vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the vote is 44 aye, 52 nay. the motion fails.

the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes equally divided in the usual form prior to the vote on the motion to waive. further, that the remaining votes in this sequence be ten-minute votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, so ordered. who yields time?

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: could we have order in the senate, please? the presiding officer: could we have order in the senate, please. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, this budget point of order that we're now going to have in very significant ways tells us who we are as a people. if you vote for this budget point of order, you are saying that in this great country, we do not have the resources to help our veterans with their health care, with their education, how veterans deal with sexual assault, help older veterans get the nursing care that they need, build new medical facilities that we desperately need. i personally -- and i have to say this honestly -- have a hard

time understanding how anyone could vote for tax breaks for billionaires, for millionaires, for large corporations and then say we don't have the resources to protect our veterans. we should not be supporting this point of order. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, my only wish is we could have been here on the senate floor debating reforms within the system so we could fulfill and keep the promises that we have got to our veterans that are currently in that system. i would yield back the balance of the time. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to waive. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber who haven't voted or wish to change their votes? on this vote the yeas are 56, the nays are 41, three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not group agreed to. the point of order is sustained and under section 312 of the congressional budget act, the bill is recommitted to the committee on veterans' affairs. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the

previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session. to consider the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of the interior, michael l. connor of new mexico to be deputy secretary. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. can we have order in the senate, please. mr. pryor: i ask unanimous consent all time be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 97, the nays are zero and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: madam president, i'd like to speak about an issue but first i'd like to yield to the minority leader, mr. mcconnell.

the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i'm here in support of what our colleague from arizona is going to be talking about shortly, and it's basically this -- we have a white house that is busily at work trying to quiet the voices of those who oppose them. by doing the following -- they are proposing a new regulation directed at 501-c-4 organizations who have been active for over 50 years in expressing themselves about the issues of the day in our country. and this regulation actually predates the i.r.s. abuses that we saw during the 2012 election. i've spoken about this a number of times, including a couple of

major speeches at one of the think tanks here in town about what a threat it is to citizens when the heavy hand of the i.r.s. comes down on them because they speak up against policies of the government. this regulation that senator flake is going to speak about here in a few minutes that we'd like to see delayed for a year has generated 120,000 comments -- i would say to my friend from arizona, i'm told that there's been no regulation in the history of the i.r.s. that's even approached 120,000 comments. is that the understanding of the senator from arizona? mr. flake: that is. in fact, just to give some kind of scale here, the keystone pipeline that's been extremely controversial for months and months, that has generated

about 7,000 comments. 7,000 comments for an issue like that, this has generated north of 100,000. mr. mcconnell: i think it's reasonable to assume, madam president, that the reason for that is there are groups out there all across america both on the right, on the left and in the center, who have taken a look at this new regulation and understand it's the federal government using the heavy hand of the i.r.s. to try to shut them up, to make it impossible for them to criticize the government or people like the senator from arizona and myself. it's none of the business of the government to be quieting the voices of the american people. i know my democratic friends are upset because some conservative groups have been very active. i don't recall the same sense of outrage over the last 50 years when groups on the left were actively involved, and it looks

to me like, i'd say to my friend from arizona, since these comments are coming from all over, it appears, does it not, that there's a lot of collateral discharge here, that the administration made have wanted to target their enemies but they're hitting some of their friends as well? mr. flake: that is correct. many of the organizations that sounded alarm bells are organizations like the aclu, the sierra club, social welfare organizations that advocate for policy as well who are concerned that this goes too far. mr. mcconnell: the final thing i would say to my friend from arizona, we have a new commissioner of the i.r.s. he has an opportunity, does he not, to clean up an agency that's already in a lot of trouble, because of the i.r.s. scandals, because of the new responsibility they've been given to enforce obamacare, this is an agency in trouble already, before you wade into a

political thicket like this, particularly when it appears as if this whole regulation really originated at the white house, not at the i.r.s., and i'm reminded that the commission of the i.r.s. during the nixon administration was asked by the whrows to help target president nixon's enemies and the commissioner of the i.r.s. said no, no, mr. president. and i wonder if my friend from arizona agrees with me that the appropriate response of the new commissioner of the i.r.s. responsible for cleaning up this troubled agency ought to be to the white house, no, i'm not going to participate in your effort to quiet the voices of your political foes. mr. flake: i would certainly agree. if the i.r.s. wants to establish or reestablish credibility that has been lost, then the commissioner should say to the white house i will act independently here and to go

