Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the last 2 days in the debate here, a lot has been said about the sequestration that presumably is going to happen tomorrow. I would like to speak on that subject because it is very important, particularly the history of sequestration and what has gone on here in recent weeks as we discuss this issue. In August 2011 a compromise was reached to grant President Obama's request to raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. I believe that was because we had a feeling that there ought to be a $1 decrease in spending for every $1 increase in the ceiling. So that adds up to $2.1 trillion. In exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, we Republicans in Congress asked for spending reductions. This all added up to the Budget Control Act passed on August 2, 2011. Decisions we are debating today were decided 18 months ago, so if you didn't like them in 18 months, you had an opportunity to change them. But here we are at the last minute talking about some changes. The Budget Control Act of August 2, 2011, included budget caps to cut about $900 billion in spending immediately--August 2, 2011--and then it set up a supercommittee to find at least $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction. History shows that the supercommittee could not reach an agreement. So the failure of the supercommittee to reach an agreement led to the sequestration we are now debating and facing tomorrow, which is, as we know, automatic spending reductions of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. I didn't support the Budget Control Act. I don't criticize those who did, and to be fair, it was a bipartisan vote that got the Budget Control Act adopted. I knew at the time--and one of the reasons I voted against it--that the supercommittee was unlikely to reach an agreement and that it would ultimately only further delay difficult fiscal decisions that needed to be made. But at the end of the day the bipartisan majority in the Senate and the House passed and President Obama signed the Budget Control Act--a bill to bring about $2.1 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years. Most believe sequestration is a terrible way to reduce spending. I agree. There are surely better ways to reduce spending by the $85 billion that is going to happen this year--of which, by the way, only $44 billion is going to be spent between now and September 30. When that is done, we are going to have a situation where every year there is going to be some decision made on whether to continue the $1.2 trillion, and I hope for the good of the country that continues, whether it is by across-the-board automatic cuts or maybe there will be a compromise that can be reached to do it in a more studied way. The Republican-led House of Representatives, soon after the 2011 decision, recognized that the automatic reductions weren't the best way to do it. So last year they passed two bills to reorganize those cuts in a more structured way. Did the Senate consider those two bills? No. The Democratic-led Senate produced or considered no bill prior to today to avert the sequester. So I think it is fair to say that for the 18 months we could have been working together to find an agreement, nothing was done after the House of Representatives worked that agreement. Now we have all these crocodile tears flowing from the majority here in the Senate because of the terrible hardship this sequester may cause. Well, where have they been for the last 18 months? Why have they not proposed a single piece of legislation to avert sequestration until this very last minute? The two votes we just had today are an example. Why has the Senate avoided regular order with such vigor? In other words, regular order--let the committees hold hearings; let the committees debate, amend, vote a bill out; let it come to the Senate floor; debate, amend, and vote it to a conference with the House of Representatives. But no regular order. Under regular order, you work to compromise. But the Senate failed to act after the House acted. So here we are at the eleventh hour to consider an alternative. Just like their inability to produce a budget in nearly 4 years, this Senate majority has again failed to act. A budget is a very important part of fiscal discipline, but we haven't had a budget debate for 3 years even though the 1974 law requires us to have such debate and passage. Tomorrow the President is going to meet with leaders in the Congress to see what can be done about sequestration, but why the very same day sequestration is taking place? What has the President been doing? Well, we have seen him traveling around the country generating mass hysteria about what might happen--and wouldn't have had to do it if we had regular order here in the Senate in the meantime. I would like to remind my colleagues that not only is the sequester a product that came from the White House, he explicitly pledged to veto a proposal to replace the cuts sometime when it was brought up in late 2011 and 2012. This is what the President said on November 2011: Some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple. No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off- ramps on this one. Now the President and the Democrats here in the Senate want us to agree to more tax hikes on the American people rather than to cut the $3.6 trillion budget by just 2.4 percent, which they agreed to as part of the 2011 deal. Tax hikes were not included in that deal. They weren't included because we know that spending is the problem, not revenues. The President must be absolutely frustrated. He apparently can't manage a meager 2\1/2\-percent reduction even though just a few years ago he stated: I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper. He must not have had any success because once again he is asking for a tax hike to reduce the deficits rather than addressing the real cause of the problem, which is spending. Over the past several years we have heard a lot from the other side about increasing taxes on the so-called wealthy. The President and my Democratic colleagues argued that this was necessary to make the rich pay their fair share. Well, on January 1 the other side got their wish. The top statutory tax rate increased from 35 to 39.6 percent. When this statutory rate increase is coupled with the hidden rate increase from reinstituting the personal exemptions phaseout and the limitation on itemized deductions, the top marginal effective tax rate is not 39.6 percent but near 41 percent. Not only did we see an increase in the income tax on January 1, but we also saw a significant tax increase on capital gains and dividends. The fiscal cliff bill instituted a top 20 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends. However, this is not the whole story. A provision from the health care reform bill that imposes a 3.8-percent surtax on investment income also went into effect at the start of the year. Thus, the top rate has jumped not from 15 percent to 20 percent but instead to 23.8 percent. That, of course, is nearly a 60-percent rate hike. You would think, after securing these tax hikes on the so-called wealthy, the other side would claim victory and move on. At least one would think they would move on from the tired old rhetoric that the wealthy do not pay their fair share. Even before the most recent tax hikes, that claim was dubious at best. According to the Congressional Budget Office--remember, that is a nonpartisan study group that gives us basic information on changes of law--they say the top 1 percent already had an average Federal tax rate of 29 percent compared to 11 percent for the middle 20 percent of households. Yet the other side continues their politics of division. They continue to pit American against American and single out politically unpopular industries for tax hikes. While this may be good politics, it does not make good policy. You know, it is the other rule we ought to follow: Good policy is good politics. The other side has resurrected in addition as part of this package before us the so-called Buffett rule, which would phase in a minimum 30-percent tax rate for taxpayers earning more than $1 million. This is despite the fact that this proposal was voted down by this body less than a year ago and they know there is no chance of it passing at this point. Moreover, their argument for this provision makes even less sense now, given the tax increases that went into effect on January 1. It also is not clear to me why, when we are talking about reforming the Tax Code, we are now seeking to add an additional layer of complexity onto a Tax Code we already agree is too complicated. At the end of the day, all the Buffett rule will accomplish is siphoning off more job-creating capital and investment for Main Street so that we can spend it here in Washington, DC. I hope we all know that government consumes wealth, it does not create wealth. The wealth is created outside of this city of Washington, the seat of our government. We have to take that into consideration. It takes capital to create jobs. If you want to get unemployment down, you do not take capital out of the private sector. In addition to the Buffett rule, the other side has resurrected another proposal voted down by this body less than a year ago. This proposal has to do with businesses deducting ordinary and necessary business expenses. The rhetoric from the other side is that their proposal would close a loophole that incentivizes companies to ship jobs overseas. The problem is no such provision exists. The deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses is a mainstay of our Tax Code. It is an income-defining provision that accounts for the cost of doing business. What the proposal before us actually does is target companies doing business on a worldwide scale for a tax hike. This will not create jobs in America. It will not bring jobs that have relocated offshore back home. What it will do is punish businesses that seek to expand in the international markets, which in turn could actually cost us jobs here at home. The final tax increase included in the other side's proposal today is more of a budget gimmick than a serious proposal to help pay for the delay in the sequester. The proposal would subject oil from tar sands to taxes that support the oilspill liability trust fund. However, if the revenue raised from this proposal is dedicated to this trust fund, how can it at the same time be dedicated to deficit reduction? If we are going to get serious about deficit reduction, we need to put an end to this double-counting charade. The only spending the other side is willing to cut is farm subsidies. Using farm subsidies to help pay for sequester replacement puts the Agriculture Committee in quite a tough position. I want to remind my colleagues, though, that when we wrote a farm bill last year that passed the Senate by a bipartisan majority--it didn't pass the House of Representatives--but we cut $23 billion from that. We did away with direct payments, we maintained the crop insurance program, we put money in other programs and in food stamps as well. There is broad support for the farm bill here in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans and there is broad support for making spending reductions. But for Democrats to include cutting subsidies outside the context of a farm bill will make it difficult for us to write a farm bill. As we all know, there has been a lot of history of rural and urban legislators working together on farm and nutrition issues in the farm bill. By cutting farm programs in this sequestration replacement, my Democratic colleagues are undermining the ability of the Agriculture Committee to craft a bill that will gain the needed support to move through the Senate in a bipartisan way as it did last June. I think the proposal will hurt our agriculture communities and I think those involved in American agriculture will oppose it. At the end of the day, though, there will be money saved in the farm bill. If, given that opportunity, we can provide savings from a lot of programs, we should. We showed that ability last year. We all know the farm bill faced big challenges in the House last year. The challenges probably still exist in that Chamber, but we should not put ourselves in a position where we cannot even get a bill through the Senate. For those of us who support the farm bill, we should be very concerned that this plan the Democrats are putting forward to avoid sequestration could seriously undermine the ability to pass a farm bill in either Chamber this time around. We just had an opportunity to vote on the Democrats' tax increase. This was the first vote in the Senate on an alternative to sequestration and the first alternative offered by the Senate majority. Over a period of 18 months, they had an opportunity to offer that alternative, just as the House Republicans offered us two alternatives we never took up. We also had the opportunity to vote on one alternative from the Republican side of the aisle, but both of these votes were for show. I hope we can now work together in a bipartisan way, in regular order, to make sensible spending reductions. It is time to end the incessant talk of more tax hikes on Americans when those tax hikes already took place on January 1, when we know that the problem is in fact runaway spending. It is time to end the constant campaigning and do the work the American people expect us to do so we can leave the next generation a better life than the present generation has. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Jack Lew to be the Secretary of the Treasury. Am I in order to do that?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the problem we face with Mr. Lew's nomination is that the Senate does not have answers to very basic and factual questions about Mr. Lew. How can we make an informed decision on his nomination if we don't have answers to basic questions? Let me provide several examples, starting with New York University. He worked for this tax-exempt university and he was given a subsidized $1.4 million mortgage. Mr. Lew claims he cannot remember the interest rate he paid on his $1.4 million mortgage the tax-exempt New York University gave him. Does that pass the laugh test? I asked Mr. Lew to provide details on the mortgage to Congress. He refused repeatedly to provide full details and documentation of this taxpayer-subsidized mortgage. The explanations he did provide were needlessly complex, making it almost impossible to understand the structure of his loan. What is he hiding? Why can't Congress get a straight answer out of this nominee to be our next Secretary of Treasury? When Mr. Lew was executive vice president of New York University, the school received kickbacks on student loans from Citigroup. Then Mr. Lew went to work for that same Citigroup. When I asked Mr. Lew if he had any conversations with Citigroup about these kickbacks while he was at New York University, he once again ``could not recall.'' I asked for any documents related to his involvement in the kickbacks and he refused to search for them. Did those conversations occur? We don't know. On Monday, the New York Times uncovered a $685,000 payment that New York University gave Jack Lew on his way out the door. The New York Times called the payment ``unusual.'' It is a shame Mr. Lew failed to provide these details as part of his confirmation process, leaving us to rely on the press to dig out the details. He told the committee he received ``severance pay'' from New York University but did not disclose the amount. The dictionary defines severance pay as: ``A sum of money, usually based on length of employment, for which an employee is eligible upon termination.'' Was Mr. Lew terminated? If so, why was he terminated? If not, was the severance package truly a parting gift from the university? I don't know the answers to those questions because Mr. Lew was not forthcoming with the answers. When it comes to questions about investments in the Cayman Islands, things get even less transparent. Mr. Lew claimed he did not know Ugland House was a notorious tax haven. He claims he did not know he had his money in the Cayman Islands. He claims he was not aware of any Citigroup Cayman Islands account. Again, this does not pass the laugh test. President Obama and Chairman Baucus have highlighted Ugland House as a problem over a long period of years. When Mr. Lew was at Citigroup for years he signed documents which disclosed the fact that he was investing money in the Cayman Islands. This is his distinctive signature, right here; the Ugland House description here, and the Grand Cayman name here. It is very obvious this signature doesn't belong to anybody else. It has been highlighted, and there have been a lot of newspaper articles about it. How are we going to have that signature on the dollar bill if he gets to be Secretary of Treasury? So everybody knows to whom that belongs. Yet with all this information, he is telling the committee he doesn't know anything about the Cayman Islands or where his money was going. We have so many more questions for Mr. Lew. This is what the Wall Street Journal said last week in reference to Mr. Lew's past: Investor in Cayman Islands tax haven? Check. Recipient of a bonus and corporate jet rides underwritten by taxpayers at a bailed-out bank? Check. Executive at a university that accepted student-loan kickbacks toward a favored bank? Check. Excessive compensation with minimal disclosure? Check. Mr. Lew's eagerness and skill in obtaining bonuses, severance payments, housing allowances, and other perks raise very serious questions about whether he appreciates who pays the bills. How will he approach the burden on taxpayers to pay the government's bills? Will he act as cavalierly toward the taxpayers as Treasury Secretary as he did at Citigroup and New York University? But despite all these questions, we are right now, this very day, rushing ahead to a vote on this nomination. Clearly, these questions don't matter to Mr. Lew's supporters because they are confident they have the votes. Unfortunately, they even have some assistance from my side of the aisle. But transparency and sunlight are essential for Congress and for the American people because with transparency and sunlight comes accountability. Those supporting Mr. Lew today better not expect any real answers out of him in the future if he will not answer these questions before confirmation. Whether we serve on the Finance Committee or on any other committee, we must do our constitutional job of oversight. We pass laws and we appropriate money and so we have a responsibility as Senators to make sure the laws are faithfully executed, which means we have to get answers from Cabinet people or people generally in the executive branch of government. If there are questions about the seriousness of faithfully executing the laws, faithfully spending the money we appropriate, we must ask questions. Do you think we will get answers from Mr. Lew after he becomes Secretary of the Treasury if he will not answer questions before his confirmation? The larger problem, though, may be that when Mr. Lew actually does try to