important point is we can do more.
  That is why a lot of organizations across the country have called for 
a modernized 21st century version of the Workforce Investment Act--
organizations such as the National Business Roundtable, the National 
Metropolitan Business Alliance, labor and education leaders, and the 
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce in my home State. All of these 
organizations are supporting the efforts we have put together.
  We are here today to announce to our colleagues that tomorrow we are 
going to begin marking up our reauthorization bill in committee, and I 
look forward to continuing working with my colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle.
  In a time when bipartisan legislation has become difficult to 
achieve, I hope we can set an example of what we are still capable of 
doing together to strengthen our country and our economy.
  I again want to thank Senator Isakson and all those who have worked 
very hard to put this bill together. I am proud of what we have 
accomplished and look forward to working with him as we move through 
this process.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        The Affordable Care Act

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to talk about an epidemic in 
the American workforce that has wreaked havoc on our labor markets and 
caused undue hardship for millions of our Nation's workers. I am 
talking, of course, about the eradication of the 40-hour workweek 
wrought by the so-called ``Affordable Care Act.''
  As a result of this poorly named law, businesses around the country 
are instituting hiring freezes, downsizing their workforces or reducing 
worker

[[Page 12617]]

hours. The President's health law requires employers with 50 or more 
full-time employees to offer health coverage of a minimum value or pay 
a penalty. One of the unintended but not unforeseen consequences of the 
law is that a number of employers are opting to unilaterally limit the 
number of full-time employees in order to escape this burdensome 
mandate.
  The Affordable Care Act defines ``full-time employees'' as those 
working at least 30 hours a week. As a result of this odd definition, 
not every employer seeking to avoid paying penalties is laying off 
workers. Instead, an increasing number of businesses have opted to 
simply cap workers' hours. This is happening everywhere. For example, a 
recent Reuters survey of 52 Walmart stores found that half of the 
stores were only hiring temporary workers--something the stores 
typically only do during the holiday shopping season. According to a 
recent article in the Washington Times, Walmart has overall increased 
the share of its temporary staff from between 1 and 2 percent last year 
to 10 percent this year. Keep in mind that Walmart is our Nation's 
largest employer. Although the company has denied that this change in 
policy is as a result of ObamaCare, it is hard to believe this is all 
just a coincidence.
  Small businesses are also being impacted. For instance, there is the 
example cited recently in the Wall Street Journal where Rod Carstensen, 
an owner of several Del Taco restaurants in the Denver area, was forced 
to shift the majority of his workforce from full time to part time as a 
result of ObamaCare. Mr. Carstensen previously had 180 full-time 
employees and only 40 part-time workers. But providing benefits for 
those workers would have imposed as much as $400,000 a year in 
additional costs. As a result, he is now in the process of switching to 
80 full-time and 320 part-time workers, none of whom will work more 
than 28 hours per week.
  As I said, this is happening everywhere. It is stupid. According to a 
survey conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 71 percent of small 
businesses say the President's health law makes it harder to hire new 
employees. Among small businesses that would be impacted by ObamaCare's 
employer mandate, 50 percent say they will either have to cut the hours 
of workers currently employed full time or replace their full-time 
employees with part-timers in order to avoid this vicious mandate.
  But it is not just happening in the private sector. Public schools, 
States, and municipalities are also limiting employees to part-time 
work in order to avoid paying costly benefits. For example, the second 
largest school district in my home State of Utah recently implemented a 
policy limiting part-timers to 29 hours a week. According to the 
Washington Post, this impacted roughly 1,200 employees--mostly 
substitute teachers. That is 1,200 employees in a single school 
district who will see their hours and their wages capped as a result of 
ObamaCare. Likewise, the State of Virginia recently enacted a policy 
reducing the hours for as many as 10,000--10,000--part-time employees 
who until recently worked more than 30 hours a week. Offering coverage 
to these workers would have cost the State as much as $110 million a 
year. Understandably, rather than paying those crippling costs, 
Virginia was forced to reduce workers' hours and therefore their pay 
thanks to the demands and the viciousness of ObamaCare.
  As I stated, this is reaching epidemic levels. It makes you wonder 
what is in the brains of those who support ObamaCare.
  Nationwide, employers have added far more part-time employees in 
2013--averaging 93,000 a month--than full-time workers, which have 
averaged 22,000. Last year the reverse was true.
  It is not just businesses that are noticing this epidemic. Labor 
unions--some of the largest supporters of the law when it was 
originally drafted--have also weighed in on the matter. As was widely 
reported earlier this month, the leaders of three prominent labor 
unions sent a letter to the Democratic leaders in both the House and 
the Senate expressing their concerns about some of the unintended 
consequences of the ``Affordable Care Act.'' One of their major 
concerns was that, in their own words:

       The law creates an incentive for employers to keep 
     employees' hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers 
     have begun to cut workers' hours to avoid this obligation, 
     and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: 
     fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current 
     health benefits.

  According to these union leaders, ObamaCare threatens to ``destroy 
the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the back bone of the 
American middle class.'' I could not agree more with that.
  President Obama is apparently starting to feel some of this pressure. 
Indeed, despite his recent efforts to paint a rosy picture of the 
impact of the health care law, I think President Obama knows full well 
that the ``Affordable Care Act'' is not living up to its name. Why else 
would he decide to delay the implementation of the employer mandate, as 
he did earlier this month? Obviously, there are political 
considerations. The recently announced 1-year delay on the employer 
mandate conveniently puts the implementation of the mandate past the 
2014 midterm elections, so from that perspective I guess it makes 
perfect sense.
  Setting aside the politics, this delay also makes some sense in terms 
of policy. The epidemic of employers reducing workers' hours is taking 
a huge toll on the American workforce. Indeed, the policies established 
under the health law are killing jobs, reducing wages, and stagnating 
growth. That being the case, the bigger question is, Why is the 
President only delaying the employer mandate for a single year? Does he 
really believe these problems will simply go away if businesses have 1 
additional year to prepare or is he just thinking to get to the next 
election and getting his people through who have voted for this?
  Regardless of when this mandate goes into effect, it is going to send 
shock waves throughout the business community. It is going to eliminate 
jobs. It is going to weaken our recovery--weak though it is today. That 
is why, despite the announcement of the 1-year delay, employers 
throughout the country are refusing to reverse course when it comes to 
downsizing their workforces and limiting employees' hours. Most news 
reports surrounding this issue are showing that this is precisely the 
case. That is likely the case for the State of Virginia. It is 
definitely the case for my home State of Utah and Utah's Granite School 
District, just to mention one aspect of our problems in Utah.
  If the President is serious about getting our economy back on track, 
he should work with Congress to ensure that this mandate never goes 
into effect. While we are at it, we should also permanently delay the 
individual mandate. For the life of me, I cannot see why President 
Obama would extend his limited lifeline to the business community and 
at the same time leave individuals and their families out in the cold. 
This is from a President who claims he is for the families and for the 
individuals and for the poor and for those who are middle class. They 
are being left out in the cold.
  If businesses are currently facing enough difficulties to necessitate 
delaying the employer mandate, shouldn't we assume individuals are 
going to face similar difficulties complying with the individual 
mandate? Isn't it only fair that we extend the same benefits to 
individuals and families that are being offered to businesses and 
employers? Why not get that beyond the next year's election too? Not 
according to the Obama administration. As it stands today, American 
businesses will get a 1-year reprieve from the job-killing employer 
mandate--American businesses. But the American people are still 
squarely in the sights of ObamaCare, as the individual mandate for them 
remains in place. This is the height of unfairness. It needs to be 
rectified.
  The House of Representatives for its part has acted responsibly. Two 
weeks ago the House passed two pieces of legislation--two pieces 
relating to

[[Page 12618]]