forward with this rule after what has gone on would simply be going the other direction and would be seen and i think justifiably so to be working hand in glove with the white house to stifle free speech. mr. mcconnell: madam president, i want to commend the senator from arizona for his leadership on this very important issue. i don't think there's anything more important to our democracy than first amendment freedom of speech, and the last thing an agency that's -- whose principle responsibility is to correct revenue for the federal government, the last thing an agency like that needs to be involved in is quieting the voices of the critics of this administration or any other administration for that matter. so madam president i yield the floor. mr. flake: i thank the senator from kentucky and i certainly echo his comments. and i do rise today, madam president, to urge the senate to pass legislation to

prevent the i.r.s. from trampling on free speech rights, particularly those of 501-c-4 organizations. the stop targeting of political beliefs by the i.r.s. act -- that's a mouthful i know -- is sponsored by senator roberts from kansas and myself. it would prohibit for one year the finalization of a proposed i.r.s. regulation that would specifically limit the advocacy and educational activities of these groups. this bill would also prevent additional targeting of 501-c-4 organizations by restoring the i.r.s. standards and definitions that were in place before the agency started targeting conservative groups back in 2010. last spring, we learned that the i.r.s. was targeting conservative groups applying for 501-c-4 tax exempt status thanks to to a report by the agency's inspector general. since this district coafer several employees including the acting commissioner have resigned.

investigations by the house of representatives, the senate and the department of justice are ongoing. nevertheless, on november 29, the i.r.s. published a proposed rule that would restrict the activities of 501-c-3 organizations, limit their speech and curtail their civic participation. this rule singles out the same groups previously targeted by the i.r.s. and threatens to limit their participation in a host of advocacy and educational activities, even nonpartisan voter registration and education drives. these activities have a clear role in promoting civic engagement and social welfare, which is the precise purpose that 501-c-3 organizations are structured for. unfortunately, this rule -- this proposed rule would suppress these organizations' voices by forcing them to quit these activities or be shut down. while this administration may be focused on quieting its conservative critics, even liberal groups have denounced the rule and called attention to

the detrimental impact on free speech of organizations of all ideologies. according to the american civil liberties union, this rule -- quote -- "will produce the same structural issues at the i.r.s. that led to the use of inappropriate criteria in the selection of various charitable and social welfare groups for undue scrutiny." in response to the obama administration's claim that the tax-exempt applications for these groups have coincidentally become confusing in the aftermath of the citizens united decision, nan arunnen of the justice alliance action campaign has commented that 50-501-c-4 organizations weren't -- quote -- invented in the last election cycle. they have been around for generations. their purpose isn't to hide donors. it's to advance policies. even the sierra club has

hammered the i.r.s. rule. as of this morning, i believe it's at least 94,000 comments that the minority leader mentioned that may be north of 100,000 now on the proposed rule have been submitted. this marks the largest number of comments ever submitted to any rule making. let me repeat that. this is the largest number of comments ever submitted to any rule making. as i said before, to put it in perspective, the keystone pipeline proposed rule there has registered over just over 700,000 comments. that's compared to 100,000 comments here. clearly, the public sees through this administration's veiled attempt to squash free speech and to shut down opposition to its priorities. yesterday, the house of representatives overwhelmingly passed this same legislation, identical legislation in the house by a vote of 243-176.

already this legislation here in the senate has 40 senate cosponsors. it clearly deserves the consideration and support of the full senate. however, this legislation has not been permitted to come up for debate in the full senate. earlier today, democrats on the judiciary committee voted to oppose it, stalling further consideration. i -- i suppose that -- that the veto threat issued by the president may have had something to do with that. this veto threat is unfortunate. it's clearly disproportionate, a disproportionate response to legislation aimed at protecting the free speech rights of conservatives and liberals alike. this bill is simple. it only suspends new i.r.s. rule making related to 501-c-4's until the ongoing investigations are completed. simply suspends for a year. that is prudent and necessary. i urge my colleagues to join me

in support of free speech rights by these groups by approving this legislation to prevent the finalization of the i.r.s.'s rule or any other that seeks to continue to target groups based on ideology. and so with that, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the finance committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2011, that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. wyden: reserving the right to object, madam chair. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam chair, this bill is clearly within the jurisdiction of the senate finance committee because it changes the tax code. now, for many months before i became the chair of the committee, the finance committee staff on a bipartisan basis has worked very hard and very

