Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it is said that information is the most valuable commodity. In politics you probably know that information is power. The bigger government gets, the more valuable government information becomes to financial markets. This is especially true of information from agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is that agency that my remarks are about. CMS controls $748 billion in government spending per year. That is billions with a B. Today, there are questions surrounding CMS's ability to safeguard nonpublic information. This is not about secrecy in government, it is about government secrets having an impact on the stock market. This is not the first time I have raised similar questions with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In 2011 I received information from a whistleblower that CMS employees were spending large amounts of time in meetings with Wall Street executives. I wrote to CMS with these concerns. The response I received was very troubling. CMS could not tell us how many meetings were taking place with these Wall Street executives. CMS could not tell us who from Wall Street was in these meetings. CMS could not tell us how much time they spent with these executives. In fact, the only thing CMS could tell us was that it did not track any of this information. Private businesses have stiff controls over access to nonpublic information, the same sort of stiff controls the Federal Government ought to employ for things that would impact the market and give somebody an extraordinary opportunity the average citizen does not have. The only specific step that CMS took was issuing a two-page memo to its employees. This goes back to that period of time I was asking the questions in 2011. The memo limited the release of market-moving information before the close of the stock markets. Now, that is the right thing to do. That memo presumably was not followed by somebody. Who, we do not know because on April 1, that requirement appears to have been violated. According to the Wall Street Journal, at 3:42 p.m., Height Securities, a political intelligence broker, issued an advisory note to its employees. This note said--it is right here in the chart: ``We now believe that a deal has been hatched to protect Medicare Advantage rates'' from the minus 2.3 rate update issued in the advanced notice mid-February. This note goes on to suggest that clients purchase related stocks such as Humana. Between 3:42 p.m. and the market close, and that was just 18 minutes later, volumes for affected companies spiked--look here--spiked in the last 18 minutes to more than $\1/2\ billion. In fact, the combined volume of shares traded for those companies for those 18 minutes was higher than the rest of the entire trading day. Not only did large numbers of shares change hands, but also buyers who got the information first likely made a heck of a lot of money. For example, Humana stock rose 8.6 percent in a matter of minutes. Of course, this looks like political intelligence at work--political intelligence meaning the industry of political intelligence at work. A political intelligence broker gets ahold of nonpublic government information before it is widely released, and a select few paying clients end up reaping the rewards. We just had a study out by the Government Accountability Office studying the political intelligence community. The Government Accountability Office reports that the world of political intelligence is murky. In other words, people are using government. They are profiting from it. But nobody knows who they are. The public and Congress have little insight into how government information is collected. Collecting is one thing, but it is sold. People who collect it make money, and in the instances you see here, when that gets out people in the know make money. So who pays for that information? We all know since 1946 lobbyists have had to register, and in more recent legislation have had to disclose their clients, what they lobby on, and how much they get paid. Even campaign donors have to report what they give to various campaigns. Political intelligence brokers are exempt from any transparency. Yet you see they are around gathering information that should not be out to the public until after the market closes. They are benefiting from it and a lot of other people benefit from it. Now, because there is no transparency about the political intelligence community, we have to find out what caused this to happen. Did the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services employees leak this information? Was there a leak from another government source? Either way we need answers to these questions. Tomorrow is Acting Administrator Tavenner's confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee. This acting director is a very qualified person. I think she will be able to answer our questions--at least I hope so. So I want her to know, and the Senate to know, that I plan on asking Ms. Tavenner several questions: How did this information get from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to a political intelligence broker? What steps will CMS take to ensure this does not happen again? And was the memo they sent violated? I hope she recognizes the importance of these questions. I hope she comes prepared to take responsibility. I hope she comes prepared to explain how she plans to hold someone accountable because in this town, if heads do not roll, nothing changes. She has been a good Acting Administrator of this agency. She wants the Senate to confirm her to the job. This is her opportunity to show us that she is worthy of that confirmation. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think I can yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 156. I am offering this amendment to the majority budget to ensure that tax reform is revenue neutral and the money available to do tax reform is not used for spending, as the underlying resolution proposes. I am pleased to be joined in offering this amendment by a number of my colleagues: Senator Enzi, Leader McConnell, Senator Cornyn, the finance ranking member Senator Hatch, as well as Senators Burr, Roberts, Portman, Isakson, Thune, Coats, and Rubio. In order to ensure tax reform does not become a tax-raising exercise, this amendment eliminates the nearly $1 trillion in new revenue and the reconciliation instructions called for in the majority's budget. It further creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for progrowth, revenue- neutral tax reform. The budget reconciles the Finance Committee to come up with nearly $1 trillion in revenue. I spoke last night how difficult that is to do unless you want to tax middle-income Americans. This reconciliation instruction, in addition to raising a lot of money to spend more, dashes the hopes that the Finance Committee can take a bipartisan approach to tax reform. First, it puts in place an arbitrary deadline that requires the Finance Committee to produce a bill by October 1 of this year. Tax reform will be a long and difficult process. Hopefully it will not take 3 years to produce it, as it did in 1986, the last major tax reform we had, but discussions about tax reform should not be cut short to meet an arbitrary deadline. The Finance Committee needs to be allowed to do its work. Second, reconciliation is not a suitable way to produce tax reform that simplifies the Tax Code. This is because it prohibits any changes to the Tax Code that score as adding anything to the deficit. This requirement is incompatible with the goal of simplifying the Code, making it easier to administer. Chairman Baucus has voiced similar concerns, which is why he has concerns about including a reconciliation instruction in the budget. While the budget does not call explicitly for tax reform to be a part of the reconciliation process, it has that effect by requiring the Finance Committee to come up with nearly $1 trillion in ``savings . . . by eliminating loopholes and cutting unfair and inefficient spending in the Tax Code.'' If such large amounts of low-hanging fruit exist in the Tax Code, you would have thought that either Chairman Baucus or I, during the period of time I was finance chairman, would have gone after some of these along with the billions of dollars of loopholes that we have worked to close already. The truth is that the majority's definition of a loophole is so broad as to be void of any real meaning, and their idea of spending in the Tax Code is popular deductions widely used by middle-class Americans such as tax deductions, mortgage interest, charitable giving, State tax deductions, and in order to raise the revenue they want to, you have to go to those areas. When you do that, you end up taxing middle-class America. Also, referring to these tax increases as savings or as eliminating loopholes or spending in the Tax Code does not change the fact that to raise nearly $1 trillion, the middle class will see higher tax bills. The budget of course does not only assume nearly a $1 trillion in tax increases, additional reserve funds in the budget assume another $500 billion in tax hikes to pay for more spending. The underlying premise in this budget is that the Federal taxes are too low to support much-needed Federal spending. The budget resolution has this completely backwards because until we get spending under control, we will never be able to raise enough revenue that will suffice to satisfy the spending appetite that some in Congress have. Yesterday I had charts--I have a different one today--that lists the last five times we had a balanced budget. The last five times were the years 1969 and 1998 through the year 2001--5 years in the last 43 years. As you can see, in each of these years, spending as a percent of GDP was significantly lower than 20 percent--significantly lower than 20 percent. This line represents the spending level of these years, right here, the years when we balanced the budget. Over the next 10 years as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, under current law spending will average 22.1 percent of gross national product as CBO estimates it under current law. Actually the budget resolution would be higher than that 22 percent. Lower on the chart I have another dotted line which represents projected revenue, right here, about 18.9 percent. That is over the next 10 years. As this chart shows, these revenues are more