ObamaCare. The first bill would simply codify President Obama's 1-year 
delay of the employer mandate. The second would provide similar relief 
to individuals and families struggling to comply with the individual 
mandate. Not surprisingly, President Obama has threatened to veto both 
bills--even the one that would simply put his own administration's 
policy into statutory form.
  Still, that should not stop us in the Senate. If we are serious about 
helping the business community as well as individuals and families, we 
should work to delay permanently this catastrophic law. If President 
Obama wants to officially deny the American people the same type of 
relief he has given to the business community by not working with 
Congress, then so be it. The Senate needs to act responsibly. If the 
President is refusing to do the same, we ought to at least act 
responsibly.
  Make no mistake--I do not think a 1-year delay on the employer and 
individual mandates is enough. We ought to get rid of them both. I am 
the author of two Senate bills that would repeal both of these 
egregious provisions of ObamaCare. In light of the President's recent 
recognition that the employer mandate should be delayed, I have 
publicly called for a permanent delay of the implementation of the 
entire law.
  Given what we know about the problems associated with ObamaCare and, 
quite frankly, given what we do not know, the sensible approach is to 
delay it permanently and to work together on reform that will actually 
lower health care costs--not just promise to do it but actually do it. 
I believe we can fix these problems for everyone, for employers and for 
individuals alike, but only if the law is permanently delayed to give 
us a chance to do so. It would give us a chance to be bipartisan for a 
change around here and work together for the good of this country. That 
is what makes sense. That is what fairness dictates. If we are serious 
about avoiding what even some of my Democratic colleagues have called a 
train wreck, that is the least we can do.
  I am really concerned about our country. We have increased taxes $1 
trillion in ObamaCare. We have increased taxes $600 billion in the 
fiscal cliff legislation. Last week the majority leader and others--the 
President, Senator Schumer, and others--called for almost $1 trillion 
more in tax increases. It would be one thing if all of that money would 
go to reduce spending or if all of that money would go to balance our 
budget. But no, they are going to spend every dime of it. Here we are, 
headed toward problems that we have plenty of illustrative information 
on, problems like Greece has gone through and is going through and 
other countries as well that just are profligate when it comes to their 
economic wherewithal.
  I like the President personally, but for the life of me, as bright as 
he is, I do not see why he does not see all of this.
  I don't see why my colleagues on the other side don't see it--or 
should I say they ought to see it. They ought to know this is not what 
the American people want. They would like to have health care, there is 
no question, but this is going to diminish health care all over the 
country. We can see the high percentage of doctors who are giving up on 
Medicaid patients. They will not take them anymore. Only this week a 
high percentage of doctors are giving up on Medicare patients. They 
don't wish to take them anymore.
  What is the administration's answer to all of these spending 
programs? They are going to cut the providers. Already the providers--
the doctors, the hospitals, and the health care providers--are 
complaining they can't deliver the services that ObamaCare requires at 
the low-level costs that ObamaCare gives.
  We have to come up with a better system. We have to work together. We 
can't keep going down this pathway.
  I hope my friends on the other side will wake up and realize: Hey, 
this game is over.
  We have to find some way to solve these problems because they are 
just too large. They are going to wreck our country if we don't.
  What is worse, they are going to hurt the health care of millions and 
millions of people who will not be able to afford it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, sitting here listening to the 
distinguished senior Senator from Utah Mr. Hatch, who in many ways I 
consider my mentor in the Senate, I couldn't help but reflect on what 
we were all doing on Christmas Eve at 7 o'clock in the morning of 2009.
  We were on the floor of the Senate casting a historic vote on the 
President's Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. Sadly, that piece of 
legislation became a partisan exercise in power. All the Democrats 
voted for it and all the Republicans voted against it. It was an 
inauspicious way to start such an important part of reform of our 
health care system.
  The President pretty well got what he wanted. The 2,700-page piece of 
legislation was made into law with $1 trillion-plus tax increases, with 
promises that if you like what you have, you can keep it, and he 
promised that even families of four could see a reduction in their 
health care costs of roughly $2,500 a year.
  Whether you were against ObamaCare from the beginning, as I was, 
because you never believed it would actually work, or you were for it 
and you actually believed that it would perform as advertised and as 
promised, I think everyone has to now acknowledge it has not turned out 
the way that even some of its most ardent supporters had hoped it 
would.
  The first indication, perhaps, was when the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services began to issue waivers, in excess of 1,000 waivers, from 
having to comply with the law itself. There were many questions about 
the basis upon which these waivers were issued. Were they given to 
friends of the administration and denied to adversaries of the 
administration?
  This is what happens when you pass a sweeping piece of legislation 
such as this and then cherry-pick who it applies to and who it does not 
apply to. This started with the granting of waivers.
  We found that most recently even the President of the United States 
has determined the employer mandate--the mandate on employers with more 
than 50 employees, that they provide this government-designed insurance 
policy or else they get fined--that even the President has acknowledged 
by his action that delaying the implementation of the employer mandate 
for a year is having a devastating effect on unemployment in America. 
The reason we know this is because many employers are simply shedding 
jobs so they can get beneath the 50-person threshold for the employer 
mandate or they are taking full-time jobs and making them into part-
time jobs. This is causing a lot of people who wish to work and want to 
provide for their families--it is creating an inability for them to do 
so according to their needs.
  We know the individual mandate--the House of Representatives has 
passed a piece of legislation that says: If you are going to delay the 
employer mandate for businesses, shouldn't you show the same 
consideration for individual Americans who, unless they buy this 
government-approved insurance, will have to pay a penalty? The 
President hasn't accepted that delay in the implementation of the law.
  There is another important piece of legislation that I filed in the 
Senate that the House is also considering this week; that is, given the 
scandals associated with the Internal Revenue Service, the fact that 
clearly the IRS has more on its plate than it is capable of adequately 
performing, we ought to get the Internal Revenue Service out of the 
implementation of ObamaCare.
  With everything else it has to do, especially given the scandals that 
are currently under investigation in both Houses of Congress, we ought 
to be delaying the implementation of that individual mandate. We ought 
to be delaying the implementation of the employer mandate. We ought to 
be cutting the IRS out of the implementation process for ObamaCare.

[[Page 12619]]

  I confess, I voted against ObamaCare from the very beginning. I voted 
to repeal it every chance we could possibly have, and I voted to 
cosponsor legislation that would defund it.
  I wish to echo some of the words of the distinguished senior Senator 
from Utah. At some point those of us who were against it from the very 
beginning, who would like to repeal it and defund it, have to work 
together with our colleagues--who perhaps hoped that it would actually 
work as advertised--realizing now that even organized labor is writing 
letters to us saying: Please protect us from the provisions of this law 
because it is hurting our jobs. It is making it impossible for us to 
keep the insurance we have.
  We need to work together to try to come up with a solution at some 
point. As the distinguished ranking member and the distinguished 
Finance Committee chairman said: The implementation of ObamaCare is 
clearly becoming a train wreck. We don't want to visit the pain of that 
train wreck and that failure on the American people but provide them a 
reasonable alternative which will provide people access to high-quality 
care at a lower cost. There are plenty of great ideas out there.


                          THUD Appropriations

  I wish to turn to the appropriations bill that is pending before us. 
Last week, in one of the President's much publicized pivots, the 
President turned his attention back to the economy. Of course, most 
Americans don't have the luxury of pivoting to or from this sluggish 
economy, which is growing at the most sluggish rate in the history of 
the American economy since the last depression, the Great Depression. 
The American people don't have a luxury of pivots. They have to live 
with this sluggish economy and high unemployment day after day.
  We should welcome the President back to this conversation. He has 
talked a lot about middle-class families, who, as we all would agree, 
are the backbone of our country and a source of immeasurable strength. 
That said, the President hasn't been a member of the middle class for 
some time, and I think he, along with some of our colleagues, could use 
a refresher.
  American families set their budgets, and they have to stick with 
them. In lean times they trim their budgets, and in times of plenty 
they set money aside for the future should they need it. Astonishingly, 
this basic principle seems to have been lost on both the President and 
the author of this legislation.
  This bill, this underlying appropriations bill, takes the first step 
toward violating the Budget Control Act, which President Obama himself 
signed into law in 2011. That law sets very clear limits on spending 
levels, which the Democratic majority, by bringing this bill to the 
floor, has chosen to ignore.
  They ignored it when they wrote their budget earlier this year, and 
they are ignoring it today with this proposed appropriations bill, 
which is 11 percent above the Budget Control Act numbers and 4 percent 
above the President's own proposed budget itself. That is $54 billion. 
That is how much this bill would appropriate in discretionary spending 
and is more than $5 billion above the current level of spending for 
this particular appropriations bill.
  As I said, it is more than the President himself has requested. It is 
more than $10 billion above the House bill which, unlike this bill, was 
written in accordance with the existing law.
  I understand, as a negotiating tactic, why our Democratic friends 
might think highballing the House bill is a good negotiating tactic, 
but it is a total charade. It violates the Budget Control Act, and the 
American people simply will not go along with it.
  The American people can't understand why Congress and the Federal 
Government are having such a difficult time doing with 2.4 percent less 
than we spent before the Budget Control Act went into place--2.4 
percent. Yet here inside the beltway you will hear people talk about 
the so-called sequester and the Budget Control Act as if it were the 
end of the world.
  It is not. It is called living within your means, and that is what we 
tried to do when the law was passed and when President Obama signed it. 
I think it is also telling that the majority leader, who basically 
controls the agenda on the Senate floor, chose to bring this particular 
bill to the floor before the August recess. We could have passed any 
one of a number of other appropriations bills to fund our veterans 
hospitals or to pay our Border Patrol agents.
  The House and Senate aren't very far apart on the appropriations 
bills that would do that. Conceivably, we could have had them on the 
President's desk by the end of this week. Instead, the majority leader 
would rather leave them in limbo while attempting to pass this bloated 
bill which has zero chance of becoming law.
  My hope is that as we proceed through this next round of fiscal 
debate, our friends on the other side of the aisle would demonstrate a 
willingness to operate within the law and the Budget Control Act. 
Unfortunately, they are not off to a very good start with this 
particular appropriations bill.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          For-Profit Colleges

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Jennifer Kerr was a single mom who wanted 
to improve her family's future. In 2009, she signed up at Vatterott 
College. She thought that was the best way to improve her skills and 
training and do a better job for her family.
  She went to the local campus. She told the admissions representative 
that she wanted to study to become a nurse. The admissions official 
told her that although the school did not offer a nursing degree, it 
did offer a medical assistant's degree that would allow her to earn $15 
to $17 an hour and put her on a fast track to becoming a nurse.
  After securing more than $27,000 in loans and being in the program 
for more than a year, Jennifer Kerr learned she wasn't even enrolled in 
the medical assistant's program--she was in the preliminary medical 
office assistant's program. If she wanted to continue and pursue the 
medical assistant's degree, she would need another 30 weeks of study 
and another $10,000 to be paid in tuition.
  In a gutsy move, Jennifer Kerr sued Vatterott Education Centers for 
misleading her, even though there was a clause in her contract with the 
school that said if she ever sued the school and lost, she would be 
responsible for Vatterott's legal costs.
  A jury in Missouri decided the school did deceive Jennifer Kerr and 
ordered the company to pay back the $27,000 she borrowed for tuition 
and fees. The jury then ordered the company to pay Kerr an additional 
$13 million in punitive damages. The punitive amount the jury awarded 
far exceeded the maximum under Missouri law, but it showed the sympathy 
of the jury for situations like Jennifer Kerr's. She borrowed tens of 
thousands of dollars to earn a certificate--not even a degree--at a 
for-profit school that turned out to be virtually worthless.
  After she left Vatterott, she tried for 6 months to find full-time 
employment. Earning her medical office assistant's diploma not only put 
her in debt, but it couldn't land her a job anywhere.
  Taking away the court victory, Jennifer Kerr's story is common to an 
industry--the for-profit school industry--that frequently uses 
unscrupulous tactics to deceive people who are trying to get an 
education.
  Some trade schools provide quality training for reasonable prices. I 
acknowledge that. But throughout the for-profit college industry, 
abuses are well documented. Admissions offices at for-profit schools 
are often a guise for aggressive sales operations targeting students 
from low-income families. They end up enrolling, with inflated