comprehensively in a thoughtful way to address this issue interviewing 28 i.r.s. employees and reviewing approximately 500,000 pages of documents. it's my hope -- and again, madam chair, i have been the chair for a little bit over a week -- it's my hope and expectation that this report will be ready for release next month or in early april. the finance committee, as i have indicated, is the committee of jurisdiction. it has the technical resources, the expertise and experience to best fashion the appropriate remedies. and my view is these matters are simply too important to be handled on the floor without the opportunity for the finance committee to address these issues, to examine them in hearings and to have meaningful debate. now, the senator from arizona believes that the new rules from the i.r.s. are not fair because

they limit the public debate. i just want to indicate to him and to our colleagues that i don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of promoting public debate. free speech and fair treatment for all americans, all americans in the political process is absolutely central to what i believe government ought to be all about. and madam chair, i have tried with our colleague from alaska, senator murkowski, to show that even in these difficult, polarizing kind of political times, the parties can come together. and senator murkowski, i would say to my colleague, puts it very well in terms of what the future ought to be all about, and it really embodies our

campaign disclosure bill, which i would just mention is the first bipartisan campaign finance bill in the united states senate since the days of mccain-feingold. and senator murkowski says it best when she says what she wants with respect to the political debate in this country. she wants the even steven rule. she wants to make sure that the same principles that apply to the n.r.a. apply to the sierra club. that we're ensuring that all americans in the course of the important political debates are treated fairly, and we both believe that shining a light on the dark money that pulses through the american political system is not going to inhibit free speech. to the contrary, it's going to enhance the public's right to know about who is behind the political ads that bombard them during the political season without accountability or

transparency. and i agree with justice scalia when he said, and i quote, you are requiring people to stand up in public for their political act fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. so madam chair, for these two reasons, first the finance committee is the committee of jurisdiction that ought to have the opportunity to address these questions, and i want to assure my friend from arizona who i have worked with many, many times on issues that having just become the chair, i intend to work very expeditiously on this matter, particularly with senator hatch, and i would also like to point out to colleagues on the floor there is a bipartisan opportunity in the days ahead to address many of these issues, and it is embodied very eloquently by senator murkowski who says if we're going to be serious about promoting the widest possible debate in this country and treating everyone fairly, we do it in accord with that even

steven principle, and for those reasons, madam chair, i would object at this time to the unanimous consent request, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. flake: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: if i could, i'd like to just respond to a few of these items. the gentleman is correct. this correctly falls under the finance committee's jurisdiction. that's part of the reason why i am bringing this forward. the finance committee is undergoing an investigation. it is not yet complete. so i think it would be prudent to forestall the implementation of new rules at the i.r.s. while the finance committee is still having its investigation going on. i think that we all agree that we shouldn't move forward on imprecise or incomplete information. that's why i am saying we are not proposing a new rule. simply delay a new rule until

investigations can be completed. with regard to the issue of fairness, i should note this applies to 501-c-4 organizations, nonprofit organizations. there are also other organizations that are nonprofit but are not included in this proposed rule making. for example, labor unions. they operate under a nonprofit status as well, i think 501-c-5. they are not included here. and so the gentleman correctly says that we should be concerned about fairness for all groups that are under this kind of nonprofit umbrella, and that's concerning to a lot of people as well, because those organized under 5'01"-c-4 status are targeted here when those organized under 501-c-5 status are not. so we would be imposing new rule making and new rules on some organizations and not others. and so that's one concern and another reason to -- to forestall new rule making until we have more complete information about what's going

on at the i.r.s. and with that, i would yield back and thank the president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president, i note the -- i see senator murray. i was going to note the absence of a quorum, but my colleague from washington. mrs. murray: if the senator could withhold. madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i just wanted to come to the floor this afternoon to take some time to talk about a law that this chamber passed back in 2009, and i'd like to talk a little bit about what it means to serve in this body and what our responsibilities are and why our constituents sent us here in the first place. i have now served here in the senate for more than 20 years, and i have seen my share of controversial legislation. i have seen democratic bills that republicans couldn't stand and i have seen republican bills that democrats would never vote for and i have seen bills that