than enough to bring our budget into balance simply if we return to the spending levels of the late 1990s and 2000. The larger gap where spending was and where spending is projected to be is where our problem is. In between here and here is where the problem is. Congress has exhibited an appetite in the last few years to go hog wild on spending compared to the average of the last 50 years of about 20 percent. We all know there is clutter in the Tax Code. There has been a proliferation of tax preferences that should be reexamined. However, they should be reexamined in the context of enacting progrowth tax reform, not as a means to finance higher government spending. The goal of tax reform is to simplify the Tax Code and make it more efficient. The ultimate goal is economic growth, but true tax reform should be revenue neutral. It should not act as a way to increase taxes. Revenue raised by eliminating tax preferences should be used to lower marginal tax rates because that is where you get economic growth, you encourage entrepreneurship, and that is how you create jobs. The assumption in the budget that business and corporate loopholes are available for revenue reduction is particularly puzzling. We currently have the highest tax rate among our major trading partners. The President has even recognized the competitive disadvantage this puts us in. That is why he has called for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent down to 28 percent. That is the President of the United States who wants to do that. At a recent hearing before the Budget Committee on tax expenditures, the Democrats' only witness, Professor Edward Kleinbard, similarly recognized the need to use revenue from eliminating business tax preferences to lower rates. It was his view that the corporate rate should be reduced to the mid-20s by eliminating corporate tax expenditures. I want to stress this was the opinion of the majority's witness. Raising revenues by closing so-called loopholes or reducing tax expenditures is a tax increase. Unless it is used to offset true tax reform, it is a tax increase that will support more spending, and that is the purpose of it, according to the budget resolution. Tax reform, then, should be revenue neutral and my amendment would ensure that any reduction in tax preferences is used to lower tax rates. In other words, tax reform and not finance more spending. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this amendment strikes a $975 billion tax increase. This amendment in turn sets up a deficit-neutral reserve fund that will allow the Finance Committee to reform corporate and individual taxes in a revenue-neutral way. The President got his $612 billion tax increase January 1. We should not raise taxes another $1 trillion with unemployment at 7.7 percent. We should not close loopholes for more spending. We won't grow the economy by raising taxes by $1 trillion as the majority wants to do. We will grow the economy with more efficient progrowth tax reform. My amendment is progrowth, pro-small business, and pro-jobs. The Democrats' budget taxes the middle class to spend more. It is balanced and fair because they have finally come to the conclusion they cannot raise taxes just on the wealthy; they have to raise it on the middle class.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at an appropriate time I will ask for some consideration of an amendment of mine, amendment No. 6. My amendment would hold the Obama administration accountable for its recent decision to release more than 2,000 undocumented immigrants from detention centers across the country in the past month. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed they were releasing these people because they needed to reduce their average daily detention population of about 34,000 people--a congressionally mandated requirement. They claimed they had to reduce the detention population for budgetary reasons. Week after week, agents were tasked to release so many individuals. At first the Department of Homeland Security claimed it only released a few hundred people. However, last week the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement admitted that the administration had misled the American people by confessing that over 2,200 aliens were actually released. They continue to stand by the excuse that budget cuts were the reason for releasing these individuals. Simply blaming budget reduction as a means to turn a blind eye toward the national security of the American people is a very dangerous plan and one that calls into question the Department's preparation for sequestration, particularly when we consider that months before sequestration the Office of Management and Budget put out an order to all departments that national security, law enforcement, and safety and health should be a top priority. So if keeping criminals off the streets of the United States shouldn't be a top priority--as per the order from the Office of Management and Budget--I don't know what should be. So I want an accounting for it, and that is what my amendment does--requests a simple accounting for why they were released and what it was all about. What is even more disturbing is the fact that the Department had billions of unobligated funds from the past 2 years that could have been put into protecting the American people. On February 27 I sent a request to Secretary Napolitano questioning the decisions of the Department. The letter, cosigned by Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, was an attempt to better understand--just a simple understanding--how the Department will better confront sequestration and reduce operational challenges that could affect the life, safety, and health of the American people--the same life, health, and safety of the American people evidenced by this very administration's directive going out from the Office of Management and Budget of the priorities that ought to be established during sequestration. Now, you know what. So often what we find from this administration-- and have even found in previous Republican administrations--is that letters that are embarrassing go unanswered. Unfortunately, this is not unusual. About a dozen of my letters to the Secretary of Homeland Security on just the immigration issue have gone unanswered. There is no respect for congressional oversight. It is very frustrating. We are on the cusp of undertaking a massive reform of our immigration system. Yet getting answers to the most basic questions seems to be an impossible operation. Time and again, we have seen this administration refuse to be held accountable, and what we want is just information. It is not as though we are saying that what the administration has done-- even if we disagree with it--can't be done or shouldn't be done. But shouldn't the people know about who is being turned out in the streets when they have been held in confinement for a long period of time? I fear what will become of the President's promise of transparency if and when we do pass an immigration bill. And this is an example of things to fear in the future. Enacting a bill is one part of the process, and implementing the law is another part of the process. If we don't have faith in this administration now, what about trust for the future? So my amendment would require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to submit weekly reports--just submit reports--to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary. The reports will be required to contain detailed budgets on how ICE will maintain the 34,000 detention bed occupancy levels authorized by Congress. It also requires ICE to provide the number of aliens released from detention as well as the following information on aliens released for budget-related purposes: the conviction or charge for which they were detained, fugitive status, existence of a prior deportation order, and the terms of release. My amendment happens to be cosponsored by Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Boozman, Roberts, Coats, McConnell, and Collins. Within the last few days, we have had the Director of ICE, Mr. Morton, testify--well, it was just yesterday in the House. Chairman Goodlatte said his testimony raised more questions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a press release that expresses the testimony of Director Morton.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last week Mr. Morton said they released 10 level 1 offenders. These are people convicted of violent crimes. They are repeat drunk drivers, as an example. Yesterday he said they only released eight, but he also said they were trying to relocate them and bring them back in. Well, if you have these dangerous people out on the streets, the public ought to know about it. So I suspect that when I ask unanimous consent now, the other side will object to my amendment. And I don't know why they want to go to such lengths to protect this administration when all we want is simple information--just simple information. We aren't saying that the decisions made--even though we disagree with them--ought to be changed. We are just saying that the public ought to know when we put violent people out on the streets, and when we put people out on the streets who shouldn't be out on the streets, we ought to know where they are, why they were put out there, and what it is all about. I think the objection to allowing this amendment to have a vote--as I presume it will be objected to--is indefensible, but at this point I call up for consideration my amendment No. 76, and I ask for just 10 minutes of debate and a vote on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I say to Senator Sessions, the distinguished ranking member, I am going to try to show him and other Members of the Senate that the numbers that they think they can raise revenue from, to $1 trillion, are not going to work. We can take different taxes and add them up and up and it will come out to $1 trillion. But I am going to show him, based upon votes that have been taken on the other side of the aisle, that it is not politically possible for them to do it unless they are willing to vote differently than they have ever voted before because they have to take on some of the most popular tax credits that are in the Tax Code. That is what I am going to do in the few minutes the Senator has devoted to me. MR. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator and ask him to take as much time as he chooses. But I note, as ranking member on the Finance Committee and having been on it and having dealt with these issues for many years, the Senator knows what the political situation is and he has the staff to help him ascertain the correct numbers. I think this will be an important bit of information to share with us, and I look forward to it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the 10 years that I was chairman or ranking member of the Finance Committee, I worked with several Budget Committee chairmen. They were Senator Domenici, Senator Nickles, Senator Gregg, Senator Conrad. We did not always agree on every issue, but by and large there was coordination between the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee. Basically, I had past chairmen, Republican or Democratic, come to me and say: Tell us what you can do or not do within the Finance Committee so we do not give you an impossible task when a budget resolution is adopted by the Senate. It worked very well because they respected the institutionalized knowledge within the staff of the Senate Finance Committee, both Republican and Democratic staffs, as well as the more important institutionalized information that comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation. As I said, we did not always agree on every issue, but by and large there was that coordination. Unfortunately, the coordination receded somewhat, starting somewhat in the year 2007. Since 2010, we fell into this 4-year pattern of not even having a budget debate in the Senate, even though the law requires that the Senate adopt a budget every year. Finally, getting back to abiding by the law--coordination provided the means then between the budget and Finance Committee that allowed the Finance Committee to realistically address the demands of the tax, trade, health and welfare policies that were intended by a budget resolution. This usually happened in a bipartisan way, but this year is different. This budget resolution does not realistically address the needs or the capabilities of the Finance Committee. By capabilities, I don't mean it is not there to get it done and people are willing to do it, but the possibility of doing it is very remote based upon the unrealistic assumptions in this document. Despite claims to the contrary, this budget is not balanced unless one believes balance is more of the same fiscal behavior of the last 4 years of the Senate Democratic leadership fiscal policy. That policy has resulted in higher taxes, higher spending, and yet higher debt. Where there is fiscal pressure, it is placed on the Finance Committee by this document now before the Senate. The Finance Committee is called upon to do all the heavy lifting. The principal lift is in the heavy tax increases. The Finance Committee has reconciled under this document with an almost $1 trillion tax increase. Reserve funds, in addition to that $1 trillion, reserve funds anticipate another $500 billion in tax hikes to pay for even more spending. The task put on the Finance Committee is described as curtailing or eliminating what is called ``spending through the Tax Code,'' and ``loopholes.'' But if we look at the document, and particularly if we look at recent history, we will find a different story that says what they assume is not very realistic. We will find tax increases. I wish to explain that. But first I will account for revenue raisers the majority party has specified and supported with votes in this Congress and the last one. What those votes show, unless there is a big change of heart on the other side of the aisle, is there is not going to be that revenue ever raised. So that makes the document on the other side, if it is not possible, blue smoke and great hope and good luck. What this is going to tell us is that the unspecified and undefined tax increases the budget resolution is seeking, once we have the undefined tax increases--I am going to then define that. I will define it by taking the universe of tax base broadeners and working through the list to explain to all the unreality. I will be able to show one of two conclusions. The first conclusion I can show, the math doesn't work and there are not sufficient revenue raisers to fill the revenue goal of my friends on the other side of the aisle or, No. 2, the budget resolution would need to go much further down the income scale and do what we just heard Senator Roberts say, start taxing middle-income taxpayers. But it is going to be hard to get them to admit that on the other side because all we have to do is tax the wealthy 1 percent and we can solve all our problems. But we cannot only tax that 1 percent. We could confiscate--not tax but confiscate the income over $200,000 and we are going to run the Government for just a very few months. But people tend to believe that. It is very difficult to preach the other side, how unrealistic it is, but that is a fact. All of us should take a careful look at the claims of the Democratic leadership and see how the claims stack up to the cold, hard numbers that I will give you and the analysis by the tax-writing committee staff. So let's turn to those numbers. Over the 10-year budget window going out to the year 2023, the budget resolution demands revenue and related outlay savings of $975 billion. There are two reserve funds, as I already said, that total up to about $580 billion in tax increases if that is taxed. And around here, with the ability--the willingness--to spend what they want to spend, they wouldn't mind tapping it, but I think that is unrealistic as well. I am going to show my colleagues this chart. The first chart is a water well. Here is the top of the well, and we can see it is a long well to the bottom, and there is a little bit of water in the bottom. But most of the well from this point to the top is dry right now, and that is what they have to fill by their budget resolution. At the top of the well we will see this number, $1.503 trillion, plus money to raise money for the reserve fund. That is what it takes to go from here to here to fill it. If we want to put this another way, this budget puts the burden on the Finance Committee to come up with $1.5 trillion in offsets over the next 10 years. This budget assumes the well of revenue raisers is full to the brim, but they are starting out at this point. My colleagues know I am a farmer. I should say my son is a farmer; I am kind of like a hired man now. I think that gives me something to know about wells and the predictability of well water. We on the farm always hope we will get rain, and particularly now, as it is dry in the middle west. So now we get a decent level of water so we can fill up the well to the top so we have plenty of reserve. As a former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, I think I can tell my colleagues something about revenue raisers. In the positions I held on the Finance Committee, I led efforts to identify and enact sensible revenue raisers aimed at closing the tax gap and shutting down tax shelters. And as a senior tax-writing committee member, I continued to look for ways to shut off the unintended tax benefits. Given this experience, I know what is realistic when it comes to revenue raisers. From 2001 through 2006, Congress enacted over 100 offsets with a combined total of not necessarily a lot of money but still a lot of money compared to this stuff we are talking about here, but it still scored for $1.7 billion over 1 year; over 5 years, $51.5 billion; and over 10 years, $157.9 billion. That is from about 100 offsets. What other revenue raisers have been identified and scored? The President's last budget, the one we got in February of 2012--and they are supposed to be out every February and we are not going to get it until April 8 now; why I don't know--but the President's budget in 2012 contained a package of a lot of revenue that the Joint Committee on Taxation said would raise $1.4 trillion over 10 years. The majority party has largely left these revenue-raising proposals untouched over the last 4 years. So if we have a Democratic President of the United States suggesting $1.4 trillion of revenue in his budget, as the suggestion from the White House, and the other side here in the Senate wants to raise a tremendous amount of revenue and they haven't touched it in the last 4 years, what makes us think they are going to touch it now? Is it realistic to think all of these taxes will be raised if even the Democratic President asks for it and his friends on the other side of the aisle--our friends as well--ignored it? The majority party has, however, identified and specified and voted for tax hikes that amount to $108.3 billion. That is $108.3 billion of identified and scored revenue raisers. That is only about 7.8 percent of the amount that is needed to make this budget work. So we see how unrealistic this budget resolution is. Based on these facts, what is the likelihood the Finance Committee will be able to come up with revenue raisers of this magnitude? In my view, from my 10 years as chairman and ranking member, that chance is not very high. If that is the case, then what will happen? The revenue side of the budget will be ignored, but the spending side will be followed. The net effect will be a massive tax increase, a bigger deficit, or both. Now back to the chart. So the revenue-raising well is about 7.8 percent full. We have heard a lot about tax expenditures. As I have said before, the people have been told there are trillions of dollars of spending through the Tax Code. I am going to look at the individual income tax expenditures because the administration and the Democratic leadership have said they want to leave the corporate tax expenditures for lowering rates. Here is a little irony. The Congressional Budget Act defines refundable tax credits as spending. It makes all the sense in the world because the tax benefits go to individuals who don't pay income tax. These credits are actually paid out in the form of a check in excess of any income tax liability of that individual. However, we won't hear the majority advocate reducing, let alone eliminating, any of those refundable tax credits. In fact, the majority's budget would increase them further. They represent even more significant tax expenditures. I have another chart here based on the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation data. Here are 10 tax expenditures. The chart shows the