[[Page 12620]]

expectations for their employment and salary prospects upon graduating 
from for-profit colleges.
  Because 96 percent of the students who enroll in for-profit colleges 
take Federal student loans, nearly all the students who leave these 
for-profit schools have student debt even when they don't have a degree 
or a diploma that can lead to a job. Most for-profit colleges charge 
significantly more in tuition and expenses than similar programs at 
community colleges or even State universities.
  In 2008 and 2009, more than 1 million students started at schools 
owned by for-profit companies that were examined in an investigation by 
Senator Tom Harkin in the Senate HELP Committee. By mid-2010, 54 
percent of those students who started at these for-profit schools had 
left school, without a degree or a certificate. Among associate degree 
students, 63 percent dropped out without a degree.
  Vatterott made national news itself in 2009 and early 2010 when three 
of the top employees of this for-profit school in the Midwest, 
including Kevin Earl Woods, the former director of the Kansas City 
campus, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to fraudulently obtain Federal 
student grants and loans for students who were ineligible for these 
loans.
  The Senate HELP Committee looked at Vatterott in the course of 
Chairman Harkin's investigation of the for-profit industry. What they 
found was discouraging. In 2009, 88 percent of the revenue going to 
this for-profit school was Federal money. Of the money it took in, 
Vatterott spent 12.5 percent on advertising and marketing and took out 
19 percent of this Federal money in profit.
  Here is another way to look at it: Vatterott, a for-profit school, 
spent $2,400 per student on instruction in 2009, but it spent $1,343 on 
marketing, and $2,000 it took out in profit for each student.
  In contrast, public and nonprofit schools generally spend a higher 
amount per student on actual instruction. By comparison, St. Louis 
Community College spent $5,000 per student on instruction; Vatterott, 
$2,400.
  Jennifer attended the Vatterott campus in Independence, MO, which is 
now closed, but the company continues to operate a Kansas City campus. 
The default rate on loan repayment for students who attended Vatterott 
in Kansas City is 25 percent. One out of four students who went to this 
for-profit school defaults on their student loans. The national average 
is 15 percent.
  Jennifer Kerr fought back and won, but the for-profit college 
industry won't be cleaned up in the courtroom. Not every student with a 
bad experience has a strong legal case. Most are victims of a system 
that allows unscrupulous schools to collect Federal loan and grant 
money from students regardless of outcomes, heaping debt on these 
students. Many of those students will carry that debt for a lifetime.
  When the programs and the schools don't deliver and jobs don't 
materialize, the student gets the debt, the Federal Government bears 
the risk, and the school takes the money and runs. The for-profit 
sector took in $31 billion in U.S. Department of Education money in 
2011. About one-fourth of all the Federal aid went to these for-profit 
schools, even though they only enroll 12 percent of all the students 
coming out of high school.
  I might add one other statistic. The for-profit schools account for 
47 percent of all the student loan defaults in America--12 percent of 
the students, 25 percent of the Federal aid to education, 47 percent of 
the student loan defaults.
  Federal U.S. Department of Education regulations state that schools 
that engage in substantial misrepresentation about a program, its fees, 
or its job placements can be denied Federal money, and yet Vatterott is 
not the first or the only school to substantially mislead these 
students.
  Abuses in the for-profit college industry will continue until 
Congress steps up and does something. It is about time for us to 
establish some standards of accreditation that apply to all schools 
across the board. How can you expect a student or a student's family to 
know whether this school that is advertising on the Internet or in the 
buses or on the billboards is a real school or a phony operation to 
lure kids into debt, have them drop out or end up with a worthless 
diploma?
  I have worked with my colleagues who feel as I do on this issue. 
Senators Tom Harkin and Jack Reed, among others, will continue to tell 
these stories here on the floor of the Senate in the hopes that when 
the Senate has its higher ed reauthorization bill we will finally 
tackle this for-profit school industry.
  Last Congress, Senator Tom Harkin joined me in introducing a bill 
that would include military education benefits in the calculation that 
limits how much of a school's revenue is derived from Federal funding. 
Today I announced the VA and Defense appropriations bill for the next 
fiscal year. It was reported out of my subcommittee of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee. We called in the representatives of the major 
services and asked them what is going on with the training of our 
active servicemembers and their families. What they told us is more 
than half of those active servicemembers and their families are going 
to these same for-profit schools. Some are good. Most are awful.
  These military men and women and their families are not only wasting 
their time, they are wasting a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity we give 
them for the proper training and education to prepare them to be even 
better in the military or to have success in civilian life. Because 
they are lured into these for-profit schools, they end up wasting their 
time, wasting their money, many of them deeply in debt.
  Senator Hagan of North Carolina has proposed banning schools for 
using Federal education dollars for marketing. She is right. Many for-
profit schools literally take the Federal money to bombard students 
with messages that entice them to enroll, bringing the schools more 
Federal money.
  I also want to take a look at the system of accreditation. Our 
current system provides a seal of approval for too many schools, many 
of them for-profit colleges, that is little more than a license to rake 
in the Federal dollars as opposed to truly educating and training 
students. I hope Jennifer Kerr's court victory can serve as a wake-up 
call to Congress so we can work together to correct the worst abuses of 
this system. On behalf of the taxpayers, we need to be better stewards 
of Federal education money. On behalf of the students, we have to 
improve a system that may or may not prepare them for a career and may 
or may not lead to a degree, but almost in every case leads to debt.


                          Dietary Supplements

  Mr. President, last week USA Today published an article that 
highlights the stories of people and families hurt by taking a dietary 
supplement containing the chemical DNP. It is a hazardous pesticide 
that was used as a weight-loss drug before 1938. Then the FDA declared 
it to be toxic for humans--in 1938, 75 years ago.
  The article in USA Today featured Matt Cahill, a dietary supplement 
manufacturer with a high school education and no chemistry training, 
who illegally added this toxic pesticide, DNP, to exercise and weight-
loss supplements. Some people who used his product suffered liver 
failure; some died. Cahill was arrested, criminally prosecuted, and 
served time in prison, but he is back selling dietary supplements that 
raise more health concerns.
  The article in USA Today raises serious questions about whether we 
can do better to protect the American public. Dietary supplements have 
become a common health aid in medicine cabinets. More than half of 
Americans use dietary supplements, and you may be one of them. Most 
supplement makers are ethical and responsible. I take a multivitamin 
every day and believe it is safe. But most people assume that 
supplements on the shelves in stores have been tested by the Federal 
Government. How could they get on the shelf without a test? Most people 
think, like drugs that are prescribed, these supplements are tested for 
safety and effectiveness. That is not true.
  Unlike more traditional supplements such as calcium and vitamin C, 
there

[[Page 12621]]