pretty much everybody boofd, but what i have seen in the last four years since the affordable care act was passed by congress and signed by the president is something new altogether. since the day that law passed, i have seen some of my republican colleagues set reason and some of their basic duties as public officials completely aside, all in opposition of a law that does mean millions of americans have access to affordable, quality health insurance that they couldn't get before. it's a law that means millions of young people, many of them fresh out of college are able to stay on their family's insurance plans. it's a law that says it is illegal for insurance companies to charge you more money just because you're a woman. it's a law that has provided millions of americans with access to free preventative screenings and health care like

colonoscopies, mammograms and flu shots. and it's a law that says if you're an american and you have a preexisting condition, it is illegal for an insurance company to turn you away. well, since 2009, i have seen some of my colleagues simply refuse to acknowledge those facts about the law, and i have watched them time and time again not listen to or hear stories of people in their own states whose lives have been changed by the affordable care act and others who just simply need access to get the benefits that are theirs. some of my colleagues have even passed laws that make it harder to get covered under the affordable care act. you know, madam president, one of our responsibilities as senators, as public servants, is to help our constituents access the federal benefits that are available to them, particularly when it comes to health care. that might mean perhaps putting someone in touch of a navigator

to help make sure they are getting the most affordable health insurance plan. it may be helping them become aware of an enrollment event in their state where they can learn how to get covered. but our -- our responsibilities don't end there. we also have to have an open, honest discussion about what the affordable health care act means for our constituents and talk about ways to improve it. instead, what we have seen is some of our colleagues who have spent the better part of four years trying to turn this law into a boogeyman and trying to score cheap political points on an issue, madam president, that can literally mean the difference between life and death. i can understand why some of our colleagues disagree with parts of this law, and i have heard from some people who have had challenges honestly, and we have to look and say can we fix this in a way that works -- makes it work better for you, but what i can't understand is why anyone elected to congress would decide

to simply ignore real-life stories of their own constituents whose lives were changed the day this law took effect. i can't understand why anyone would ignore an opportunity to make this law better because, madam president, that's not why we were sent here. we were sent here to listen to our constituents and fight to make sure our laws work for them. so, madam president, i just wanted to give today an -- some examples from my home state of washington about people whose lives have been changed by the affect health care act, people whose stories have been pretty much ignored here in washington, d.c., and i know that later this afternoon several of my colleagues are going to be doing the same thing. so i hope that everybody can turn off the fox news for a little while and not listen to rush limbaugh and really listen to some real stories of real-life americans who have been impacted by this law, and i encourage them to go home and listen to some of the men and women in their own states because the stories i'm going to

share are not unique. i'll start with the story of susan wellman. she lives in bellingham, washington. she is self-employed. she has had to pay for individual insurance every year she has watched her health care costs rise higher and higher and higher. it got to the point where she was paying $300 monthly premiums with an $8,000 deductible all for what she described as a, as paying for nothing. so as soon as she could, susan got access to health care through our washington state exchange and was so happy to have that chance. she spoke on the phone with a real-live puerto person and shes able to sign up for an affordable plan in a few minutes. now susan is on a plan that costs her $125 a month instead of $300. 125 instead of 300. and it has a plan that has a $2,000 deductible, not an $8,000

deductible. and she says it actually pays for things. guess what? she can now afford to go to a doctor not just in the case of an emergency but for a physical or a mammogram that could save her life, not to mention thousands and thousands of dollars in health care costs. that kind of preventive care is good for susan and it's good for her family. and it's good for this country because when more people have access to preventive care, it makes health care cheaper for every single one of us. another person i've heard from whose life was changed by the affordable care act is a man named don davis. he is 59 years old and he actually goes by reverend don. he's a pastor in seattle and he's also a volunteer at the boys and girls club. as the pastor of his church he doesn't get any health care through his job. he doesn't even have a salary. that meant for a long time that reverend don didn't have health insurance. so when he was hospitalized back

in 2008 for severe headaches, he was only able to receive an m.r.i. through charity care. madam president, that m.r.i. showed that reverend don had several brain tumors. but when the doctors wanted to do some more testing and provide more care, he didn't have the insurance to pay for that. this is a man who asked for nothing in life, and he woke up every day willing to give to others, but he couldn't get the basic care he needed when he got sick. reverend don is healthy today. he's serving his community, and because of the affordable care act, he also has health insurance now. he signed up with a navigator at the local ywca, and now if he gets a headache he can afford to go to the doctor. madam president, because of the affordable care act, reverend don can afford to dedicate his life to people in the community and he doesn't need to worry that the cost of health care that he needs might be denied