top 10 individual income tax expenditures from this year, 2013, through the year 2017. These top 10 expenditures represent 70 percent of the total individual tax expenditures. No. 7 is the earned income tax credit. That is a refundable tax credit designed for low-income taxpayers. No. 8 on the list--I won't bother to point to it--is the premium tax credit enacted by ObamaCare. By 2017, this credit will actually make its way into the top five. Like the earned income tax credit, the premium credit is fully refundable. No. 9 on the chart is the child tax credit which is partially refundable. For each of these credits, more than half of the value of the benefit is paid out in the form of a government check exceeding tax liabilities. That is direct spending through the Tax Code. Yet these credits are considered off limits by the majority. So let's take a look at the tax expenditure No. 1. That is the tax- free treatment of employer-provided health care. Americans can look forward to $1 trillion of health care-related taxes coming due over the next 10 years. All of this tax increase is thanks to 21 tax increases contained in ObamaCare. My guess is the majority doesn't want to take on that group. So No. 2 is tax-deferred retirement savings plans. It is defined benefit plans and section 401(k)-type plans. To be sure, some higher income taxpayers benefit. Defined benefit plans tend to dominate in the unionized world. Section 401(k)-type plans are more common now. Some high-income taxpayers do, in fact, benefit because they are owners of a business and we want them to set up and maintain the plans. About 4 percent of this tax expenditure goes to taxpayers at $1 million or more of income. No. 3 on the list is the preferential rate for capital gains and dividends. It is true that higher income taxpayers tend to have more capital gains. But a few months ago the rate rose 59 percent with the ObamaCare and fiscal cliff deal tax hikes kicking in. Do we want to choke off more savings and investment? No. 4 is the deduction for State and local income and real property taxes. The New York Times editorial page is usually very in tune with the majority. An editorial on December 6, 2012, has a title that says it all: ``Keep The State Tax Deduction.'' My guess is that with the heavy hit on heavily taxed blue State taxpayers, the majority will not want to visit that deduction. No. 5 concerns the American dream of home ownership. It is the home mortgage interest deduction. It disproportionately goes to the middle- income taxpayer. Do we really want to tank the tepid housing recovery now underway? So look at No. 6. It is the tax benefit from the Medicare benefits the Federal Government pays. We have heard a lot about the Medicare reforms contained in the Ryan budget from the majority. Does the majority want to cut the value of Medicare benefits by taxing them? I have already discussed Nos. 7, 8, and 9 on the chart which are all refundable credits. They are the earned income tax credit, the premium tax credit, and the child tax credit. Significantly, the premium tax credit makes the list while only being in effect 4 out of the 5 years we have examined. So how about the last one then, No. 10? It refers to the step-up in basis that occurs on death time transfers. Higher end taxpayers tend to pay the estate tax when they die. This policy ensures they don't pay a double tax on the transfer. Does the majority really want to reopen the estate tax debate that we all thought just ended on January 1? If we were to expand on this list and look at the top 20 expenditures instead of just the top 10, we would account for 90 percent of the individual tax expenditures. They include such things as charitable deductions, tax incentives for college, and the exclusion of capital gains from the sale of a home. Does the majority want to raise taxes on the backs of college students or cause heartburn for middle-income homeowners when they sell their home? Well, let's take a step back for a minute. Where does the budget take us? The terms of the budget documents tell us the majority Members say they want to eliminate or curtail spending through the Tax Code--$1 trillion plus another $500 billion if they decide how to spend it. Yet they themselves would vehemently oppose eliminating or reducing tax expenditures that are defined by our budget laws as spending. I challenge the budget authors to tell me which tax benefits they want to curtail. Do they want to cut back the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance? Do they want to cut back defined benefit plans or 401(k) plans? Do they want to increase capital gains and dividend rates even further than the 59 percent? Do they want to cut back on the State and local tax deduction? Do they want to cut back on the mortgage interest deduction? Do they want to tax Medicare benefits? Do they want to raise the tax level on death time transfers? Well, I conclude: This budget represents a dramatic step backward for the American taxpayer. For the first time in 4 years, thank God, we are debating a budget. Yet it repeats the same fiscal pattern of the first term of this Presidency. It spends too much, it taxes too much, and it results in too much new debt. As former chairman and ranking member--and I suppose this is the fourth or fifth time I have said this, so people get tired of me saying it--but in that former position, I am sorry to say the experience I have had is that this budget doesn't even attempt to match the demands of the Finance Committee with the numbers in this budget. I hope deficit hawks on both sides of the aisle pay close attention. The only thing certain here is that new spending will occur. The deficit impact of not realistically dealing with the tax, trade, and health policy spending priorities of the Finance Committee disguises the deficit built into this budget. I have many other concerns about the budget proposed by the majority. Simply, today, I wanted to let the Senate know how the numbers on the revenue side do not work from the standpoint of the usual stands that people take on closing loopholes and not closing loopholes and based upon what is politically feasible out of the Finance Committee. As we take up amendments, I am hopeful we can make the budget mesh with the Finance Committee's policy demands. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Absolutely. And based upon the experience we have had of actually voting on those issues in the past--or the fact that I stated how the President put certain things in his budget of February 2012, and none of those ideas have ever been brought up by the majority party in the period of time they have been before them. So if their own President--when I say their own President, the President of their party--our President proposes that they raise revenue from those places, and they do not do it, it signals to me it is a pretty difficult job to do, and it is not going to be any easier this year than in past years.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life of SSG Steven Blass, who was killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan while serving his country. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Tricia, his young son Hayden, his parents, Randy and Carol, and all his family and friends. I know they are feeling his loss very deeply now, as is the entire community of Estherville, IA, his hometown. I understand that Steven Blass was patriotic even as a child and that joining the Army had been a dream of his. He was doing what he loved when he gave the ultimate sacrifice. His love of country and zeal for freedom represent the very best of America. Like all the patriots before him, his sacrifice has helped keep the torch of liberty burning bright. The United States of America is indeed fortunate to have a native son like Steven Blass, eager to serve his country and risk everything for his fellow citizens. We are forever in his debt. Although it is a debt which we can never repay, it is a debt we must honor by remembering SSG Steven Blass and what he did for all of us.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it will not be long--of course it might be longer than it appears to be, but at least this week we were supposed to be considering the budget resolution and hopefully before the week is out we will. It has been 4 years since the Senate has passed a budget. The Senate deficit majority has been devoid of leadership on this matter. While American families and businesses compile a budget each and every year, the Senate deficit majority has shirked its responsibility, producing a budget has even been called ``foolish,'' by the Democratic majority leader. After years of record deficits and debt, I think the American people disagree with the fact that the Senate has not taken up a budget for the last 3 years, even though the law requires every year for the Senate to adopt a budget. Thankfully, this year it looks as if we are going to have this debate and adopt a budget. While we are about to debate a budget resolution, a few hours or a few days away, the President has not even proposed his budget for consideration. The Budget Committee, of which I am a member, did not hear from a single administration witness in preparation of this budget that the Senate will be working on. That is a new historical low, for which the Obama administration can take credit. House Budget Chairman Ryan has produced a budget. Chairwoman Murray produced a budget. It is quite remarkable that the President has yet to submit a budget, even though the law requires it be done by February 4. The President plans to release his budget the week of April 8, 2 months overdue. This will be the first time a President has failed to submit a budget until after the House and the Senate have acted. Once again, on fiscal issues, the President is leading from behind. He set a new low for fiscal responsibility. During the past 4 years, we spent well beyond our means. The gross Federal debt has increased by $6 trillion as a result. Unless we change course, we will add another $9 trillion over the next 10 years. The gross debt is now and maybe by then will still be larger than the U.S. economy. It is approaching levels where economists agree deficits and debts are causing slower economic growth. During the past 4 years, we witnessed President Obama's theory of economic stimulus. We saw massive expansion of government and deficit