are now many new and complex supplements on the market promising to 
help people lose weight, find energy, bulk up, prevent disease--you 
name it. Consumers need to be careful. If a product is promising 
something too good to be true, they need to make sure the product and 
its ingredients are safe. We need to know the information on the label 
is not misleading. The FDA, the Federal Drug Administration, needs to 
know more about these products.
  This week Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and I are 
reintroducing the Dietary Supplement Labeling Act. Listen to what this 
bill would require. This bill would require more information on labels 
of dietary supplements and it would help ensure that the FDA has the 
information it needs if it turns out any of these products are 
dangerous.
  Many people would be surprised to learn that the FDA does not know--
does not even know--how many dietary supplements are being sold in this 
country. The USA Today article clearly states that when this Cahill 
character first sold his harmful dietary supplement tainted with DNP, 
he sold it on line. The FDA had no idea it was even on the market.
  How does FDA learn when a product is on the market? People get sick 
and they die.
  Another example is kava, a root whose extract people take to 
alleviate anxiety. But now that we know that kava is associated with 
severe liver damage and death, it would be useful for the FDA to have 
information readily available about the products on the market in 
America today containing kava. Our bill would require dietary 
supplement makers to give the FDA the name of each supplement they 
produce, along with a description of the product, a list of 
ingredients, and a copy of the label. Is that too much to ask? If you 
are going to sell this dietary supplement in stores across America, 
shouldn't the Food and Drug Administration at least have a copy of the 
label and ingredients? With this information, the FDA would know what 
products are on the market, what ingredients are in them, and be able 
to work with supplement manufacturers to address any problems.
  This is a commonsense provision. It is supported by the Consumers 
Union and already practiced by many responsible supplement makers. 
Let's ask all the companies to provide FDA this basic information.
  In addition to asking manufacturers to tell the FDA when a product 
goes on the market, this bill would require more information on the 
label of these products. Some ingredients may be safe for the general 
population but not for kids or pregnant women or perhaps those who have 
a compromised health condition.
  St. John's wort is used safely by many people, but it can cause 
serious side effects in people who have ADHD or people who are bipolar, 
or people who are undergoing surgery. Information like that should be 
clearly listed on the label. This bill would help to ensure the 
information necessary to make an informed decision by consumers.
  We have all seen claims in supplement stores. I was in Olney train 
station Saturday night with my wife and went into one of these dietary 
supplement stores and the shelves were packed with all of these 
products claiming all of these things. Some of them promised they will 
boost your immunity, enhance your athletic performance or make you a 
better husband. This bill would give the FDA the authority to require 
the manufacturer to provide upon request the evidence to support claims 
such as ``promotes weight loss.''
  Consumers should be skeptical of any product making big claims and 
they should take the time to learn if the product is safe and 
effective. But we need to give the FDA the authority to request 
evidence to support any claims made on these labels.
  The bill would also help curb the growing practice of foods and 
beverages with potentially unsafe ingredients masquerading as dietary 
supplements by directing the FDA to establish a definition for 
``conventional foods.''
  I will challenge you, whether it is West Virginia or Illinois or 
Washington, DC, or your home State, go to the cash register at a gas 
station. What is the first thing you see next to the cash register? 
Energy supplements, those little red bottles. They are everywhere. 
Products such as energy drinks, the huge one in 24- and 32-ounce cans, 
and baked goods, such as Mellow Munchies brownies, that contain 
unapproved food additive melatonin are marketed as dietary supplements 
that are safe ways to get a boost of energy or to relax. In reality, 
they are foods and beverages taking advantage of the more relaxed 
regulatory standard for dietary supplements.
  Here is a quiz. Did you know the Federal Drug Administration 
regulates a food product known as cola? You pick it, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, 
you name it. Did you know the Food and Drug Administration, in 
regulating that product, regulates how much caffeine they can put in 
each bottle? They do. But when it comes to the monster energy drinks. 
And you ask what are the limitations on caffeine in monster energy 
drinks? None, nada.
  A sad case here, recently, in Virginia, a girl, 15 or 16 years old, 
two 24-ounce high-powered energy drinks in a 24-hour period of time, 
and she died. She died from two energy drinks. Way too much caffeine 
for a person her age and her size.
  I am working with Senator Blumenthal to try to get the FDA to 
establish some standards here. These are not benign products. They are 
certainly not benign products for young people. If they are consumed in 
quantity, they are dangerous. People get sick and people die. I have 
had press conferences in Chicago with emergency room physicians. You 
would be shocked to know how many people show up having taken these 
energy drinks, consumed too much caffeine, and are worried they are 
about to die. That is a reality. It is time for us to establish some 
standards to protect consumers and families.
  Most dietary supplements available today are safe and are used by 
millions of Americans as part of a healthy lifestyle. As I said, and 
will repeatedly, I take my fish oil, I take my multivitamin. I do not 
believe I should have to get a prescription to buy them. But we also 
need to recognize how the regulation of supplements can be improved to 
protect the public in America. In the USA article, a representative 
from the U.S. Antidoping Agency, a nonprofit designated by Congress to 
oversee testing of those who participate in the Olympics, said that 
companies like Matt Cahill's ``. . . are not fringe players. These are 
mainstream dietary supplement companies and products that are in your 
mainstream health and nutrition stores. . . . It's not there are a few 
bad actors. There are a lot of bad actors.''
  Ensuring the health of consumers from these bad actors will take 
cooperation from the responsible people in the dietary supplement 
industry, the Federal Drug Administration, and Congress in both 
political parties.
  Senator Blumenthal and I have put in a bill which includes 
commonsense steps to make sure risks for supplements are on the label, 
products are registered with the FDA, and manufacturers can be forced 
to back up their big claims. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to enact that legislation.
  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. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  I also ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business and 
to be permitted to engage in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't 
intend to object, I would like to modify his unanimous consent request 
and ask that I be permitted to speak for 15 minutes after his colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 12622]]




                               ObamaCare

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise in support of parents, families, 
students, employees, taxpayers, and other hard-working Americans, who, 
as of January 1, 2014, will find themselves unfairly impacted by 
ObamaCare. ObamaCare is an ill-conceived, poorly crafted, and 
economically damaging piece of legislation.
  We have known for some time now that ObamaCare would create a set of 
circumstances that would make health care unaffordable. It is 
unaffordable from several standpoints: No. 1, for the country and for 
the U.S. Government. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan 
entity, recently reported that this law is likely to cost the U.S. 
Government about $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. That is 
significantly more--some would say roughly double--than the initial 
estimates given to Congress when this law was passed.
  This is an enormous amount of money. It is an especially enormous 
amount of money for a government that is now $17 trillion in debt and 
is adding to that debt at a rate of about $1 trillion every single 
year. It is not as though we have an overabundance of money within the 
Federal Government. It is not as though we can afford to take on newer, 
more expensive programs, such as this one, especially when they run 
pricetags that are substantially above and beyond what was presented to 
us.
  It is also proving to be unaffordable for American families. There 
are a number of studies that have been conducted in recent months which 
tell us that premiums are going to become more expensive. The name of 
the law, of course, was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 
This implies, of course, this would protect patients and make health 
care more affordable, not less. What we found is that this is a 
misnomer. What we have found through the studies that have been 
released recently is that it is going to make health care less 
affordable for American families, not more affordable.
  The interesting thing about these studies is that they are all over 
the map. We don't know exactly how much health care is going to cost 
us. We don't know exactly how much less affordable health care will 
become under the Affordable Care Act because there are so many 
uncertainties created by this law. The 2,700-page bill that became 
ObamaCare has been modified and will continue to be modified by 
countless pages--tens of thousands of pages of regulations.
  This act has also been modified in significant ways on a couple of 
occasions, which we will get to in a minute. All of these modifications 
have created additional uncertainty that is a source of a lot of 
concern to a lot of Americans. What we do know is that it is likely to 
result in premium increases.
  One study concluded that even on the low end, the increased premiums 
families would be paying in a small group premium context would go up 
between 13 and 23 percent, on average. Other studies--including one 
that was conducted in the State of Indiana--suggested that premiums 
would go up in that State by 72 percent for those with individual 
plans. I am told Maryland's biggest health insurance provider has 
proposed raising premiums for individual policies by an average of 25 
percent next year.
  In many instances, these numbers are even worse for young people. 
There are also numbers which suggest that there is a lot of 
uncertainty, and we truly don't know. It is almost impossible to know. 
An analysis of more than 30 studies has shown that premiums are likely 
to increase between 145 and 189 percent for young people seeking health 
insurance. In Utah, my State, there is a study suggesting that for 
young people seeking health insurance, their premiums are likely to 
increase between 56 and 90 percent with respect to individual policies.
  This law is also bad for America's workers. Businesses are cutting 
hours, moving workers to part-time, and in many cases they are not 
hiring at all.
  According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 74 percent of 
businesses will fire employees or cut hours; 61 percent will not hire 
next year.
  Daniel Kessler, who is a professor of law and business at Stanford 
University, has predicted that 30 to 40 million Americans will be 
directly harmed by ObamaCare through higher premiums, stiff penalties, 
cutbacks in hours, and job losses.
  We have known for some time--as a result of these studies--that 
ObamaCare was going to make health care unaffordable. We now know it is 
also going to be fundamentally unfair. The President recently admitted 
the law is not ready for prime time. He admitted he is not ready to 
implement the law as it has been written. Because ObamaCare was so 
poorly crafted, he simply is not going to enforce it the way it was 
crafted. He is going to selectively enforce its provisions.
  Most important, the President of the United States has said that 
while he is going to require hard-working Americans, individuals, to 
comply with the law's individual mandate. According to one recent 
study, only 12 percent of the American people actually support that 
provision today. However, he is going to implement and enforce that 
provision, but at least for the first year of the law's full effect 
next year, he will not be implementing or enforcing the employer 
mandate. So hard-working Americans have to comply but big business does 
not have to comply.
  This is significant because the law doesn't give the President of the 
United States the power to rewrite the law. The law sets forth a 
specific set of timelines, a specific set of deadlines that cause the 
law's various provisions to kick in. This did not give the President 
the authority or the discretion to decide which among the law's several 
provisions could be favored or disfavored by the President of the 
United States.
  So we have hard-working Americans, individuals, and families on the 
hook, and we have big business being thrown a big bone. This is not 
fair. This is not something that is consistent with the rule of law. 
This is not something the American people ought to tolerate.
  The Affordable Care Act, as it is called, will shatter not only our 
hard-earned health benefits, but in many instances it will destroy the 
foundation of the 40-hour workweek that has become the backbone of the 
American middle class. It will do all of this in a way that will 
contribute to or be part of a system of selective unfair enforcement.
  The American people deserve better. The American people demand 
better. The American people deserve not to have this law implemented 
and enforced if, as the President of the United States has told us, it 
is not ready for prime time. Then it is not ready to be implemented.
  I ask of my friend and colleague, the distinguished junior Senator 
from Florida, how he feels about this and how the people in the State 
of Florida feel about the selective implementation and enforcement of a 
law that Americans already knew would be unaffordable and a law they 
know will also be unfair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for 
organizing this effort.
  Let me answer that question by coming up with a couple of things we 
can find consensus on. First of all, I think all of us agree the 
American middle class is one of the things that make us exceptional. 
All the countries in the world have rich people. Unfortunately, every 
country in the world has people who are struggling. But what has made 
America unique and different from all of these other countries is that 
we have a vibrant middle class. We have people who work hard, make 
enough money to own a home, take their kids on vacations, save for 
college expenses, and kind of fulfill many of their dreams.
  I grew up in that environment. I tell people all the time I didn't 
have everything I wanted, but we always had everything we needed. 
Through hard work and sacrifice my parents became part of that great 
American middle class--working-class Americans who had the opportunity 
to give us the life they never had.
  I think we can all agree the middle class is very important for 
America because it is one of the things that makes