answer a question, he confirms our concerns. For example, when Mr. Lew was caught with the Cayman Islands bank account, he said: Well, I didn't make any money. Apparently, there is now a brandnew standard. It is OK to invest in ``the largest tax scam in the world''--and those are the President's words about the Cayman Islands and Ugland House, the largest tax scam in the world--so long as you don't make any money. That is the new standard. When Mr. Lew was asked about New York University's investment in Cayman Island investments, again he could not recall them. Mr. Lew received over $1.2 million in his final year at New York University. He was hired specifically to run the business side of New York University. Yet despite all this, he claims he had no specific knowledge of where NYU's money was being invested. When I asked Mr. Lew if he could explain morally his decision to take almost $1 million from an insolvent company supported by taxpayers, he could not answer. He said this to me: ``I will leave it to others to judge.'' Mr. Lew refused to explain why he thought the bonus was justified. Since Mr. Lew could not answer that question, today I answer it for my colleagues, as they consider a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on this nomination. It is important we hold members of this administration equal to the standards they set for everyone else. When it comes to oversight, I don't think anybody is going to question this Senator is an equal opportunity overseer, because I raise these same questions about oversight whether we have a Republican administration or a Democratic administration. I believe it is important to hold members of this administration equal to the standard they set for everyone else. Let's look at that standard. In the past, the President has railed against the ``fat cats'' on Wall Street. Today, the President nominates a man who took a bonus from a bailed-out, financially insolvent bank. The President has constantly complained about the high cost of college tuition. While Mr. Lew was at NYU, the university increased tuition nearly 40 percent while he was getting paid more than the New York University president. In the not-so-distant past, the President has called the Ugland House ``the biggest tax scam in the world.'' Today, he nominates a man who invested there. In fact, the President has repeatedly railed against the Cayman Islands and Cayman Islands investments. Mr. Lew is a serial Cayman Islands investor. On his watch, Citigroup invested money there, New York University invested money there, and he invested his own money there. I believe it is essential to hold everyone to the same standards they set for others. For these reasons, I vote NO on this nomination. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President. I intend to object to proceeding to the nomination of Christopher Meade to be General Counsel to the Treasury Department for the following reason: At his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Meade for the Treasury Department's legal basis for not responding to an oversight request I made regarding the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Mr. Meade is currently the Acting General Counsel and his response appeared to indicate that he interpreted a statute which states: ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent disclosure to either House of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress'' as a limitation on Congress' ability to access information. The plain reading of the statute appears contrary to this interpretation. In addition, Mr. Meade appeared to interpret a statute which requires CFIUS to brief certain specified Members of Congress as restricting CFIUS' ability to brief anyone except those members. Again, the plain reading of the statute appears contrary to this interpretation. There is nothing in this statute which restricts Treasury from briefing any other Members of Congress. In an attempt to give Mr. Meade an opportunity to clarify his statements and explain his legal reasoning I wrote Mr. Meade another letter asking him to explain his logic and legal reasoning. I expect his reply shortly. The most important role a Department General Counsel plays is in the interpretation of statutes passed by Congress. If Congress cannot be satisfied that Mr. Meade will impartially and accurately interpret statutes, this is a grave concern. The issues I have raised appear uncontroversial. If a statute says that ``nothing'' in it can be construed to prevent the disclosure of information to Congress, I do not expect it to be interpreted to limit Congress' ability to access information. If a statute does not limit CFIUS' ability to brief Members of Congress, I do not expect it to be interpreted to limit CFIUS' ability to brief Members of Congress. I strongly believe that Congress' job does not end once it passes a statute. It is our job to ensure that the Executive Branch enforces the statute the way it was written. I will object to proceeding to Mr. Meade's nomination until he demonstrates that he will interpret these statutes consistent with their plain meaning. Bill Schultz Madam President, I would also like to express my opposition to moving forward with Bill Schultz as the General Counsel for the Health and Human Services Administration. My objection is due to the agency's refusal to respond to my oversight requests. It is not based on Mr. Shultz's qualifications or ability to do the job. I have met with Mr. Schultz and believe him to be fair and hard working. However, as I mentioned to him during his nomination hearing and when I met with him personally--I have many unanswered letters and document requests pending with HHS. Specifically: I have received no response to my December 6, 2011, letter eliminating the age restriction on Plan B; I received no response to Chairman Issa and my April 5, 2012, letter to FDA regarding the monitoring of FDA employees; I received no response to my July 16, 2012, letter to FDA regarding the monitoring of FDA employees; I received no response to my July 24, 2012, letter to FDA regarding the monitoring of FDA employees. This is unacceptable. FDA intentionally spied on confidential communication with Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, and the whistleblowers private attorneys. Furthermore, in a meeting with my staff you indicated that one month was too long for letters from Congress to go unanswered. My letters have gone unanswered ranging from 7 months to over a year. Until I receive answers to my letters and document requests, I am hesitant to agree to any movement on this nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Robert E. Bacharach, nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Bacharach's nomination was pending before the Senate last year. In accordance with Senate custom and practice, the nomination was placed on hold, along with other circuit judge nominations, pending the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. Unfortunately, the nomination was subjected to some unnecessary political theater when a cloture motion was filed and defeated last July. It is well-known that the practice and tradition of the Senate is to stop confirming circuit judge nominees in the closing months of a Presidential election year. One has to go back 20 years to find a Presidential election year when the Senate approved a circuit court judge in the latter part of the year. Of course, the rationale has been that whoever wins that election should be the one to pick these lifetime nominees who will run our judiciary system. A Congressional Research Service report on this subject stated: The Senator who most frequently has asserted the existence of a Thurmond rule has been the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee. The CRS report noted that on March 7, 2008, the chairman recalled: When President Reagan was running for President and Senator Thurmond, then in the Republican minority as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, instituted a policy to stall President Carter's nominations. That policy, known as the ``Thurmond Rule,'' was put in when the Republicans were in the minority. It is a rule that we still follow, and it will take effect very soon here. Again, this was in March of that Presidential election year, not June or July. So that rule was very carefully laid out March 7, 2008--that they didn't intend to approve any more nominees after that point. CRS went on to note the strong support the majority leader has expressed for the so-called Thurmond rule. According to CRS: Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has expressed agreement with Senator Leahy about the existence of a Thurmond rule. In April 10, 2008, floor remarks, Senator Reid said, In a Presidential election year, it is always very tough for judges. That is the way it has been for a long time, and that is why we have the Thurmond rule and other such rules. Five days later, the Majority Leader said: You know, there is a Thurmond doctrine that says: After June, we will have to take a real close look at judges in a Presidential election year. These quotes indicate not only the expectation, but in fact a support for slowing down and cutting off the confirmation of judges in a Presidential election year. Even setting aside the so-called Leahy-Thurmond rule, by any objective measure, President Obama has been treated fairly. For example, with regard to the total number of confirmations, we confirmed 171 district and circuit nominations during President Obama's first term. We also confirmed two Supreme Court nominations during President