him. finally, madam president, i want to talk about a couple in belling ham washington named rod burton and sarah hill. rod is one of millions of americans who have had an utterly maddening experience of being denied insurance because of a preexisting condition. and in rod's case, his preexisting condition was a congenital heart defect. under our old system, rod was deemed uninsurable by most insurance plans from the moment he was born. so, madam president, for a long time rod found himself forced into purely catastrophic insurance with a very high premium that wouldn't cover much of anything. that changed for him with the affordable care act. despite his heart defect, rod was able to get a plan that covers him and his wife, and they found out they were eligible for tax credits to help pay for it. so today both rod and sarah are

covered through a silver plan with lower premiums than the plan that only covered rod if the worst happened. madam president, i'm going to yield the floor now. i know we have a number of other colleagues who are here to speak, and i know some of them are here to tell stories from their own states. but i'd like to note today that i only told three stories of people who are benefiting from the affordable care act. these are only three people among the 400,000 others in my home state of washington who have now signed up for care to the exchange, washington health plan finder. and there are only three people among the four million people that have signed up across the country. and for the most part their stories are not unique. millions of other americans face the same kind of health care problems that they do. it is time that we stop ignoring that reality. it's time that we do our jobs and help our constituents get

the health care coverage that they deserve and can now get under this law. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i understand senator schumer wants to speak in a little while. i'll hurry my remarks as quick as i can. i rise today to speak once again on the proposed i.r.s. regulations targeting grass rights 501c-4 organizations. i've already come to the floor to discuss this issue and i expect i'll be here several more times in the coming months as these proposed rules continue to move through the regulatory pipeline at the i.r.s.. the public comment period for these proposed regulations ends today. as of this morning the i.r.s. received over 100,000 comments on this proposal. the vast majority of them negative. this is an all-time record, madam president. in fact, the number is more than

five times greater than the previous record for comments on a proposed i.r.s. regulation. by contrast, the keystone pipeline, another item of enormous public interest, received just over 7,000 comments. with all this public attention the obvious question is why? why is this proposal generated so much criticism from the american people? i think the answer is quite simple. the american people see this proposal for what it is, an attempt to silence this administration's critics and keep them on the sidelines of the democratic process. i'd like to take a few minutes to describe in detail just what this regulation does. under the internal revenue code a 501c-4 organization is a nonprofit organization, the exempt purpose of which is the -- quote -- "promotion of social welfare." the phrase promotion of social welfare has long been defined as -- quote -- "promoting in some way the common good of general welfare of the people and the community" or -- quote -- "bringing about civic

betterments and social improvements." such organizations may engage in political activity for or against candidates for public office so long as their primary activity falls under the category of promoting social welfare. under current regulations, activities such as voter registration or get out the vote drives are correctsly treated as promoting social welfare just like the distribution of voter guidelines outlining candidates' positions on issues that are, in the view of the organization, important to the public. the proposed regulations would recategorize these types of candidate-neutral activities as not consistent with the exempt purpose of promoting social welfare. this is important because over the past few days in an effort to justify these regulations, the administration has communicated to members of congress that it is not banning these types of activities. they're just putting them in different categories. lost in their justifications are important distinctions.

it's easy to get lost in the weeds which is probably what the administration is hoping for, so let's break this down. traditionally speaking, in order to keep their tax-exempt 501-c-4 organizations have had to limit their involvement in, quote, unquote, political activities to around 49% or less of their overall activities. in other words, they can be directly involved in the political process so long as the majority of their activities are devoted to social welfare. what this proposed regulation would do is redefine the parameters of what is considered political activity. moving a number of activities from the social welfare category to the political category. like i said, under this regulation, simply stating where candidates stand on issues important to a specific 501-c-4 organization would be considered political activity. in fact, even mentioning a candidate's name in a communication within a specified period before an election, even

if the communication does not say whether the organization supports or opposes the candidate would be considered political activity. as i mentioned, the same can be said for voter registration drives or get out the vote initiatives even if the efforts are obviously and legitimately nonpartisan. basically this proposed regulation would instantly categorize so much run-of-the mill behavior as partisan political activity that many eufgt k35 01-c-4 grass roots organizations would have to stop promoting their causes altogether. that, madam president, is precisely what the administration wants. they don't want 501-c-4's educating the public on the issues of the day or telling voters where a candidate stands on political issues. sure, they're fine with these groups promoting social welfare so long as that proegs does not -- promotion does not include critics of the administrator or policies harmful to the general welfare of their communities. it would be one thing if the i.r.s. was an agency with clean