spending. President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress pushed spending up to 25 percent of the economy in recent years and an $800 billion stimulus bill was a big part of that. That bill was pushed through in the name of economic growth. It was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent. It did not keep unemployment below 8 percent because, in fact, the legislation written was more an appropriations bill than a stimulus bill. It didn't create the sustainable job growth it was supposed to. It was one big ineffective spending bill. The economic growth it was supposed to stimulate never materialized. Now we are dealing with a deficit and debt caused by that failed stimulus bill. Despite this failure, the President and the Senate deficit majority seem even more fixated on growing the government. According to the economic policies of President Obama, the government needs to grow even bigger to help our economy. It is not going to work. The overriding belief of the administration is that economic growth will only come through private wealth confiscation that supports an even bigger and more intrusive government. If government just gets a little bigger and a little more involved in every facet of our economy and of our lives, that will surely increase the economic prosperity of Americans, right? Of course not. The problem is raising taxes only extracts private capital from job creators and small businesses. Small businesses happen to be where 70 percent of the new jobs are created. So if we want to create new jobs, why would we take capital out of a sector where job creation can occur and bring it to the government where it is spent wastefully by often inefficient and bloated bureaucracies? The higher taxes are robbing the unemployed of needed jobs. The government they support does not create economic growth or self-sustaining jobs. This 4-year spending binge we have been on has led to deficits that crowd out private investment which would otherwise be used to grow the economy and create jobs. The government doesn't create self-sustaining jobs; the government only creates government jobs. The private sector creates jobs. Wealth is created in the private sector. It is the responsibility of the government to create an environment for job growth and opportunity--opportunity for entrepreneurs who then create jobs. Instead of raising taxes, what this country needs is more taxpayers. We get more taxpayers by reducing the unemployment, and we do that by keeping money in the private sector. Besides that, the government can provide this environment by instituting the rule of law, protecting property rights and a patent system. There are many other things I could probably mention as well. The government consumes wealth. It does not create wealth through economic freedom. Entrepreneurs and individuals are free to innovate and prosper. This budget fails to recognize these simple principles. The budget presented by the deficit majority makes no effort to reduce the deficits, reduce spending, balance the budget, or grow the economy. Instead, this budget seeks to grow government by taxing more and spending more. It is time we all recognize that government exists to serve the needs of the people rather than people serving the needs of their government. There are some who believe government is the only creator of economic prosperity. If others have achieved success, by default they must be the cause of others' hardships. This type of class warfare--demagoguery, as it is--is harmful to America and our future. It seeks to divide America. The budget presented by the deficit majority is partisan business as usual. It would tax success by adding another $1 trillion. It increases government spending, it ignores the subject of our health care entitlements, and this whole approach is simply not good for advancing America's economy. It places no priority on ever bringing our budget into balance. The deficit majority speaks at length about growing the economy and creating a middle class. Their budget is perfectly backward. It does nothing to address economically harmful deficits and debt or the drag it creates on the economy, and it includes as much as $1.5 trillion in job-killing tax hikes. The majority claims this revenue can be collected without harming the economy by closing loopholes. The fact is that regardless of how it is described, a $1.5 trillion tax increase will affect the middle class, harm the economy, and not create jobs. A $1.5 trillion tax hike--while economic growth is slow and unemployment remains at 7.7 percent--is a reckless formula and will further devastate the economy. Even worse, the tax increases will not be used to balance the budget. Higher taxes support even higher spending. This is a typical tax-and-spend budget. This budget was crafted as if we don't even have a spending problem or a debt crisis. This budget assumes everything is just fine and everything will work out if we simply proceed forward on the current path of tax and spend. This budget represents a missed opportunity. Don't take my word for it. Editorial writers across the country have made similar statements about this budget. A Washington Post editorial called it a complacent budget plan. They wrote that the majority budget fails to recognize the long-term fiscal problems: Partisan in tone and complacent in substance, it scores points against Republicans and reassures the party's liberal base--but deepens these senators' commitments to an unsustainable policy agenda. In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a responsible public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal predicament. The Chicago Tribune had a similar description in their editorial. They described it as a deficit of ambition: The Democrats, unfortunately, are feigning fiscal responsibility instead of practicing it. What is needed is a lot more ambition than the Murray plan reflects. If Democrats don't like the Republican plan for balancing the budget, they should produce their own. Finally, a USA Today editorial referred to the budget as a namby- pamby budget that underwhelms at every turn: The Murray budget neither balances the budget nor reins in entitlements. Its one-to-one ratio of spending to tax increases might sound balanced, but the spending cuts are not actual reductions. They are merely reductions in the expected rate of growth. All this makes the Murray budget barely a Band-Aid. And that one-to-one ratio that is quoted in the USA Today editorial reminds me--and let me explain this--of where they raise $1 of taxes for $1 of cuts, which reminds me of the President's own position on that which he stated just before the election in his meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board and suggested that we raise taxes $1 and cut expenditures $2.50. How do we go--just before the President is elected--from a $2.50 reduction for every $1 increase to a one-to-one ratio now? I hope when the President submits his budget on April 8 that he sticks to that ratio of $2.50 to $1. I am sure we will hear the term ``progrowth'' applied to this budget when we hear from people speaking on the other side of the aisle. The only thing it can mean is growth in the size and scope of the Federal Government and growth in the national debt. We will also hear the term ``balanced.'' Please don't be fooled. The deficit majority is not speaking about a balanced budget. Their understanding of balance is higher taxes and higher spending. This budget does not tackle runaway spending. It raises taxes, not to balance the budget but to spend more and more. This budget will grow the government, harm economic growth, and increase the debt. After 4 years of contemplating a budget resolution, I would have expected a more fiscally responsible budget. The American people deserve much better. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, a bill that would establish within the judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Representative Sensenbrenner is introducing the companion bill in the House. This bill will help make sure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy. The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. The job of the Inspector General is to be the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs. That is why, during my 30 years in Congress I have worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Inspectors General throughout the Federal Government. I have come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. When that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action. During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated nearly $7 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal judiciary. To put this in context, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received a similar or less amount than the judiciary. Yet all three of these entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, I cannot see why the Judiciary wouldn't deserve the same assistance. But there is an additional reason why the Judiciary needs an Inspector General. The fact remains that the current practice of self- regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. I would point out to my colleagues two recent events here in the Senate that support this conclusion. In the past 5 years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Who did he obstruct? Who did he lie to? He did this to his fellow judges, who were assembled to investigate the allegations of his obscene and criminal behavior. But it took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements to his colleagues as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him. In the second case, the Senate found that former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was guilty of a number of things, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. Once again, this Judge's misbehavior came to light through a Federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge. What's more, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status what would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.'' The judicial misconduct committees are simply inadequate for investigating claims of misconduct. These judges are not given the resources necessary nor do they have the expertise in conducting a complete investigation. They cannot, despite their best intentions, remove the inherent biases that develop from working closely with other judges. This duty would be better suited to an independent entity within the Judiciary. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act is the answer. This bill would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the Federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. In addition, the bill establishes whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They are supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the Federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. Whistleblower protections for judiciary branch employees will help keep the judiciary accountable. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only ensure continued public confidence in our Federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, a bill that would establish within the judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Representative Sensenbrenner is introducing the companion bill in the House. This bill will help make sure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy. The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. The job of the Inspector General is to be the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs. That is why, during my 30 years in Congress I have worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Inspectors General throughout the Federal Government. I have come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. When that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action. During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated nearly $7 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal judiciary. To put this in context, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received a similar or less amount than the judiciary. Yet all three of these entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, I cannot see why the Judiciary wouldn't deserve the same assistance. But there is an additional reason why the Judiciary needs an Inspector General. The fact remains that the current practice of self- regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. I would point out to my colleagues two recent events here in the Senate that support this conclusion. In the past 5 years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Who did he obstruct? Who did he lie to? He did this to his fellow judges, who were assembled to investigate the allegations of his obscene and criminal behavior. But it took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements to his colleagues as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him. In the second case, the Senate found that former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was guilty of a number of things, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. Once again, this Judge's misbehavior came to light through a Federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge. What's more, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status what would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.'' The judicial misconduct committees are simply inadequate for investigating claims of misconduct. These judges are not given the resources necessary nor do they have the expertise in conducting a complete investigation. They cannot, despite their best intentions, remove the inherent biases that develop from working closely with other judges. This duty would be better suited to an independent entity within the Judiciary. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act is the answer. This bill would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the Federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. In addition, the bill establishes whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They are supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the Federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. Whistleblower protections for judiciary branch employees will help keep the judiciary accountable. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only ensure continued public confidence in our Federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak for 15 minutes on this nomination that is before the Senate.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Caitlin Halligan, the President's nominee for the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. I wish to take a few minutes to explain to my colleagues why we should not change our prior position regarding this nomination. It was previously rejected and should be rejected again. Before I talk about Ms. Halligan's record, I want to comment on the process. While I recognize the majority leader's right to bring up this nomination, I question why we are spending time on a politically charged and divisive nomination. I wish the Senate instead would focus on the critical fiscal, national security, and domestic issues we face. The Senate determined more than a year ago that this nomination should not be confirmed. Rather than accepting the Senate's decision, the President has renominated Ms. Halligan. It is time for the President and Senate Democrats to accept the fact that this nomination is not going to be confirmed by the Senate. We need to move on. It is well understood and accepted that nominations to the DC Circuit deserve special scrutiny. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit hears cases affecting all Americans. It is frequently the last stop for cases involving Federal statutes and regulations. Many view this court as second in importance only to the Supreme Court. And as we all know, judges who sit on the DC Circuit are frequently considered for the Supreme Court. So there is a lot at stake with nominations to this court. This is a court where we can least afford to confirm an activist judge. I have a number of concerns regarding Ms. Halligan's views that indicate she will be an activist judge. There are concerns regarding her judicial philosophy and her approach to interpreting the Constitution. Her stated view that courts seek ``to solve problems and not just to adjudicate them'' indicates a willingness to abuse the role of a judge should she be confirmed. She has advocated for an ``evolving standard'' of the Constitution, indicating a judicial philosophy that embraces the notion of a living Constitution. In adopting the ``living Constitution'' theory of interpretation, judges routinely substitute their own personal views in place of what the Constitution demands. I wish to share with my colleagues why I have concluded that Ms. Halligan would approach judging with an activist bent. Let me give just a couple examples, beginning with her record on the second amendment. In 2003, Congress was debating the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act or, as most of us called it, the Gun Liability bill. At the time, gun manufacturers were facing lawsuits based on meritless legal theories. This frivolous litigation was specifically designed to drive gun manufacturers out of business. As it turns out, while many of us--both Republicans and Democrats-- were fighting here in Congress to stop these lawsuits, Ms. Halligan was pursuing this precise type of litigation in the State of New York. In New York v. Sturm & Ruger, Ms. Halligan advanced the novel legal theory that gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers contributed to a ``public nuisance'' of illegal handguns in the State. Therefore, she argued, gun manufacturers should be liable for the criminal conduct of third parties. Some of my colleagues have argued that we should not consider this aspect of Ms. Halligan's record because at the time she was working as the solicitor general of New York. But no one forced Ms. Halligan to approve and sign this brief. No one compelled her to advance a completely frivolous legal theory. I believe a close examination of Ms. Halligan's record indicates she was more than just an advocate. She was using the full weight of her office to advance and promote a political agenda masked by a legal doctrine that is well outside of the legal mainstream. In the case I just mentioned, which was the first of two cases Ms. Halligan was involved in regarding gun manufacturers, the New York State appellate court found her argument to be completely meritless and explicitly rejected her theory. The court went so far as to say that it had ``never recognized [the] common-law public nuisance cause of action'' that Ms. Halligan advanced, and that it would be ``legally inappropriate'' to permit the lawsuit to proceed. Moreover, far from accepting Ms. Halligan's invitation to legislate from the bench, the court properly concluded that ``the Legislative and Executive branches are better suited to address the societal problems concerning the already heavily regulated commercial activity at issue.'' I will remind my colleagues that Ms. Halligan was pursuing this legal theory at the same time we were debating the gun liability bill here in Congress. There is no question that the dubious legal theories she was advancing in court reflected her own personal views, not just a position she was advocating on behalf of a client. In a speech Ms. Halligan delivered on the subject in May of 2003, she said she opposed the legislation being considered by Congress because, ``[i]f enacted, this legislation would nullify lawsuits brought by nearly 30 cities and counties--including one filed by my office--as well as scores of lawsuits brought by individual victims or groups harmed by gun violence. . . . Such an action would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by States to find solutions--through the legal system or their own legislatures--that might reduce gun crime or promote greater responsibility among gun dealers.'' Later in that same speech, Ms. Halligan expressed her view of the law and legal system. She said, ``Courts are the special friend of liberty. Time and time again we have seen how the dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility.'' I find this statement troubling, especially as it relates to the nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Those lawsuits are a prime example of how activists on the far left try to use the courts to affect social policy changes that they are unable to achieve through the ballot box. That is why I believe those lawsuits represented not only bad policy but, more broadly, an activist approach to the law. Now, as I said, the State appellate court rejected her legal theory, and Congress