Obama's first term. When Supreme Court nominations are pending in the committee, all other work on nominations is put on hold. The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush's second term, and during that term the Senate confirmed a total of only 119 district and circuit court nominees. Let me put it another way. Under similar circumstances when Supreme Court nominees were considered--the Senate confirmed 52 more district and circuit nominees for President Obama than for President Bush. During the 2008 Presidential election year, the Senate confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. During the 2012 Presidential election year the Senate greatly exceeded those numbers, having confirmed a total of 49 judges--44 district and 5 circuit. In fact, President Obama's confirmations during the 2012 election year exceed the previous five Presidential election years. Furthermore, President Obama has the highest percentage of circuit confirmations over the past four Presidential terms. With regard to district confirmations, President Obama had more during the 112th Congress that in any of the previous eight Congresses, going back to 1994. So those who say that this President is being treated differently either fail to recognize history or want to ignore the facts, or both. With regard to today's nomination, I would like to say a few words about the nominee. I expect he will be approved and congratulate him on his confirmation. Judge Bacharach graduated from University of Oklahoma with a B.A. in 1981 and earned his J.D. from the Washington University School of Law in 1985. Upon graduation, Judge Bacharach served as a law clerk from 1985 to 1987 to the Honorable William J. Holloway, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. After completion of his clerkship, he was hired as an associate at Crowe & Dunlevy, where he became a shareholder in 1994. He remained at the firm until becoming a U.S. magistrate judge in 1999. At Crowe & Dunlevy, he primarily practiced in commercial litigation, focusing on antitrust and franchise litigation. He also handled a considerable number of cases involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, from 1996 to 1998. From 1997 to 1999, Judge Bacharach served as an adjunct professor of law at the University Of Oklahoma School Of Law. During this period, he was a coinstructor for a class titled ``Civil Pretrial Litigation.'' In 1999, the U.S. district judges for the Western District of Oklahoma appointed Judge Bacharach to be a U.S. magistrate judge. As a magistrate judge, he manages all aspects of the pretrial process in civil and criminal cases: conducting evidentiary hearings, ruling on nondispositive motions, making reports and recommendations regarding dispositive motions, and issuing criminal complaints, search warrants, and arrest warrants.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask permission to speak as in morning business for 8 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Senator Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 281 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield back our time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill and then specifically about reforming payment limits for farm programs. As one looks back to the fall of 2011 and the failure of what was referred to as the ``supercommittee,'' we saw many committees continue on with business as usual afterwards. However, one committee's members took it upon themselves to continue efforts to tackle spending and propose meaningful cuts--the Senate Agriculture Committee. For that matter, the House Agriculture Committee worked towards that end as well. I commend Chairman Stabenow and then Ranking Member Roberts for corralling the many ideas of the members of the committee to write a bill that cut $23 billion. We were able to work in committee to get the bill done. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner to get the bill across the Senate floor. It is how legislation is supposed to be considered and debated in the Senate. One of the measures in last year's farm bill was my proposal reforming payment limitations in the farm program. Adopting reforms to payment limitations contributed to the $23 billion in savings. Beyond just being a part of saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payments go to those who they were originally intended--small and medium-size farmers. In addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so nonfarmers can't game the system. I will come back to my proposed reforms in a minute after I say just a few words about the overall farm bill picture. As we all know, Congress was not able to complete work on the farm bill last year. But that is not for a lack of desire by either the Senate nor the House Agriculture Committees. There remains a desire to get a 5-year bill passed. Supporters of the farm bill need to take a hard look at what challenges were presented last year to getting the bill done. We need to forge ahead knowing some tough decisions need to be made. For the Senate, we need to consider whether it is realistic that we only reduce $4 billion out of the nearly $800 billion nutrition title. More can and should be done. The nutrition title comprised by far and away the largest expenditure in the bill. There are more reforms we can make to programs such as food stamps, and they are reforms that cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse in the program but also safeguard assistance for people who need it. There are other programs we need to take a fresh look at. Should we accept the status quo on the sugar program? How do we handle dairy policy? What policy can we implement in the commodity program that won't distort planting decisions but maintains an effective safety net? These are some of the many issues we need to debate again and decide. I, for one, hope we are able to start soon and work together to get a 5-year bill completed this year. Our farmers and rural communities deserve to have certainty. When we do move forward on drafting a new farm bill, I will again be pushing for the reforms to payment limitations. That is why today I am introducing the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 with Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Enzi, and Senator Brown. The proposed legislation strikes a needed balance of recognizing the need for a farm safety net while making sure we have a defensible and responsible safety net. In case there is any doubt, we do need a farm program safety net. For those who argue we do not need a safety net for our farmers, I argue they do not understand the danger of a nation which does not produce its own food. Take Germany and Japan during World War II, for instance. There came a point where their soldiers had difficulty fighting because they didn't have food to eat. So today their respective governments maintain vigorous support for their farmers. It is a matter of social cohesion as well. Without a secure source of food, we jeopardize our very way of life. Look around the world where there is hunger and you see rioting, stealing, and other acts of violence. We need our farmers to keep producing our food. For all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject to conditions out of their control. Just look at the drought that still grips much of the U.S. Without an adequate safety net, some farmers would be left with no ability to make it the following year. That would mean potentially less food being produced for an ever-increasing world population. That is a scary prospect. While farmers need a safety net, there does come a point where a farmer gets big enough and financially secure so that he can weather tough times without much assistance from the government. Somehow, though, over the years there has developed this perverse scenario where big farmers are receiving the lion's share of farm program payments. We now have the largest 10 percent of farmers receiving nearly 70 percent of farm payments. There is nothing wrong with a farmer growing his operation, but the taxpayer should not be subsidizing large farming operations to grow even larger. By having reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any one farmer can receive, it helps ensure the program meets the intent of assisting small and medium-size farmers through tough times. My proposed caps on payments will also help encourage the next generation of rural Americans to take up farming. I am approached time and again about how to help young people get into farming. When large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting those they are meant to help. It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a farmer can receive in farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it most. And it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments have on land prices. Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for a married couple. In my State, many people would say this is still too high. But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise. Just as important to setting a hard cap on payments is closing off loopholes that have allowed nonfarmers to game the farm program. The bill being introduced today will do this by cutting off the ability of these nonfarmers from abusing what is referred to as the ``actively engaged'' test. In essence, the law says one has to be actively engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments. However, this has been exploited by people who have virtually nothing to do with the farming operation yet receive payments from the farm program. Our Nation has over $16 trillion in debt. We cannot afford to simply look the other way and let people abuse the farm program. The Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 is the same in purpose as what it states in the name. This is about increasing the integrity of the program. My colleagues here in the Senate agreed with me last year as we included these pivotal reforms in the farm bill. I am confident these reforms will garner similar approval in the 113th Congress. I mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas of farm policy as we look to pass a 5-year farm bill, and some tough decisions need to be made. However, my proposed reforms regarding payment limits do not pose a tough decision. They are common sense and necessary reforms.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill and then specifically about reforming payment limits for farm programs. As one looks back to the fall of 2011 and the failure of what was referred to as the ``supercommittee,'' we saw many committees continue on with business as usual afterwards. However, one committee's members took it upon themselves to continue efforts to tackle spending and propose meaningful cuts--the Senate Agriculture Committee. For that matter, the House Agriculture Committee worked towards that end as well. I commend Chairman Stabenow and then Ranking Member Roberts for corralling the many ideas of the members of the committee to write a bill that cut $23 billion. We were able to work in committee to get the bill done. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner to get the bill across the Senate floor. It is how legislation is supposed to be considered and debated in the Senate. One of the measures in last year's farm bill was my proposal reforming payment limitations in the farm program. Adopting reforms to payment limitations contributed to the $23 billion in savings. Beyond just being a part of saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payments go to those who they were originally intended--small and medium-size farmers. In addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so nonfarmers can't game the system. I will come back to my proposed reforms in a minute after I say just a few words about the overall farm bill picture. As we all know, Congress was not able to complete work on the farm bill last year. But that is not for a lack of desire by either the Senate nor the House Agriculture Committees. There remains a desire to get a 5-year bill passed. Supporters of the farm bill need to take a hard look at what challenges were presented last year to getting the bill done. We need to forge ahead knowing some tough decisions need to be made. For the Senate, we need to consider whether it is realistic that we only reduce $4 billion out of the nearly $800 billion nutrition title. More can and should be done. The nutrition title comprised by far and away the largest expenditure in the bill. There are more reforms we can make to programs such as food stamps, and they are reforms that cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse in the program but also safeguard assistance for people who need it. There are other programs we need to take a fresh look at. Should we accept the status quo on the sugar program? How do we handle dairy policy? What policy can we implement in the commodity program that won't distort planting decisions but maintains an effective safety net? These are some of the many issues we need to debate again and decide. I, for one, hope we are able to start soon and work together to get a 5-year bill completed this year. Our farmers and rural communities deserve to have certainty. When we do move forward on drafting a new farm bill, I will again be pushing for the reforms to payment limitations. That is why today I am introducing the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 with Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Enzi, and Senator Brown. The proposed legislation strikes a needed balance of recognizing the need for a farm safety net while making sure we have a defensible and responsible safety net. In case there is any doubt, we do need a farm program safety net. For those who argue we do not need a safety net for our farmers, I argue they do not understand the danger of a nation which does not produce its own food. Take Germany and Japan during World War II, for instance. There came a point where their soldiers had difficulty fighting because they didn't have food to eat. So today their respective governments maintain vigorous support for their farmers. It is a matter of social cohesion as well. Without a secure source of food, we jeopardize our very way of life. Look around the world where there is hunger and you see rioting, stealing, and other acts of violence. We need our farmers to keep producing our food. For all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject to conditions out of their control. Just look at the drought that still grips much of the U.S. Without an adequate safety net, some farmers would be left with no ability to make it the following year. That would mean potentially less food being produced for an ever-increasing world population. That is a scary prospect. While farmers need a safety net, there does come a point where a farmer gets big enough and financially secure so that he can weather tough times without much assistance from the government. Somehow, though, over the years there has developed this perverse scenario where big farmers are receiving the lion's share of farm program payments. We now have the largest 10 percent of farmers receiving nearly 70 percent of farm payments. There is nothing wrong with a farmer growing his operation, but the taxpayer should not be subsidizing large farming operations to grow even larger. By having reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any one farmer can receive, it helps ensure the program meets the intent of assisting small and medium-size farmers through tough times. My proposed caps on payments will also help encourage the next generation of rural Americans to take up farming. I am approached time and again about how to help young people get into farming. When large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting those they are meant to help. It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a farmer can receive in farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it most. And it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments have on land prices. Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for a married couple. In my State, many people would say this is still too high. But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise. Just as important to setting a hard cap on payments is closing off loopholes that have allowed nonfarmers to game the farm program. The bill being introduced today will do this by cutting off the ability of these nonfarmers from abusing what is referred to as the ``actively engaged'' test. In essence, the law says one has to be actively engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments. However, this has been exploited by people who have virtually nothing to do with the farming operation yet receive payments from the farm program. Our Nation has over $16 trillion in debt. We cannot afford to simply look the other way and let people abuse the farm program. The Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 is the same in purpose as what it states in the name. This is about increasing the integrity of the program. My colleagues here in the Senate agreed with me last year as we included these pivotal reforms in the farm bill. I am confident these reforms will garner similar approval in the 113th Congress. I mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas of farm policy as we look to pass a 5-year farm bill, and some tough decisions need to be made. However, my proposed reforms regarding payment limits do not pose a tough decision. They are common sense and necessary reforms.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Coburn amendment strikes the provisions of the underlying bill that expand the authority of Indian tribal courts to try nonIndians. As I have stated, there are a number of constitutional questions that the Congressional Research Service has identified with the language that the Coburn amendment would strike. Some arise with respect to the expansion of tribal court jurisdiction. Others are associated with the constitutional rights that would be provided to nonIndian defendants who would face proceedings in Indian tribal courts. It is not at all clear under the Constitution that Indian tribes possess any inherent authority that the bill purports to recognize. It is also not clear that Congress can constitutionally delegate to tribal courts the authority to try nonIndians. Additionally, tribal courts may not be able to secure basic constitutional rights to criminal defendants. The jury pool is racially restricted and does not provide the defendant a jury of his peers. Unlike a State, a tribe is not a sovereign entity. Therefore, a tribal proceeding can violate double jeopardy if the Federal government, which would retain concurrent jurisdiction under the bill, also decided to pursue the case. We recognize that rates of domestic violence are too high in Indian country. The Federal government has a responsibility to address these crimes, whether committed by Indians or by others. It does not follow that the approach taken in this bill is the right one. We should not engage in a political exercise over tribal sovereignty that has nothing to do with protecting