hands when it came to dealing with critics of this administration. but as we've seen, madam president, that is simply not the case. indeed, over the last few years we've seen a record of harassment and intimidation of conservative groups applying to the i.r.s. for tax-exempt status. the agency is under investigation in three separate congressional committees for its actions in the run-up to the 2010 and 2012 elections. put simply, the credibility and the political independence of the i.r.s. are very much in question. a reasonable person would think that rather than further damaging the i.r.s.'s reputation, the administration would instead focus on rebuilding it in the aftermath of the targeting scandal. sadly, there doesn't appear to be too many reasonable people working in the obama administration, at least not when it comes to this set of issues. we need to call this what it is. an affront to free speech and

the right of all american citizens to participate in the democratic process. this is an attempt by the administration to marginalize its critics and silence them altogether. republicans have been very vocal in our opposition to this proposed regulation. we have spoken on a variety of venues, but make no mistake, madam president, it is not just republicans and conservatives that oppose this new rule. a number of left-leaning organizations have spoken out against it as well. the aclu, for example, submitted a scathing comment letter to the i.r.s. arguing that the proposed he regulation would -- quote -- "produce the same structural issues at the i.r.s. that led to the use of inappropriate criteria in the selection of various charitable and social welfare groups for unfair scrutiny." the aclu argued further that social welfare groups should be free to participate in the political process because that kind of participation -- quote

-- "is at the heart of our representative democracy, and to the extent it influences voters, it does so by promoting an informed citizenry." we've seen similar comments from groups like the sierra club. leaders of labor unions have weighed in about the overly broad nature of the proposed regulation. put simply, madam president, when you have a proposal that is drawing unanimous opposition from republicans in congress and is being criticized by the aclu and big labor, there's a pretty decent chance that it is not good policy. quite frankly, that characterization is probably too charitable for this particular proposal. this proposed regulation needs to be stopped in its tracks, madam president. yesterday the house of representatives passed legislation that would do just that. if enacted, the house bill would delay the implementation of the proposal for a year. i am an original cosponsor of

the senate companion bill to this legislation which was introduced by senators flake and roberts. sadly, i think i know where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand on this issue, and i expect that those of us here in the senate that support the right of all americans to participate in the political process are likely to be disappointed with regard to this particular legislative effort. still, even if this legislation dies here in the senate -- and i hope it does -- that's not the end of the line. earlier this month when i came to the floor to talk about this issue, i called on i.r.s. commissioner kofbg tphepb to use his authority to block these regulations. i expect him to do so. when questioned about this proposal he has consistently deferred usually saying he was not the commissioner when it was drafted and published. fine. but he's the commissioner now. however, now that he is the commissioner, he is in a position to stop the proposed

regulation from going final and acquiring the force of law. this proposal cannot take effect unless commissioner koskinen personally approves and signs the final regulation clearance package. that being the case, i call on him today to do the right thing and not sign it when it reaches his desk. in fact, he ought to decry it for what it is. in an ideal world, the administration would simply withdraw this proposal and leave this issue alone. however, we're not living in such a world. that being the case, if the administration continues its effort to push through this proposed rule, the i.r.s. commissioner can and should use his authority to stop it from taking effect. after all, that is one reason why congress gives the i.r.s. commissioner a five-year term. the commissioner is supposed to be above and free from political pressure when making decisions and implementing our nation's tax laws. in light of that fact, i want to

implore commissioner koskinen to use the power granted to restore the i.r.s.'s credibility and make it clear to the american people that his agency, the i.r.s., will no longer be used as simply another political arm of this or any future administration. i hope he'll do that madam president, because it is the rate thing to do, and i'm calling on him to do it. i have faith in commissioner koskinen. i believe he is an honest man. i don't think he has any other choice than to stop these object noxious regulations that people from the left to the right consider to be breaches of free speech and wrong. i yield the floor. and, in fact, i'll suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: would the senator withhold? mr. hatch: i apologize to my colleague for taking -- mr. schumer: i realize i'm not much of an absence of a quorum. but i am. anyway, i ask unanimous consent