subsequently passed legislation--by a wide bipartisan margin--to stop those lawsuits. But Ms. Halligan still forged ahead. In 2006, notwithstanding the fact the Congress had passed tort reform in this area, she attempted once again to revive the ability of States to pursue gun manufacturers. Only this time, she advanced her claims in Federal court, arguing the legislation Congress passed was unconstitutional. Fortunately, the Federal appellate court rejected her legal theory as well. Ms. Halligan's record of taking far left and legally untenable positions is not limited to her legal briefs in gun cases. Another example of how she crossed the line from advocate to activist is Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. In that case she argued for an expansive definition of extortion under the Hobbs Act. Her support of NOW's claim that pro-life groups had engaged in extortion was rejected by eight Justices of the Supreme Court, including Justice Ginsburg--one of the most liberal justices on the Court. There are a number of other aspects of her record that I find problematic. For instance, Ms. Halligan's views on the war on terror and the detention of enemy combatants are especially troublesome because Ms. Halligan is a nominee for the DC Circuit, where many of these issues are heard. In 2004, Ms. Halligan was a member of a New York City bar association that published a report entitled: ``The Indefinite Detention of `Enemy Combatants' and National Security in the Context of the War on Terror.'' That report argued there were constitutional concerns with the detention of terrorists in military custody. It also argued vigorously against trying enemy combatants in military tribunals. Instead, it argued in favor of trying terrorists in civilian, article III courts. Ms. Halligan is listed as one of the authors of that report. But when it came time to testify at her hearing, Ms. Halligan tried to distance herself from the report. She testified that she did not become aware of the report until 2010. In a followup letter after her hearing, Ms. Halligan did concede that ``it is quite possible that [a draft of the report] was sent to me,'' but that she could not recall reading the report. I recognize that memories fade over time. But, as I assess her testimony, I think it is noteworthy that at least four other members of that bar association committee abstained from the final report. Ms. Halligan did not. I would also point out that several years later she co-authored an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in the 2009 case of Al-Marri v. Spagone. Ms. Halligan's brief in that case took a position similar to the 2004 report with respect to military detention of terrorists. In that case, she argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force did not authorize the seizure and indefinite military detention of a lawful permanent resident alien who conspired with al-Qaida to execute terror attacks on the United States. The fact that Ms. Halligan coauthored this brief, pro bono, suggests to me that she supported the conclusions reached by the 2004 report. And again, this issue is particularly troublesome for a nominee to the DC Circuit, where many of these questions are heard. There are additional aspects of Ms. Halligan's record that concern me. As New York's Solicitor General, Ms. Halligan was responsible for recommending to Attorney General Spitzer that the State intervene in several high-profile Supreme Court cases. She filed amicus briefs that consistently took activist positions on controversial issues such as abortion, affirmative action, immigration, and federalism. These are just some of my concerns regarding the nominee's judicial philosophy and her approach to interpreting the Constitution. These are neither trivial nor inconsequential grounds on which to oppose her nomination. Based on her record, I simply do not believe she will be able to put aside her long record of liberal advocacy and be a fair and impartial jurist. Supporters argue that out of a sense of ``fairness'' we should confirm Ms. Halligan. They note that her nomination has been pending for over 2 years. Let me remind my colleagues that while this seat has been vacant for over 7 years, it has not been without a nominee for all of that time. Following the elevation of then-Circuit Judge John Roberts in 2005, President George W. Bush nominated an eminently qualified individual for this seat, Peter Keisler. Mr. Keisler was widely lauded as a consensus, bipartisan nominee. His distinguished record of public service included service as Acting Attorney General. Despite his broad bipartisan support and qualifications, Mr. Keisler waited 918 days for a committee vote that never came. There was no clamor from the other side that we needed to fill the vacancy. There was no demand that Mr. Keisler be afforded an up-or-down vote. So it seems to me that too often, with my Democratic colleagues, ``fairness'' is a one-way street. When the Democrats refused to consider Mr. Keisler's nomination--or even to give him a committee vote--the other side justified their actions based on the DC Circuit caseload. So I would like to make a few comments about how the current caseload of the DC Circuit stacks up against the caseload that existed when Mr. Keisler's nomination was subjected to a pocket filibuster. Before doing so, I would again emphasize that given Ms. Halligan's record on a host of controversial issues, the case for rejecting her nomination would remain, regardless of the number of vacancies or the court's workload. However, since some of my colleagues are declaring a ``judicial emergency'' on the DC Circuit Court, let me set the record straight. Contrary to assertions we have recently heard regarding the court's workload, since 2005, the DC caseload has actually continued to decline. The total number of appeals filed is down over 13 percent. The total number of appeals pending is down over 10 percent; filings per panel are down almost 6 percent. Compared to other courts of appeals, the DC Circuit caseload measured by number of appeals pending per panel is 54 percent less than the national average. Filings per judge are also significantly lower than for the rest of the courts. While the national average of filings per active judge is 361, the DC Circuit is less than half, at 170 filings per active judge. And if you take into consideration the fact that the DC Circuit now has six senior judges, all of whom continue to hear cases and write opinions, there is a 26-percent decrease in case filings per judge on the court since 2005. So by any meaningful measure, the DC Circuit's workload pales in comparison to the other circuit courts. Given the concerns I have about Ms. Halligan's record on the second amendment, the war on terror, and other issues, my concerns regarding her activist judicial philosophy, and the court's low workload, I oppose this nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Finally, I would note a number of organizations have expressed their opposition to this nomination. They are the American Conservative Union, 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee for Justice, Concerned Women for America, the American Center for Law and Justice, Heritage Action, Liberty Counsel Action, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Center for Judicial Accountability, Republican National Lawyers Association, Judicial Action Group, Susan B. Anthony List, Americans United for Life Action, and the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, back in 2003, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, issued a report that revealed that suspected terrorists could stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. The GAO shed light on a serious problem in our visa policies that posed a threat to our national security. The GAO found that many individuals were granted visas, but later, the FBI and intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism. The FBI didn't share the derogatory information with our consular officers in time. Consular officers had one tool at their disposal, and that was to revoke the visas. But, many of the individuals had made it to the United States. What the GAO found was that even though the visas were revoked, immigration officials couldn't do a thing about it because the revocation didn't go into effect until after the alien departed. They were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. Today, our immigration agents may not be able to locate the individual even if they could deport them. The GAO report opened our eyes and showed us how revocations were not being used effectively, and how terrorists could exploit a loophole to stay in the country. Since the GAO report was issued, I have attempted to plug this hole in the system. Today I am reintroducing a bill to give the Department of Homeland Security a critical tool that allows the Secretary to issue revocations and remove aliens from the United States without the hurdles they currently face. Let me elaborate. Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officers abroad are non-reviewable. We give our consular officers great latitude to protect the country and make a determination if an applicant is eligible for admission into the United States. This is known as consular non-reviewability. In 1950, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, determined that ``it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.'' Justice Minton, in his decision, stated, ``At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the procedure which the United States provides.'' The doctrine of non-reviewability is a long-standing one that allows the Department of State to keep foreign nationals from entering the United States. But, the doctrine should be applied in instances when a person is granted a visa, enters in the country, and the Government subsequently revokes that visa. There are some national security implications at stake. The ability to deport an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal the revocation. So, in effect, the State Department doesn't use their authority to revoke. In fact, I am told they aren't doing it at all when the alien, even a potential terrorist, is in the country. They need a change so that foreign nationals are not able to freely roam our communities when they shouldn't be here in the first place. Secretary Chertoff, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security agreed that the policy needed to be changed. When Secretary, he said, The fact is that we can prevent someone who's coming in as a guest. We can say, ``You can't come in overseas,'' but once they come in, if they abuse their terms and conditions of their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process. That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are admitted as guests like guests in my house--if the guest misbehaves, I just tell them to leave; they don't get to go to court over it. What's more, allowing judicial review of revoked visas, especially on terrorism grounds, could jeopardize the classified intelligence that led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and CIA to be hesitant to share information. Why would our intelligence community share information with the State Department if they knew State wouldn't revoke a visa when the alien is in the U.S.? Current law could be reversing our progress on information sharing. Intelligence officials need to share information with immigration and consular officers to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and to impede their mobility. My bill would give the U.S. Government the ability to expedite the deportation of suspected terrorists by applying the same ``non- reviewability'' standard for revocation decisions. It would treat revocations similar to visa denials. My bill gives the Federal Government the ability to deport an alien who has already entered the United States but shouldn't have ever been granted a visa. Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11. We can't let that happen again. We should not allow potential terrorists and others who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and run to the courts and seek relief from deportation. We need to ensure that the government has all the tools at its disposal to keep the homeland safe. I urge my colleagues to support my bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Small Business Efficiency Act with my colleagues Senators Nelson, Portman, and Pryor. Many small businesses rely on Professional Employer Organization, PEOs, and to handle many of their human resources responsibilities. The Small Business Efficiency Act will provide an important layer of certainty and protection for small business owners and their workers by eliminating any ambiguity about a certified PEOs ability to assume employment tax responsibility. It further implements safeguards for the certified PEOs small business clients. This will give small businesses peace of mind that their human resources and employment tax responsibilities are taken care of so they can focus on their core business and create more jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, back in 2003, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, issued a report that revealed that suspected terrorists could stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. The GAO shed light on a serious problem in our visa policies that posed a threat to our national security. The GAO found that many individuals were granted visas, but later, the FBI and intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism. The FBI didn't share the derogatory information with our consular officers in time. Consular officers had one tool at their disposal, and that was to revoke the visas. But, many of the individuals had made it to the United States. What the GAO found was that even though the visas were revoked, immigration officials couldn't do a thing about it because the revocation didn't go into effect until after the alien departed. They were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. Today, our immigration agents may not be able to locate the individual even if they could deport them. The GAO report opened our eyes and showed us how revocations were not being used effectively, and how terrorists could exploit a loophole to stay in the country. Since the GAO report was issued, I have attempted to plug this hole in the system. Today I am reintroducing a bill to give the Department of Homeland Security a critical tool that allows the Secretary to issue revocations and remove aliens from the United States without the hurdles they currently face. Let me elaborate. Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officers abroad are non-reviewable. We give our consular officers great latitude to protect the country and make a determination if an applicant is eligible for admission into the United States. This is known as consular non-reviewability. In 1950, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, determined that ``it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.'' Justice Minton, in his decision, stated, ``At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the procedure which the United States provides.'' The doctrine of non-reviewability is a long-standing one that allows the Department of State to keep foreign nationals from entering the United States. But, the doctrine should be applied in instances when a person is granted a visa, enters in the country, and the Government subsequently revokes that visa. There are some national security implications at stake. The ability to deport an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal the revocation. So, in effect, the State Department doesn't use their authority to revoke. In fact, I am told they aren't doing it at all when the alien, even a potential terrorist, is in the country. They need a change so that foreign nationals are not able to freely roam our communities when they shouldn't be here in the first place. Secretary Chertoff, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security agreed that the policy needed to be changed. When Secretary, he said, The fact is that we can prevent someone who's coming in as a guest. We can say, ``You can't come in overseas,'' but once they come in, if they abuse their terms and conditions of their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process. That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are admitted as guests like guests in my house--if the guest misbehaves, I just tell them to leave; they don't get to go to court over it. What's more, allowing judicial review of revoked visas, especially on terrorism grounds, could jeopardize the classified intelligence that led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and CIA to be hesitant to share information. Why would our intelligence community share information with the State Department if they knew State wouldn't revoke a visa when the alien is in the U.S.? Current law could be reversing our progress on information sharing. Intelligence officials need to share information with immigration and consular officers to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and to impede their mobility. My bill would give the U.S. Government the ability to expedite the deportation of suspected terrorists by applying the same ``non- reviewability'' standard for revocation decisions. It would treat revocations similar to visa denials. My bill gives the Federal Government the ability to deport an alien who has already entered the United States but shouldn't have ever been granted a visa. Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11. We can't let that happen again. We should not allow potential terrorists and others who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and run to the courts and seek relief from deportation. We need to ensure that the government has all the tools at its disposal to keep the homeland safe. I urge my colleagues to support my bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Small Business Efficiency Act with my colleagues Senators Nelson, Portman, and Pryor. Many small businesses rely on Professional Employer Organization, PEOs, and to handle many of their human resources responsibilities. The Small Business Efficiency Act will provide an important layer of certainty and protection for small business owners and their workers by eliminating any ambiguity about a certified PEOs ability to assume employment tax responsibility. It further implements safeguards for the certified PEOs small business clients. This will give small businesses peace of mind that their human resources and employment tax responsibilities are taken care of so they can focus on their core business and create more jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which permits judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what happens inside our courts. Our judicial system remains a mystery to too many people across the country. That doesn't need to continue. Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. I believe that granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all. For decades, States such as my home state of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen states allow news coverage in most courts; sixteen allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining fifteen allow coverage with stricter rules. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to federal courts by letting federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges, it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a three-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. The bill prohibits the televising of jurors. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party. We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which permits judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what happens inside our courts. Our judicial system remains a mystery to too many people across the country. That doesn't need to continue. Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. I believe that granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all. For decades, States such as my home state of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen states allow news coverage in most courts; sixteen allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining fifteen allow coverage with stricter rules. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to federal courts by letting federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges, it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a three-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. The bill prohibits the televising of jurors. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party. We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.