Indian women. We also should not provide an illusion of a remedy that in the end could well be struck down by a court on constitutional grounds. Instead, we should take clearly constitutional action that will enable the Federal government to better fulfill its responsibilities to women in Indian country given the practical issues that make that difficult currently. I will support the Coburn amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I hope to offer an amendment that would be a Republican substitute, so whenever that happens--I don't know exactly when, but I wish to discuss my amendment at this point. My amendment does more to protect the rights of victims of domestic violence and sex crimes than does the underlying piece of legislation. There are many ways in which this is so. Under the substitute amendment I will offer, more money goes to the victims and less to bureaucrats. It requires that 10 percent of the grantees be audited every year to ensure that taxpayer funds are actually used to combat domestic violence. It seems to me that when dollars are short, that is a very important point that people ought to take cognizance of. The Justice Department inspector general conducted a review of 22 VAWA grantees between the years 1998 and 2010. Of these 22, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements, ranging from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures to sloppy record keeping and failure to report in a timely manner. In 2010 one grantee was found by the inspector general to have questionable costs for 93 percent of the nearly $900,000 they received from the Department of Justice. A 2009 audit found that nearly $500,000 of a $680,000 grant was questionable. These fiscal irregularities continue. An inspector general audit from last year found that the Violence Against Women Act grant recipient in the Virgin Islands engaged in almost $850,000 of questionable spending. Also, a grant to an Indian tribe in Idaho had about $250,000 in improperly spent funds, including $171,000 in salary for an unapproved position. In Michigan last year, a woman at a VAWA grant recipient used some of those funds to purchase goods and services for her personal use. After all of those examples, the point is this: We should make sure Violence Against Women Act money goes to victims. That hasn't been the case under the current situation, and the substitute works toward improving that situation. The substitute also prevents grantees from using taxpayer funds to lobby for more taxpayer funds. That seems to be pretty common sense. My amendment will ensure that more money is available for victim services. That is where the money is supposed to go. Money that goes to grantees and is squandered helps no woman or other victims. In addition, the Republican alternative limits the amount of VAWA funds that can go to administrative fees and salaries to just 7.5 percent. The present underlying bill, S. 47, contains no such limit. If we want the money to go to victims and not to bureaucrats, then those overhead expenses should be capped. The Republican substitute amendment requires that 30 percent of the STOP grants and grants for arrest policies and protection orders are targeted on sexual assault. The underlying bill sets aside only 20 percent for sexual assault. The substitute requires that training materials be approved by an outside accredited organization to ensure that those who address domestic violence help victims based on knowledge and not on ideology. That will result in more effective assistance to the victims. The underlying bill contains no such requirement. The substitute protects due process rights the majority bill threatens. Now, I am sure the majority writers don't feel their bill threatens due process rights, so let me explain. The majority bill says that college campuses must provide for ``prompt and equitable investigation and resolution'' of charges of violence or stalking. This essentially does nothing but codify a proposed rule of the Department of Education that would have required the imposition of a civil standard or preponderance of the evidence for what is essentially a criminal charge--one that, if proved, rightfully should harm reputation. But if established on a barely-more-probable-than-not standard, reputations can then be ruined unfairly. The substitute eliminates this provision as well as another provision that allowed the victim who could not prove such a charge even under this reduced standard to appeal if she lost, creating a kind of double jeopardy. The majority bill also would give Indian tribal courts the ability to issue protective orders and full civil jurisdiction over non-Indians based on actions allegedly taken in Indian Country. Noting that the due process clause requires that courts exercise jurisdiction over only those persons who have ``minimum contacts'' with the forum, the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional concerns with this provision. The substitute contains provisions that would benefit tribal women and would not run afoul of the Constitution. Tribes could seek protective orders in Federal court. The substitute establishes up to $25 million for Federal prosecutors and magistrates to be placed near tribes for criminal domestic violence and sexual assault cases as well as to hear tribal motions for protective orders. The grant funds are paid for by reducing the overhead of other Justice Department grant funds. However, there will be no reduction in available grants for law enforcement or victims. These programs are not currently funded to their authorized levels, so the reductions will not reduce services provided. Combating violence against women also means tougher penalties for those who commit these terrible crimes. The substitute I am referring to creates a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for Federal convictions for forcible rape. The majority bill even eliminates the 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for this crime that was in the bill last year and supported last year by the Judiciary Committee. Child pornography is an actual record of a crime scene of violence against women. Our alternative amendment establishes a 1-year mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography where the victim depicted is under 12 years of age. I believe the mandatory minimum for this crime should be higher and that in light of the systematically lenient sentences that too many Federal judges hand out, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence for all child pornography possession convictions. But the substitute at least is a start. This is especially true because the majority bill takes no action against child pornography. Our alternative also imposes a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of aggravated sexual assault. This crime involves sexual assault through the use of drugs and by otherwise rendering the victim unconscious. The underlying bill does nothing about aggravated sexual assault. The status quo appears to be fine for the other side. The Republican substitute establishes a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence for the crime of interstate domestic violence that results in the death of a victim. It increases from 20 to 25 years the statutory maximum sentence for the crime where it results in life-threatening bodily injury to or the permanent disfigurement of the victim. It increases from 10 to 15 years the mandatory maximum sentence for this crime when serious bodily injury to the victim is the result. The underlying bill contains none of these important protections for domestic violence victims. Also included in my substitute are commonsense immigration reforms that put integrity back into the Violence Against Women Act self- petitioning process and the U visa program. This last Congress, the Judiciary Committee heard the powerful testimony of Julie Poner. She described her personal experience as a victim of immigration marriage fraud and with the fraudulent use of Violence Against Women Act self-petitions. Ms. Poner told us she married her husband in the Czech Republic and moved her husband and kids back to the United States. Within days of receiving notice of an interview with the immigration service to finalize her husband's immigration status, he told her he was divorcing her. He instructed her to file for the divorce and continue to sponsor him for his green card. He then became abusive toward her children. Her husband was a hockey player--6 feet 2 inches tall. However, he knew he risked deportation if the truth came out, so he turned the tables on his wife and claimed he was the one abused--actually being abused by Ms. Poner. Ms. Poner never was allowed to share her side of the story. The immigration service believed his claims and allowed him to remain in the United States. Our committee also received written statements from more than 20 individuals who maintained they were victims of marriage fraud or were falsely accused as part of the Violence Against Women Act self- petitions. These witnesses told of their firsthand experiences and how foreign nationals prey on U.S. citizens simply to get a green card. The U.S. citizens thought it was all for love, but after saying ``I do,'' the foreign national lodged false allegations, sometimes of physical abuse, in order to get out of the marriage, collect alimony, and secure a green card. Witnesses have said their side of the story was never--never--heard because under the process used by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the citizen's side of the story is not considered. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services handles all of these green card applications in one service center that relies exclusively on paper, without interviewing either the alleged abused foreign national or the accused citizen. To this day, I am disappointed that antifraud measures have not been included in the Violence Against Women Act. We cannot allow a law intended to prevent abuse to be manipulated as a pathway to U.S. citizenship for foreign con artists and criminals. If we are truly concerned about helping and protecting the victims of domestic violence, then we should include a provision that allows our immigration agents to hear both sides of the story when a foreign national applies for a green card after alleging domestic violence by a U.S. citizen. So my amendment, obviously, addresses this fraud. It would require an interview of the applicant and allow the government to gather other evidence and interview other witnesses, including the accused U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Before adjudicating the self-petition, the government would have to determine whether other investigations or prosecutions are underway for the petitioning alien. If there are other allegations or investigations pending, the immigration adjudication would have to consider all facts. The second immigration-related section of my amendment would strengthen the requirements of a U visa. Under current law, the requirements for receiving a U visa are generous. My amendment implements some commonsense requirements to guide law enforcement who help sponsor these individuals. In addition to confirming that the alien has been helpful, each law enforcement certification will also have to confirm that, one, the alien reported the criminal activity to a law enforcement agency within 120 days of its occurrence; two, the statute of limitations for prosecuting an offense based on the criminal activity has not lapsed; three, the criminal activity is actively under investigation or a prosecution has been commenced; and, four, and last, the alien has information that will assist in identifying the perpetrator of the criminal activity and/or the perpetrator's identity is known. With these changes, U visas will become a true law enforcement tool. The additional requirements will ensure that the help given is real and significantly advances an actual investigation and prosecution. Another immigration-related section of my amendment includes a Government Accountability Office report to assess the efficiency and reliability of the process for reviewing applications for U visas and self-petitions under the Violence Against Women Act, including whether the process includes adequate safeguards against fraud and abuse. It will also identify possible improvements in order to reduce fraud and abuse. The final immigration provision I want to highlight in my substitute would allow the U.S. Government to deport repeat drunk drivers. Section 1005 would add habitual drunk driving to the list of aggravated felonies for which an alien may be deported. Every day--every day--an innocent life is taken because someone decides to drink and drive. An individual who gets behind the wheel after drinking is not exercising sound judgment. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals are required to be of ``good moral character'' before they are able to adjust status or become citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, habitual drunk driving does not stand in one's way from gaining these benefits. In other words, it is not a deportable offense. There are numerous stories about individuals who have taken innocent lives because they were driving under the influence of alcohol. In 2011, an undocumented alien in Cook County, IL, killed a man in a drunk driving accident. Unfortunately, he was released by the county, absconded, and remains in the United States. There was also a Virginia man who killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County in 2010. He was an illegal immigrant and repeat offender and never should have been allowed to remain in the country. There are many more cases, and, unfortunately, the law will allow drunk driving to continue without repercussions for foreign nationals who are on a path to citizenship. It is time that these offenses were classified as an aggravated felony. It is time to get these people off the streets. Residing in the United States is a privilege, not a right. The Congress has every prerogative to dictate which behavior is acceptable, especially for noncitizens who should be of ``good moral character.'' Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to this bill that would have classified habitual drunk driving offenses as aggravated felonies. But in the bill before us now, the majority has dropped that provision. I cannot understand why we would be so lenient with respect to habitual drunk drivers. When we get to amendments--the substitute I just talked about--I intend to offer that substitute, and I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I listened to everything the chairman said. I am not going to rebut point by point. I wish to take a little bit of time to emphasize the key points I have tried to make. In a sense, I might be asking the chairman to think in terms of what we are trying to accomplish just on a couple of points. First of all, I think this is pointed out with the underlying bill that somehow all victims are not protected. The point is, that for however many years now--I suppose it is 25 years that this legislation has been on the books--all victims are protected under the substitute and, I want to emphasize, under current law. It was then-Senator Biden, now Vice President Biden, writing the current law. His law did not discriminate. As Senator Leahy says, those who provide domestic violence services believe a victim is a victim. They do not discriminate. On another point about the tribal courts, I made reference to the Congressional Research Service when I gave my longer remarks on this point of questionable constitutional issues. As for the tribal court provisions, the Congressional Research Service has raised serious constitutional problems both with respect to the authority of tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians and the constitutional rights of non- Indians. What is very cruel is to provide tribal women the illusion of a solution that courts may well strike down on constitutional grounds in the future. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. For 7 or 8 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If I could have 7 or 8 minutes now.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there has long been bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. Too many women are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. Federal support for services to these women, and sometimes even men, has been beneficial to our country. I support many of the provisions in the majority bill. There are consolidations of grants, cyber stalking, rural programs, assistance for individuals with disabilities, older victims, housing protections, and numerous other provisions I wholeheartedly support. There is overwhelming bipartisan support for 98 percent of what is contained in S. 47. The process on the Violence Against Women Act in the 112th Congress was very disappointing, and I expressed that last year during debate on this issue. Previously, the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized unanimously--I mean prior to the debate last year and this year. When new provisions were added in the past, prior to last year, they were consensus items. The law then was reauthorized by consensus. Something similar could have happened again last year, but it did not. New provisions were forced into the bill. Some of these provisions were controversial. Some raised serious constitutional concerns. But those on the other side of the aisle insisted on these provisions without change and refused any sort of middle ground. It appeared that the debate was more about blame and politics than it was about providing help to women in need. Last Congress, both the Republican leader and this Senator offered that the Senate consent to striking a provision that violated the Constitution's Origination clause and then we would proceed to conference. Everybody knows that the Constitution's Origination clause says that issues involving raising revenue must start in the other body. Well, this bill raised revenue and, consequently, violated that constitutional provision. Yet today, S. 47 has removed that provision that raised this blue slip problem in the other body. It does this only a few months after the majority refused to drop it and proceed to conference. What I just said tells you, if it had been done as they are doing it right now, we could have gotten this bill to conference and had something to the President in the last Congress. The willingness of the majority today to eliminate that unconstitutional provision demonstrates that we could have had a bill last year, and that is what I want to express to my colleagues as a terribly disappointing proposition for this Senator. It is not true that unless S. 47 is passed exactly as is, various groups will be excluded from protection under the law. Current law protects all victims. Vice President Biden wrote the current law. Every Member of the Senate who was a Member of this body when the Violence Against Women Act last was reauthorized voted for that bill, which backs up what I have been saying several times during my remarks, that this could have