that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: wowcts u the senator from new york. mr. schumer: over the next several months the affordable care act in my opinion at least is going to become less important as a republican campaign issue because more and more americans from young adults all the way through seniors are going to realize the benefits it has to offer. it's happening already. every day there are more positive stories about people getting cheaper coverage, better coverage, or getting cofd coverr the first time. and the let me say, in my state of new york, the initial rollout of a.c.a. has been a big success. we didn't have the problems of a web site because we did our own, and because we have a lot of competition, as was intended on the exchanges, people are getting very, very good offers, and a large, large number of people are getting their costs reduced. i'd like to tell one little story. a friend of mine goes to a

hairdresser in a conservative neighborhood of new york, and the people who owns the beauty shop is very conservative and when the a.c.a. first rolled out, she was really upset. she said, look, i looked at a web site. it is going to cost -- i am a he a nice person. i pay for health care for my eight employees. it is going to cost me hundreds of dollars for each employee. i don't even know if i can afford it for us to stay in business. well, that person talked to awful her friends. i think she blogged ond her web site and talked all about it. i spoke to my friend a few weeks ago. guess what? this very same person actually got health care on that new york web site that reduced the cost of health care for employees by a couple of hundred dollars each. she was really happy and of course i asked my friend to make

sure she puts that on her web site and tells all of her conservative friends about that. but that story is going to be repeated easer an over and over. there are going to be millions of seniors who realize they can get a free checkup and keep their health good. there are going to be millions of young people who realize they can continue their health insurance and stay on their parents' health insurance from age 21 to 26. millions of people are going to find out that when they either, god forbid, someone in their family has a preexisting condition or someone in a family they know, that they can get that health care. and millions of millions of businesses are going to see that the costs of health care are actually going up at a much smaller rate than they used to. so all these good things will start mounting, and the positives about a.c.a. will grow in the public's mind, and eventually, i believe, it will catch up here in the senate and the house.

and then something else will happen, too, madam president. and that is this: lots of people who are really not affected directly by a.c.a. have had fear put into their souls. they listened to the right-wing talk radio, and they hear, oh, they may lose all their health care or their costs will go way up. well, what they're find is it's not happening. now, i met a firefighter -- he is a firefighter who works for new york city, not a volunteer firefighter -- a few months ago, and he said, i know this obamacare is going to kill me. it's going to make -- greatly reduce the health care i'm getting as a new york city fire fiemple--firefighter. they get really good health care. they should. they're risking their liberias for us. he said, it's going to happen, i hear, in the new year, january 1, 2014. well, i saw the firefighter a few weeks ago, and that firefighter said to me, hey, i

still have my health care, nothing changed. well, of course nothing changed. all the horror stories that had been launched by so many on the right-wing talk radio and those who just hate obamacare, whether it works or not, are starting to fade. so we're seeing two things happen at once: we're seeing the positives increase and the negatives decrease. and we're seeing it particular will youly with senior citizens. -- particularly with senior citizens. our senior citizens, because the doughnut hole is filled, millions and millions of them are spending much less on prescription drugs than they had to. it's a huge benefit to them. since a.c.a. was enacted, more thank 7 million seniors and people with disabilities have saved, listen to this, $9 billion. that's a huge amount of money. and to seniors, many of whom are

on fixed incomes, that is dramatic savings for them. well, something else is happening to our seniors. they're getting free checkups. that does two things. first, it saves some money out of their own pockets. but, second, it reduces our health care costs, because we all know an ounce of prevention is worth a pound -- i think a pound of cure. if i have my denominations of weight correct. and -- so i do, i am told by my colleagues from massachusetts and connecticut. and checkups -- free checkups are just that prevention we need. it will not only save the seniors but save our system billions and billions and billions of dollars in the years and decades to come. somebody who finds a growths on their skin and gets it removed before it becomes cancerous,

somebody who might get a colonoscopy or a mammogram or a prostate exam and is saved from prostate cancer -- all of that is going to happen. all that is going to happen. so the bottom line here is very simple. and that is that people are learning the positives of a.c.a. the web site is being improved, more people are signing up, my state of new york alone, more than 200,005,00050,000 people. that was the first months through november 20136789 the benefits are all over the place. one other thing i'd saivment that's not our subject of the week. but i think we'd have to keep mentioning it.