[[Page 12623]]

us exceptional, unique, and sets us apart from the rest of the world. 
Quite frankly, one of the reasons why people want to live here and love 
being in America is because it creates those opportunities.
  What strengthens the middle class? We are having a debate about that 
in this country. Is it a bunch of government spending? Is it a bunch of 
government programs? Is it the Senators? Is it the President of the 
United States? The answer is no. What rationally makes the middle class 
possible and vibrant is jobs that pay middle-class salaries. What makes 
it possible is that we have jobs that pay that kind of money so people 
can join the middle class and give their kids a better life.
  Where do those jobs come from? Do they come from the government? Do 
they come from the White House? Do they come from the Senate or from 
our laws? They don't. They come from a vibrant private economy that is 
creating those jobs. How those jobs are created is not that 
complicated. People have to start new businesses or grow a business 
that already exists. Those are the two primary ways in which middle-
class jobs--in fact, most jobs--are created outside of government. That 
is the only place where we will find the kind of growth we need for a 
vibrant middle class. We should analyze every issue before this body 
through the lens of the middle class and through the lens of whether it 
makes it easier or harder for someone to start a business or grow an 
existing one.
  Let's examine what the Senator from Utah just asked about ObamaCare 
in the context of what I just explained. The answer is that it is clear 
ObamaCare makes it harder for people to start a business or grow an 
existing business for a number of reasons the Senator has pointed out. 
No. 1, it has an incentive for businesses not to grow. It tells a 
business owner that if they have more than 50 full-time employees, they 
will have to meet a set of rules which will make it very expensive for 
them to start a business or grow an existing business.
  The other thing it creates is a tremendous amount of uncertainty. It 
goes back to the point the Senator from Utah raised. These laws are 
being canceled on a whim. The President is deciding to enforce one part 
of it but not another part of it. That creates confusion.
  Imagine if a person has a business and some money set aside to grow, 
that business owner doesn't know how much it is going to cost to grow. 
You know what they do? They don't grow the business. As a result, those 
jobs are not created.
  How about the cost of that insurance, which is an issue the Senator 
from Utah talked about a moment ago. Yesterday in Florida the 
commissioner of insurance said that in the individual marketplace in 
Florida next year--because of ObamaCare--rates are going up 30 to 40 
percent. Ask yourself: Does that make it easier to start a new business 
or does it make it harder? Does it make it easier to grow an existing 
business or does it make it harder?
  Think about the impact all of this uncertainty is going to have on 
middle-class workers. Add to that the following: Right now there is an 
incentive to have part-time workers. That is why we are reading 
everyday in the newspapers that company X is moving people from full-
time to part-time. Companies are moving employees to less than 30 hours 
so they can avoid the penalties in this bill.
  How about insurance? Let's say a person works somewhere that has 
insurance and they are happy with it. This law might require the 
employer to put that person on a new insurance or move that person to a 
government exchange, which means that doctor that worker has been 
dealing with for 10 years who knows their case history might not be 
their doctor next year because of ObamaCare. The result is we have a 
holding pattern.
  Businesses in America, the people who create the middle-class jobs, 
are in a holding pattern and waiting to see which direction this goes, 
but they are all headed in a poor direction because of this.
  So when the Senator from Utah talked about this and asked the 
question: What impact is the Senator hearing, that is what I am 
hearing. I am hearing that this law makes it harder for people to 
create jobs. This bill is going to make it harder on the middle-class 
jobs. It is going to make it harder for middle-class jobs to be created 
because it makes it harder to start a business and makes it harder to 
grow an existing business.
  I imagine the Senator from Utah has heard similar concerns in his own 
State. The Senator from Texas has joined us, and he is from a State 
even larger than mine. I am sure he will share his input on what he is 
hearing from his home State and from people across the country.
  I say to my colleague that is what I have been hearing from my 
constituents everywhere I have been going in Florida for the last 6 
months.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? I 
understand the Senator has the floor until 4:30 p.m.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at 4:30 
p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I understand 
the leader is going to make a request.
  I wonder if the Senator would withhold his request for a couple of 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I withdraw my request. I am willing to use 
time perhaps tomorrow.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I see we have been joined by my friend and 
colleague, the Senator from Texas. I wish to ask him if his 
observations from his interactions with his constituents in Texas have 
been similar to those that have been shared today by the junior Senator 
from Florida.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Utah for 
his leadership on this issue.
  I am proud to stand with Senator Lee, Senator Rubio, and with so many 
others. I can tell my colleagues that in the State of Texas, Texans 
overwhelmingly understand that ObamaCare isn't working, that this 
legislation is failing and it is hurting the American people.
  When we look at jobs, there is no legislation currently in effect 
that is damaging the economy more or damaging jobs more than ObamaCare. 
In direct response to the law, 41 percent of small business owners have 
held off plans to hire new employees. Thirty-eight percent said they 
pulled back on plans to grow their businesses. The U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce reports that 71 percent of small businesses say ObamaCare 
makes it harder to hire workers.
  Beyond that, one of the most pernicious aspects of this law is that 
it is forcing more and more employees to be moved to part-time 
employment, to be moved to working 29 hours a week or less to get out 
of the ObamaCare 30-hour threshold.
  In 2013, employers have added more part-time employees, averaging 
93,000 a month, seasonally adjusted, than full-time workers. And it is 
important to understand who it is that is moved to part-time work, who 
it is that is hurt by ObamaCare. It is the most vulnerable among us. It 
is not the CEOs. It is not the wealthy. It is young people, Hispanics, 
African Americans, single moms. According to the most recent census 
data, in 2011 the poverty rate for those who worked full-time was only 
2.8 percent. The poverty rate for those working less than full-time 
year-round was 16.3 percent.
  I am reminded of earlier this year when we were debating the issue of 
ObamaCare and I read from a newspaper article out of the State of 
Oklahoma that quoted a single mom who is working in a fast food 
restaurant. She and all of her coworkers had their hours forcibly 
reduced to 29 hours a week or less. This single mom said: I have two 
little kids at home. I can't feed my kids on 29 hours a week, and 
neither can the other single moms who are struggling to make ends meet.
  Beyond the impact on jobs, on the economy, and beyond those being 
forced into part-time work, we also have the compliance costs. 
According

[[Page 12624]]

to Federal agency estimates, ObamaCare will add paperwork burdens 
totaling nearly 190 million hours or more every year. To put that in 
perspective, Mount Rushmore, which took 14 years to build, could be 
constructed 1,547 times with the paperwork ObamaCare requires in 1 
year.
  Not only do we see jobs being hurt, the economy being hurt, workers 
being hurt, hours being reduced, paperwork going up, but we are seeing 
premiums going up--premiums going up far too high--and it is hitting 
those who are suffering the most.
  On Monday, Florida's insurance commissioner told the Palm Beach Post 
that insurance rates will rise by 5 to 20 percent in the small-group 
market and by 30 to 40 percent in the individual market. As those who 
are at home in Florida watching what is happening, as they are seeing 
their insurance rates go up--they are going up because of the impact of 
this failed law.
  The Ohio Department of Insurance announced that ObamaCare in Ohio 
will increase the individual market health premiums by 88 percent. If a 
person in Ohio right now is seeing their premiums go up, they can thank 
the men and women of the U.S. Congress.
  According to the Wyman Firm, looking at young people, young people in 
particular are hurt by ObamaCare. The Wyman Firm estimates that 80 
percent of Americans age 21 to 29 earning more than $16,000 will pay 
more out-of-pocket for coverage under ObamaCare than they pay today. If 
young people at home are watching this today and wondering how they are 
going to get a job, how they are going to climb the economic ladder, 
how they are going to achieve the American dream, ObamaCare is driving 
up their health care premiums right now.
  We all know that at the time ObamaCare was being debated, the 
President promised the American people: If you like your health care 
plan, you can keep it. The facts have conclusively proven that wrong. 
According to a February 2013 report by the Congressional Budget Office, 
7 million people will lose their employer-sponsored insurance. McKinsey 
& Company, a very well-regarded consulting firm, found that 30 percent 
of employers will definitely or probably stop offering health insurance 
in the years after 2014.
  This bill isn't working, and I would note there is growing bipartisan 
consensus on that front. As the facts have come in, the American people 
have kept an open mind, have looked at this bill, and have seen that as 
it is being implemented, it is not working, it is hurting the economy, 
and it is hurting jobs. According to an ABC-Washington Post poll, in 
2010, 74 percent of moderate conservative Democrats--there are a 
significant number of Democrats who describe themselves as moderate or 
conservative--in 2010, 70 percent of them supported ObamaCare. Yet, in 
July, just 46 percent supported ObamaCare.
  Not only that, we have seen the lead Senate author of ObamaCare--a 
senior Democrat in this body--describe ObamaCare as headed toward a 
``huge train wreck.'' We have seen unions--which initially supported 
ObamaCare--over and over turning as they realize the consequences. In 
April the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers 
called for ``repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act to 
protect our employers, our industry, and our most important assets, our 
members and their families.'' If we listen to the voices of unions, 
unions are saying ObamaCare is failing; it is not working. The 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers released a white paper 
in July explaining that ObamaCare ``threatens to harm our members by 
dismantling multiemployer health plans.'' And then--really quite 
striking--James Hoffa, Jr., the president of the Teamsters Union, wrote 
a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stating that ObamaCare ``will 
destroy the very health and well-being of our members along with 
millions of other hard-working Americans.'' Why? Well, Mr. Hoffa 
explained that ObamaCare is destroying the 40-hour workweek that has 
been the backbone of the American middle class.
  If we trust the voices of unions, if we have a concern for the 
American middle class, then listen to the bipartisan voices that are 
rising up saying that ObamaCare isn't working.
  Most strikingly, we have President Obama himself, who just a few 
weeks ago was forced to unilaterally and without legal authority delay 
implementation of ObamaCare for large corporations, for companies with 
more than 50 employees--he unilaterally moved the employer mandate 
until after the next election. I would suggest there are at least two 
things we can derive from President Obama's decision to do that:
  No. 1, if ObamaCare were a good thing, if it were working, we can be 
sure President Obama would want it to go into full effect before the 
next election. He would want to take credit with the American people 
for the benefits of this signature bill. The fact that the President 
was forced to concede that the wheels are coming off and to move the 
employer mandate until after the next election I would suggest is 
highly revealing.
  No. 2, it raises the obvious followup question: Why is President 
Obama willing to grant a waiver for giant corporations but not for 
hard-working American families, not for the men and women who are 
struggling to make ends meet, who are climbing the economic ladder, who 
want, like their parents and grandparents before them, to achieve the 
American dream? ObamaCare is standing in their way.
  So what are we to do about it? Well, the most important 
constitutional check and balance that Congress has on an overreaching 
Executive is the power of the purse. The Framers of the Constitution 
wisely gave authority over expenditures of money to the Congress, and 
that is why the Senator from Utah, the Senator from Florida, and I, 
among many others, are standing together and saying: This isn't 
working, and Congress should defund it.
  In 62 days the continuing resolution that funds the Federal 
Government will expire. Each of the three of us, along with a number of 
others, has publicly stated that under no circumstances will we support 
a continuing resolution that funds one penny of ObamaCare. If 41 
Members of this body stand together and make that same statement or if 
218 Members in the House of Representatives stand together and take 
that same position, we can do something different than we have seen 
this year.
  Over the past couple of years we have seen 39, 40, 41 votes to repeal 
ObamaCare, all of which have been effectively symbolic because none of 
them had a real chance of passage. With the continuing resolution, we 
have a chance to successfully defund ObamaCare. Right now we don't have 
the votes in this institution. If the vote were held today, we would 
not hold 41 Senators to defund ObamaCare. But we have 62 days until 
September 30, and every one of us takes very seriously our obligation 
to represent our constituents. If in the next 62 days we see what I 
believe we are going to see, which is the American people rising up en 
masse--hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans standing up and 
saying: It isn't working, it is hurting our jobs, it is hurting our 
economy, it is hurting our health care, it is making our lives worse, 
and we need to defund it--if enough Americans speak out and demand of 
their elected officials that we do the right thing, I am confident we 
will. I am confident that Republicans will, and I am hopeful that 
Members of the Democratic Party will as well, that every one of us 
will.
  I believe the American people should hold their elected officials 
accountable, and that most assuredly includes me. It includes all of 
us. We should be held accountable by our constituents. The American 
people know this bill isn't working. There is bipartisan agreement on 
it. We have the potential in the next 62 days to show real leadership--
not to give a speech, not to give a meaningless, symbolic vote, but, if 
we stand together, to actually defund it.
  Let me make one final point. Those who disagree with the position 
that is being taken by Senator Lee and Senator Rubio and me and say 
that taking this stand will mean Republicans will be blamed for a 
government shutdown, let me be clear on what I think should

[[Page 12625]]

happen. I believe the House of Representatives should pass a continuing 
resolution to fund the entirety of the Federal Government except for 
ObamaCare and should explicitly prohibit further funding of ObamaCare 
and should adopt the legislation I have introduced as a condition to 
the continuing resolution.
  Now, the next step. There will be partisan critics who immediately 
charge Republicans with threatening to shut down the government. I 
would suggest that we then take the argument to the American people. 
The American people should decide. If there are Members of this body 
who are willing to shut down the Federal Government in order to force 
ObamaCare down the throats of the American people, in order to say 
President Obama will grant a waiver to giant corporations but not to 
hard-working American families, let's take that argument to the 
American people because I think the American people want economic 
growth back. That should be our top priority. Nothing is killing jobs 
more. Nothing is hurting the American economy more than ObamaCare. 
There is bipartisan agreement on that.
  I am hopeful that Members of this body will stand and lead. I thank 
the Senator from Utah for taking the lead on what I believe is the most 
important battle this Congress will confront.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, those of us who share this position feel 
strongly that it is indisputably, constitutionally the prerogative of 
the Congress to exercise the power of the purse. This means we don't 
have to vote to fund something with which we fundamentally disagree.
  Some have suggested that because this was passed by Congress 3 years 
ago, we somehow have an obligation to fund it. Well, I would remind my 
colleagues who might make that statement that the Congress as it 
existed then is not the same Congress as it exists today. That was two 
Congresses ago. The Congress that enacted that law was fundamentally 
changed in part because it enacted that law.
  The law has not been popular. It has not been good to those who voted 
to enact it. Ever since the majority party in the House of 
Representatives changed hands after the 2010 election--due in large 
part to ObamaCare--there have been a lot of people who have suggested 
that the Republicans in Congress need to defund ObamaCare's 
implementation and enforcement. For a variety of reasons, that has not 
happened.
  We have continued to pass continuing resolutions with no restrictions 
on ObamaCare's implementation and enforcement, at least as it relates 
to the ultimate implementation and enforcement of the exchanges, of the 
individual mandate, and so forth. Republicans have had reasons for 
doing this. Some of those reasons have included the statement to the 
effect that, well, the Supreme Court is going to knock it down. It will 
strike it down. It will invalidate ObamaCare because it is 
unconstitutional. Of course it is, and a majority of the Supreme Court 
concluded that it was unconstitutional as written. But the Supreme 
Court, rather than invalidating it, instead rewrote the law not just 
once but twice in order to save it. Some Republicans have also 
justified continuing to vote for funding bills that contain ObamaCare 
implementation funding because they believed a Republican would be 
elected President in 2012 and would stop ObamaCare. Well, that did not 
happen either.
  We have one last opportunity to defund the implementation of this law 
before these provisions I just mentioned kick in on January 1--one last 
opportunity--and that is in connection with our current spending bill, 
our current continuing resolution that is set to expire on September 
30--just 62 days from right now.
  So what we are saying is that if you agree with us, if you agree with 
the President that this law is not ready to be implemented as it was 
written, as it was enacted by Congress, if the President is not going 
to follow the law, then the American people should not have to fund it. 
If you do not like it, if you agree it is not ready, do not fund it. We 
can and we should and we must fund government but not ObamaCare.
  So I would ask the Senator from Florida if these are sentiments that 
are consistent with what he has been thinking, sentiments that are 
consistent with what he has been hearing from his constituents in 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Utah, I 
would say I have because I think there is a pretty clear understanding 
growing every day, as evidenced by the Senator from Texas a moment ago, 
who went through all these groups out there, including labor unions 
that have now turned on ObamaCare because of what it means to their 
members. So it is increasingly established how much damage this law is 
doing.
  The question I get, I say to the Senator from Utah, is, What can we 
do about it? There is almost this resignation by people that, well, 
what can we do about it? It is already in place. Is there anything we 
can do?
  So I think there are three things we should be able to do, and I will 
summarize those fairly quickly.
  The first thing we should do is not continue to double and triple 
down on these things.
  I think both the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Utah grew up 
at the same time as I did, so they will remember something that a lot 
of the younger people here probably do not remember. There was a time 
when Coca-Cola came out with something called New Coke. It was a new 
Coca-Cola formula. After about 100-some years, they changed the formula 
of Coca-Cola and they came out with something called New Coke. It was a 
disaster. Everybody hated it. In fact, they hated it because--they 
said: If we want to drink something that has that kind of sweetener, 
there are other options on the market. We like old Coke.
  What did Coca-Cola do when New Coke began to flounder? They did not 
say: Well, we are just going to continue to make more of it. They 
backed away from it. They went back to the original formula. They 
learned from their mistake, and they did not double down. That is the 
way it is in the real world. That is the way it is in our lives, and 
that is the way it is in the private sector--but not government, not 
Washington. In Washington, if something is going wrong, here they 
double and triple down. It is like an invitation to move forward. We 
should not do that. That is the first thing I would say.
  The second thing I would say is that we have to stop this from moving 
forward. The implications of this law are already being felt, but the 
regulations around this law--the mandates in this law, the fees and the 
costs and the new rate increases in this law, those things, you are 
only going to start to feel that right now. In the next few months you 
are going to really start to feel what this new law means to your life, 
to your business, to the place where you work.
  Now is the time to act. People ask me: What can we do about it? Let 
me tell you what is probably not going to work in the short term. You 
are probably not going to get President Obama to sign a bill that 
repeals ObamaCare, and you are not going to get the votes in the Senate 
to do that. So these repeal votes--I will vote for every single one of 
them, but the problem is that our chances of getting that accomplished 
are probably minimal so long as President Obama is the President of the 
United States. So truly our last option is to stop paying for this 
thing. Why would we continue to pour billions and hundreds of millions 
of taxpayer dollars into a disaster? Why would we double down with your 
hard-earned money on a program that is going to hurt you?
  We will have a chance to do that in September because in September, 
in order for the government to continue to function, we have to pass 
something called a short-term budget. I wish it were a permanent 
budget, but it is supposed to be a short-term budget. All we are saying 
is, in that short-term budget, fund the government, keep the lights on, 
pay the military, make sure