we are reduce ug the budget deficit through the a.c. avment i know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are very, very careful about budget deficits. good. they should be. well, health care costs are declining and declining significantly. some of that is due to the recession, but almost every expert says much of that is due to the a.c.a. national health care expenditures, for instance, in 2012 grew by 3.7%, meaning that the growth from 2009 to 2012 was the slowest since government collected information. and that was in the 1960's. the percentage of health care spending for the first time -- the percentage of g.d.p. -- actually shrunk from 17.3% to 17 230eu%. at the same time, solvency of medicare health insurance fund

increased and costs declined. so this is great news. bottom line, i know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think they've hit political gold had they attack the a.c.a. and call for its repeal. but the american people don't want repeal and, secondly, as we move on in time, the positives of a.c.a. will become more apparent, the negatives that people perceive of a.c.a. will decline, and i believe by november this issue will not be the political gold mine that our colleagues think it is. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. and thank you, senator schumer, my colleague from new york, for your great leadership on this issue and your strong words. i am fleeced join with my colleagues today -- i'm pleased to join with my colleagues today on the floor to speak about the positive impact of the

affordable care act and the impact it's having on our nation's health and particularly the health of our seniors. we've all heard about the benefits of the affordable care act in terms of increasing coverage. over 4 million people -- 4 million people -- have already signed up for the affordable private health insurance through the state and federal exchanges. millions more have signed up for medicaid coverage, and millions more young people are now able to stay on their parents' insurance policies until they're 26, and the numbers are growing. but as important as these figures are, the affordable care act isn't just about expanding coverage for the uninsured. it's also about improving the quality of care and the quality of coverage for all americans, including our seniors. seniors in this country rely on the medicare program, and they

should rely on the medicare program, because medicare respects a promise that we made as a country to ensure that people who contribute to the program during their working years will have their health care needs taken care of after the age of 65. we have a duty to keep that promise, and we need to build on that promise. to keep the promise of medicare, we have to make sure that the program stays afloat. the affordabilit affordable cars this which improving the quality of care, by coordinating cairks and by better delivery under medicare so that we reduce waste in the program and we use medicare dollars in a way that improves health outcomes for our seniors. you know, the republicans have a very different approach to medicare solvency. they want to reduce benefits, they want to increase premiums

and co-pays so it's harder for seniors to afford to go to a doctor, and they even want to end medicare's guaranteed benefits entirely by turning it into a voucher system. think about that. lower benefits, charge more, and end medicare as we know it. these approaches are wrong. they do not reflect our values, and they also don't reflect good policy because cutting medicare benefits won't stop seniors from having heart attacks, it won't stop people -- seniors from getting sick; it'll just push them into emergency rooms and the private insurance system, which is more expensive and less efficient than medicare or, worse, it will prevent them entirely from getting the medical care that they need. fortunately, the republican vision is not the law of the land.

the affordable care act is the law of the land, and it is already showing progress in improving the solvency of medicare and the quality of care for our seniors. now, we can already see how the accountable care organizations created under the affordable care act is saving money. the pioneer accountable care organizations, five of which are now operating massachusetts, have already saved medicare nearly $147 million while continuing to deliver high-quality care. new standards for hospital reimbursements have reduced the number of people who need to be readmitted, meaning that for seniors, 130,000 fewer medicare beneficiaries had to check back into a hospital last year. thanks to these and other

changes, the medicare trust fund will be solvent for nearly 10 years longer than was projected before we passed the affordable care act. the results are clear: when it comes to our seniors, the affordable care act is saving money and saving lives. but the affordable care act does more. it builds on the promise of medicare by improving prevention coverage and reducing actual out-of-pockets for our seniors. last year over 70% of seniors -- that's 25.4 million people in medicare -- visited their doctor and received a preventive service, like a critical colonoscopy or a lifesaving mammogram. they received it for free -- for free -- because of the affordable care act.

and despite high drug prices, the average senior in america saved an average of $1,200 on their prescription drugs in 12 3 because of the affordable care act, closing the doughnut hole in medicare part-d prescription drug coverage. the affordable care act has made these changes, reducing the costs for seniors, expanding benefits and reducing wasteful spending in medicare. at the same time that we have improved the solvency of medicare. so when i hear republicans talk about repealing the affordable care act, i wonder what alternative universe they are living in, because in this real world, there should be no confusion about what repealing the affordable care