[[Page 12626]]

Social Security checks go out. The only thing you should not do is you 
should not fund and pay for ObamaCare.
  The pushback we get from that from some people is, well, that is 
crazy because that means you are willing to shut down the government 
over ObamaCare. That is not the way I see it. The way I see it is that 
if we pass a budget that pays for everything except for ObamaCare and 
the President says he will veto that, it is he who wants to shut down 
the government, it is he who is basically saying: I will shut down the 
government unless it pays for ObamaCare. That is an unreasonable 
position. It is unreasonable because this law is so bad. His own allies 
are coming to him and saying: Please stop this from moving forward. 
Well, we are going to give you a chance, Mr. President, by refusing to 
fund it.
  Here is my last point: To my colleagues in the Republican Party--I 
know every single one of the Senate Members here in the Republican 
Party is against ObamaCare--this is our last chance, our last best 
chance to do something about this. When this thing starts to kick in 
and starts to take root, it is going to be very difficult to undo major 
portions of this despite the damage it is going to create.
  Now, I only speak for myself, although I think I can speak for the 
other two Senators who have joined me here today in this effort. I want 
to be able to go back to Florida, no matter how this thing turns out, 
and say to the men and women who sent me here in 2010: I did everything 
I could to keep this from happening to you.
  When someone comes to me and says: I just got moved to part time 
because of ObamaCare, I want to be able to look them in the eye and say 
that I did everything I could.
  When someone says to me: I just lost the insurance I was happy with; 
I now have this new insurance plan I am not that familiar with, and my 
doctor, whom I have had for 30 years, is not on that plan, I want to be 
able to say to them that I did everything I could.
  When someone comes to me and says: I have a pretty successful 
business; I have set some money aside; I was going to open a new 
business or grow this one, but I am not because of ObamaCare, I want to 
be able to say that I did everything I could.
  If we pass a budget in September that funds ObamaCare, you did not do 
everything you could. You paid for this. You doubled down on it in ways 
that will have irreparable harm to our economy and to our country.
  This is our last best chance.
  To those who say they are against ObamaCare, I believe you. But let 
me tell you something. If we are not willing to draw a line in the sand 
on this issue, then on what issue are we willing to draw a line in the 
sand? If we are not willing to go to the limit on this issue, then what 
issue is there? Is there an issue on which we are prepared to say: We 
will not move forward because of this? Is there an issue on which we 
are willing to do everything we can and lay it all on the line? Is 
there such an issue? And if it is not this one, which one is it?
  That is the choice before us. I truly believe you cannot go back home 
and say you did everything you could to stop ObamaCare if you vote for 
a budget that funds it.
  I would ask the Senator from Texas if he too shares those thoughts 
and those feelings?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I do indeed share those thoughts and 
feelings and the obligation we owe to our constituents to honor our 
word and put action behind our words.
  I would ask the Senator from Utah if he would yield for a series of 
three short questions?
  Mr. LEE. Surely.
  Mr. CRUZ. The first question is, There has been much talk of a 
shutdown. Am I correct that we do not have to hypothesize what a 
shutdown would look like, that we, in fact, saw that in 1995 with two 
temporary, partial shutdowns that occurred when Republicans in the 
House stood up to President Clinton?
  When that occurred in 1995, we saw several things. No. 1, we saw that 
the parade of horribles that was brought out did not occur. Social 
Security checks continued to flow, the military continued to be funded, 
interest on the debt continued to be paid, planes did not fall out of 
the sky.
  Indeed, what occurs--if Democrats decide to block a continuing 
resolution and force a temporary shutdown in order to force ObamaCare 
on the American people--is a partial, temporary shutdown where 
nonessential government services get suspended for a period of time, 
not a shutdown of essential services, such as paying for the men and 
women who are fighting in the military and providing Social Security 
checks. We have seen that in the past; is that correct?
  Mr. LEE. That is correct. That is correct, and it is how it has 
happened in the past. This is not something we want. This is not 
something we have threatened. This is something we think can and should 
be avoided and we want to avoid. In the unfortunate, completely 
avoidable event that did happen, it would be largely as the Senator 
described it.
  Mr. CRUZ. A second question I would ask is this: This week we saw the 
rather stunning news that the IRS employees union--the men and women at 
the IRS charged with enforcing ObamaCare are asking not to be made 
subject to ObamaCare. Indeed, the union leaders have said to their 
union members: Draft letters to send to Members of this body, saying 
that we, the IRS employees union, do not want to be subject to 
ObamaCare.
  Likewise, ObamaCare subjects Members of this body and their staffs to 
ObamaCare. I am not aware of a single Senate office that is not deeply 
concerned about that, that is not facing the prospect of staff quitting 
the congressional offices because the arms of ObamaCare are so 
significant, and there have been many a panicked discussion among 
Democrats and Republicans about what to do about subjecting Members and 
their staff to ObamaCare.
  My second question of three short questions is, What does it say to 
the Senator that the IRS employees union is asking: Let us out from 
ObamaCare, and that Members and congressional staff are deeply 
concerned about the harms ObamaCare is going to do to them?
  Mr. LEE. Well, first of all, that tells me that those who are part of 
that union do not want to be subject to the same provisions of the same 
law they will be enforcing.
  What it also tells me in the bigger picture is that above all, this 
law creates uncertainty. That is why we see so much angst among people 
right here on Capitol Hill who are facing the very real prospect, the 
very real future in the next few months of going onto these exchanges 
because nobody knows what this is going to look like. Nobody has any 
idea.
  One thing Americans really do not like, in this world of a lot of 
unavoidable uncertainties, is more uncertainties heaped upon them by 
dictate of the Federal Government. We have enough uncertainties in 
life. We do not know when somebody is going to get sick. We do not know 
when accidents are going to happen. So we should be able to avoid those 
things that government thrusts upon us.
  This is one of the many reasons why there is so much angst within the 
IRS and within the ranks of the Capitol Hill workforce. People do not 
want to go onto these exchanges because they have absolutely no idea 
what this is going to look like.
  Mr. CRUZ. My third brief question is, For those in this body who have 
campaigned at home, who have told their constituents they are opposed 
to ObamaCare, on January 1 the exchanges go up and running, the 
subsidies begin. And the history of the modern entitlement state is 
that anytime a subsidy has been put in place, it has proven to be 
politically virtually impossible to undo. Indeed, no major entitlement 
that has been implemented in modern times has ever been undone.
  For those who say they oppose ObamaCare, what is the alternative to

[[Page 12627]]

defunding ObamaCare with a continuing resolution? Let me ask it a 
separate way. If we do not defund it, am I correct that come January 1, 
Republicans will essentially be surrendering that in all likelihood 
ObamaCare will be a permanent feature of the economy, hurting the 
economy, hurting jobs, hurting low-income workers, hurting our health 
care system? And if that is correct, has any reasonable alternative 
been proffered by anyone on this side of the Senate to stop that harm 
other than what you and Senator Rubio and I and others are trying to 
do?
  Mr. LEE. Based on historical precedent, we have every reason to 
believe that once this new entitlement program kicks in, it is not 
going away. It is a one-way ratchet. You have death, taxes, and 
entitlements. Once created, they do not go away.
  To answer the second part of that question, I am not aware of any 
plan among any Republicans--aside from this one; aside from the plan 
that says: Do not fund ObamaCare, fund government but not ObamaCare--
that would address this issue. I am not aware of any plan. The only 
other plan I am aware of would be one that says: Let's just wait and 
see what happens. Let's wait and see what a horrible disaster this will 
be. Let's wait and see how awful this will be for the American people, 
how utterly intolerable they will find it. And let's just hope that 
will provide enough political momentum for us perhaps to win elections 
at some unknown point in the future. This is not a good way to run a 
government. This is not a kind thing to do to an unsuspecting public 
who hopes and expects that we have their best interests at heart.
  So to all those in this body who support ObamaCare, this argument 
might not be all that persuasive to you, although you ought to look at 
the fact that the President, who signed this into law, has said he 
himself is not ready, is not willing, is not able to enforce and 
implement the law evenhandedly as it was written. So maybe that ought 
to give you pause as to whether you should fund it.
  But for those of you in this body who are, in fact, opposed to 
ObamaCare, I ask you: How can you oppose it, be against it, and yet 
fund it? So I would invite you to consider the possibility that what 
you are doing in thinking about funding it is not really where you want 
to go. Consider what might be said about this. Defund it or own it. If 
you fund it, you are for it.
  This law was enacted without a meaningful opportunity for the Members 
voting on it to read it. It is 2,700 pages long. After it was enacted 
into law, it was rewritten a total of four times: twice by the Supreme 
Court of the United States, twice more by the President of the United 
States. The President's rewrite came just a few weeks ago, the Supreme 
Court's rewrite was over a year ago.
  But what the President did was acknowledge that this law is not ready 
for prime time. This law is not ready to implement. This law is not one 
that he is willing to implement as written. He is going to implement 
and enforce it selectively, holding hard-working Americans, individuals 
and families to the fire, while throwing a big bone to big business.
  This is not acceptable. This is un-American. This is not something 
that those of us who purport to be against ObamaCare can support by 
funding it. So I invite my colleagues to join me in this cause to vote 
to fund government but not ObamaCare.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, even though I disagree with my three 
friends, I appreciate their sincerity, their advocacy. They are all 
three very intelligent men, good Senators. But I am going to move on to 
another subject.
  I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Coburn's remarks, 
which are 15 minutes as I understand it, that all postcloture time on 
Calendar No. 223 be yielded back, and the Senate proceed to vote on 
confirmation of the nomination with no intervening action or debate; 
further that following disposition of Calendar No. 223, the Senate 
proceed to consider the following nominations en bloc: 224, 104, 102, 
and 103; further that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided in 
the usual form prior to cloture votes on Calendar Nos. 224 and 104; 
that if cloture is invoked on the nominations, all postcloture time be 
yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the 
nomination with no intervening action or debate; further that if 
Calendar Nos. 223, 224, and 104 are confirmed, the Senate proceed to 
vote with no intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 102 and 103, 
in that order; that if cloture is not invoked on Calendar Nos. 224 or 
104, Calendar Nos. 102 and 103 be returned to the calendar; further, 
that if a nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or 
debate and no further motions be in order; that any related statements 
be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action; further, that upon confirmation of Calendar No. 
103, the Senate resume legislative session and that all after the first 
vote be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1243

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, finally one last unanimous consent. I ask 
unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes its consideration of S. 
1243 on Wednesday, July 31, the pending amendments be set aside and 
Senator Paul be recognized to offer amendment No. 1739; that there be 
60 minutes of debate equally divided between the proponents and 
opponents; that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the Paul amendment; further, that no 
points of order or second-degree amendments be in order to the Paul 
amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I am not going to 
object, but I wanted to ask the majority leader, as you know, we have 
lost a great American, Ambassador Lindy Boggs. Senator Begich and I 
just wanted 10 minutes on the floor sometime today or tomorrow to honor 
her. Could we include that in some agreement for tomorrow?
  Mr. REID. If we are not able to get it done today, we will do it in 
wrap-up tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                        The Affordable Care Act

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I appreciate having the opportunity to 
talk about this subject. I also appreciate my colleagues. They are 
absolutely right in everything they said in terms of the effect of 
ObamaCare. I was here when that debate took place. But there are two 
contentions on which I disagree with them. I thought I would voice them 
on the floor.
  One is one of the quotes from the Senator from Texas: You can thank 
the men and women of the Congress for ObamaCare.
  I would just say you can thank the Democrats for ObamaCare because 
there was not one Republican who voted for it. So it is not the 
Congress that did this; it is the President and his allies who created 
this mess that we are about to experience.
  The other thing I disagree with is the fact that you can design a 
piece of legislation that will defund ObamaCare, because the vast 
majority of it is mandatory spending. So no matter what we did in terms 
of a continuing resolution, and according to the CRS--which I ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record after I finish what I 
am talking about--all of the things would continue in terms of the 
implementation of the Affordable Care Act if we carried out the 
strategy that is outlined by my colleagues.
  Now, their motivations are absolutely pure. I have never voted for a 
continuing resolution since I have been in the Senate. My American 
Conservative Union rating is 99 percent. I would love to defund it. I 
want somebody to show me a mechanism where we can do that because the 
vast majority of the money being spent today is

[[Page 12628]]

mandatory spending that does not come under a spending bill associated 
with appropriations. It was passed by a law. So the only effective way 
to truly stop ObamaCare--and I think we ought to do it. To stop it 
would be to totally reverse it. We do not have the votes to do that, 
but we do have the votes to delay it.
  When you go out and talk about the fact that they are not going to 
implement the employer mandate but implement the individual mandate, we 
can have a vote on that in the Senate. Then we can have our colleagues 
go home and say why they think it is fair to do that. We can actually 
add that.
  The fact that they are not going to do a check on the claims for 
eligibility under the exchanges, 88 percent of Americans think that is 
wrong. Why do they think it is wrong? Because they know right now, with 
the earned-income tax credit, between 25 and 34 percent of it is fraud. 
On the child tax credit it is the same thing. They know exactly the 
same thing will happen when it comes to credits and payments in the 
exchanges.
  They also know the Independent Payment Advisory Board is going to 
ration care for the vast majority of the Americans. We can have a vote 
on that again. A good portion of my colleagues on the other side would 
like to get rid of that. So we can have a strategic method of delaying 
ObamaCare by putting the votes up. But there is no way, according to 
the Congressional Research Service, that the vast majority of funding 
can be stopped unless you totally reverse the whole bill.
  As my colleague said, they did not think President Obama would sign 
that. So you would have to have 67 votes to let that happen. I spent 
hours on this floor trying to defeat the Affordable Care Act. Many of 
my colleagues on this side came around to other proposals, the 
Patient's Choice Act, which accomplished many of the same things 
without large government, without tremendous cost, and without the 
government getting in between a patient and their doctor.
  I do have a little bit of experience on that side of the ledger in 
terms of caring for people for the last 25 years as a practicing 
physician. So I would think it would be important that we have a way. I 
do not disagree with the intent of what my colleagues want to do. I 
want to defund this bill, but I also want to do it in a way that kills 
it. There is not a legislative method that we have that is capable of 
defunding it short of 67 votes in the Senate, short of two-thirds votes 
in the U.S. House.
  Now, can we put some riders on it to say you will not implement a 
certain section of it? Yes, as long as it is associated with 
discretionary spending. So what I would ask is that my colleagues look 
at what the Congressional Research Service has said and what the 
approach will be based on their analysis of a plan.
  I believe the vast majority of Americans want us to get rid of this 
bill, this law. They want it reversed. There is a dissonance between 
what Americans want and what Congress is willing to give them, much as 
my colleague said. It is different. But to claim the fact--and I will 
be with them on not voting for a CR. However, it will not necessarily 
be for the same right reasons. There are good reasons. I think that is 
a terrible way to fund the government, but the fact is, there are a lot 
of ways that we can delay this bill and accomplish what we need to 
accomplish.
  I don't think we can do the other. I don't believe we can accomplish 
that. So my colleagues will remember, it was actually 1996 when we had 
the government shutdown. Everybody was all for it until they were not. 
I voted against reopening the government. Had we held, much like our 
colleagues want us to hold today, we would not be $17 trillion in debt. 
We would not have a budget deficit of $800 billion this year. We would 
not be borrowing $34,000 a second--a second--in this government.
  But I also know human nature. The very people who say they will do 
things today, when it gets tough, do not do it. So I praise my 
colleagues for what they are trying to do. They are right in wanting to 
try to kill the Affordable Care Act: the costs, the lack of 
effectiveness, the long-term diminution of the doctor-patient 
relationship, government involved in every aspect of your health care.
  To have a litmus test of, if I do not agree with the process then I 
do not really want to defund the Affordable Care Act, that is not a 
claim that settles very well with me, especially spending the last 4 
years trying to fight this bill. I would say that the administration is 
lawless in its implementation of this bill, the fact that they are 
going to pick and choose--regardless of what the law says, they are 
going to pick and choose what they will implement and what they will 
not.
  I think it is unacceptable. I think it is unfair to the average 
American. It is certainly unfair to the middle class. It is certainly 
unfair to those people who are trying to get a job today and cannot get 
full-time employment. We had 334,000 part-time jobs created last year. 
At this time in the economy, we should be creating 800,000 full-time 
jobs a year.
  They are correct in terms of what it is doing to job creation. They 
are correct in terms of the negatives that it is having on our economy. 
They are correct about every part of this except whether it will 
actually solve the problem. In contrast to that is what it is that we 
have done that we can talk about with the American people that has been 
positive? We have actually shrunk the size of the Federal Government. 
For the first time since 1995, the discredited spending of the Federal 
Government is going to decline--for the first time.
  We ought to use the continuing resolution, in my mind, to accentuate 
that one positive thing, which is that the reach and impact of the 
Federal Government in everybody's lives should be downgraded, as well 
as with the Affordable Care Act.
  There is no one perfect way to do this. There will be disagreements, 
but the fact is we have accomplished some great things with the Budget 
Control Act and with the sequester. What we need to do is improve on 
that.
  When I first came to the Senate, the average individual's debt was 
$23,000. It is at $54,000 today. Every man, woman, and child in this 
country, if you are born today, by the time you are 20 years of age--if 
you count unfunded liabilities--you will be responsible for in excess 
of $1 million of debt and unfunded liabilities.
  Let me say that again. If you are born today, by the time you become 
a majority citizen, you will be responsible for debt and unfunded 
liabilities in excess of $1 million. The Affordable Care Act adds to 
that, but it doesn't add much compared to everything else we have done.
  We need to rein in this President. I agree. We need to rein in 
spending. We need to rein in the Affordable Care Act. If we could end 
it, I would be for ending it tomorrow. What we need to do is delay it 
to where we can get to the point where we can kill it. It does need to 
be terminated.
  There are positive things we need to be doing. There is no question 
that we ought to make available, without discrimination, health care 
for people who have preexisting illnesses. Those are positive things. 
We can do that. There are ways to do it other than the inefficient, 
ineffective way this bill does it. They weren't even ever considered 
for a vote when we had this. There wasn't any real debate on 
alternatives because we weren't allowed to offer them in the Senate.
  My time has expired. I commend to my colleagues the CRS, 
Congressional Research Study, ``Potential Effects of a Government 
Shutdown on Implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act (ACA).''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Kent Yoshiho Hirozawa, of New York, to be a Member of the National 
Labor Relations Board?
  Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page 12629]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. 
Heitkamp) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from New Jersey (Mr. Chiesa).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Chiesa) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 190 Ex.]

                                YEAS--54

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chiesa
       
       Heitkamp
       
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________