passed last year as a consensus piece of legislation and has passed in other reauthorizations as a consensus piece of legislation. Neither Vice President Biden nor any other Senator passed a discriminatory bill in the past. It is not the case that unless the controversial provisions are accepted exactly as the majority insists, without any compromise whatsoever, that any groups will be excluded. The key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the provision concerning Indian tribal courts. That provision raises serious constitutional questions concerning both the sovereignty of tribal courts and the constitutional rights of defendants who would be tried in those tribal courts. We should focus on providing needed services for Native American women. But S. 47 makes political statements and expounds needlessly on Native American sovereignty. It raises such significant constitutional problems that its passage might actually not accomplish anything at all for Native American women, while at the same time failing to protect the constitutional rights of other American citizens. Even the respected organization, the Congressional Research Service, has raised constitutional questions about the tribal provisions in this bill. I hope that whatever the Senate might do today, negotiations on these questions will continue. I am confident that if we can reach agreement on these questions, compromises on the other few remaining issues can also be secured, allowing the bill to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. So following up on some of the concerns I have raised this morning, I will yet today, if possible, offer a substitute that is much more likely to be accepted by the other body and then get to the President for signature. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Barrett Anderson, a fellow in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during the debate and votes concerning S. 47.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, as I will do, to support the motion to proceed to the Violence Against Women Act. I expect that many of my Republican colleagues will also vote to proceed to the bill. There has long been bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act. Too many women are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. Federal support for services to these women, and sometimes even men, has been beneficial to our country. There is overwhelming bipartisan support for 98 percent of what is contained in S. 47, so I favor proceeding to the bill and offering limited amendments. We can then have a Senate vote, allow the other body to work its will, resolve any differences between the bills, pass a compromised reauthorization bill through both Houses, and get it to the President. The process on the Violence Against Women Act in the last Congress was very disappointing. Previously the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized unanimously. Something similar could have happened again last year, but it didn't. New provisions were brought forth into the bill. Some of the provisions were very controversial. Some provisions even raised serious constitutional concerns, but those on the other side insisted on these provisions without any change and refused to compromise. It appeared that the debate was more about blame and politics than it was about providing help to women in need. In the last Congress, both the Republican leader and this Senator offered that the Senate consent to striking a provision which violated the Constitution's origination clause, and then proceed to conference. The majority spurned those efforts on both occasions. Yet today S. 47 has removed the very provision which raised the blue-slip problem with the House of Representatives because, as we all know, under the Constitution all bills raising revenue must start in the House of Representatives. The majority did this only a few months after the majority refused to drop that very same provision and proceed to conference. So this bill could have been to the President last year. The willingness of the majority today to eliminate that very unconstitutional provision demonstrates that we could have had a bill to the President last year. That ought to be a terrible disappointment not only to this Senator but to all the people in the Senate. It is not true that unless S. 47 is passed exactly as is various groups will be excluded from protections under the law. Would anyone care to know why? Because the current law protects all victims. Vice President Biden wrote the current law. Every Member of the Senate who was a Member of this body when the Violence Against Women Act was last reauthorized voted for that bill. Neither Vice President Biden nor any other Senator passed a discriminatory bill then. It is not the case that unless the controversial provisions are accepted exactly as the majority insists without any compromise whatsoever that any groups will be excluded. The key stumbling block to enacting a bill at this time is the provision concerning Indian tribal courts. That provision raises serious constitutional questions concerning both the sovereignty of tribal courts and the constitutional rights of defendants who would be tried in those courts. We should focus on providing needed services to Native American women. S. 47 makes political statements and expounds on Native American sovereignty. It raises such significant constitutional problems that its passage might actually not accomplish anything at all for Native American women while failing to protect the constitutional rights of other American citizens. Even the Congressional Research Service has raised constitutional questions with the tribal provisions in this very bill. Negotiations are continuing, and I am quite confident that if we can reach an agreement on these questions, compromises on the other few remaining issues can also be secured and would allow the bill to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. If we are unable to reach agreement in the next couple of days, then I intend to offer a substitute that is much more likely to be accepted by the House and become law. In the meantime, for this very day, all we are talking about is getting to this bill so we can discuss these issues. I will vote for the motion to proceed, and I ask my colleagues to do so as well. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad the Senate is now having some discussion among Members not yet on the floor about the issue of immigration because it is a very important problem that we have to deal with. I look forward to the debate that I think is coming up this year on immigration, and I would like to share my thoughts and my past experiences on this issue. I particularly want to share my personal experience from the 1980s amnesty law and what we can learn from that debate. But before I go into that history, I wish to commend many Senators who are working together to forge a consensus and produce a product on this terribly difficult issue. I commend them for sitting down and agreeing to a set of principles that were put forth in a news conference last week. As ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I expect to play a role in brokering an even broader consensus with additional Members. I have read the bipartisan framework for immigration reform this group has written, and the one thing that struck me--in fact, it is the last sentence in the preamble--is this: We will ensure that this is a successful, permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited. In other words, the group understands we need a long-term solution to the problem. We need a serious fix so future generations don't have to deal with 11 million or 15 million or 30 million people who have come illegally. That sentence is the most important part of that document, and we must not lose sight of the goal expressed by the eight Senators who enunciated that. But we need to learn from our previous mistakes so we truly don't have to revisit the problem. So let us discuss the 1986 amnesty under President Reagan. There are few of us in the Senate today who were present during that debate. In 1980, President Reagan campaigned on a promise that he would work to reform our immigration laws and legalize foreign workers in the United States. The President's policies were further shaped by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy that was created in 1978 under President Carter. President Reagan signed a bill into law on November 6, 1986. So 6 years after he first ran for President, he signed a law. This law was known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The process to finalize the bill was long and arduous. It took years--6 years, to be exact. In 1981, when I was a freshman Senator, I joined the Judiciary Committee and was a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Back then, subcommittees did real work. They actually sat down and wrote legislation. We had 100 hours of hearings and 300 witnesses before we marked up a bill in May 1982--a markup 4 years before the President ever signed it. Senator Simpson chaired the subcommittee, and other members included Senators Thurmond, Kennedy, and DeConcini. Senator Thurmond was called to the White House and Senator DeConcini had just been hospitalized, so Senators Simpson, Kennedy, and I brought up amendments and we actually voted on them. Senator Kennedy, on that day, said:. Immigration reform is one of the most complicated and difficult issues; it involves human beings, it involves families, it involves loved ones, children and the separation of those individuals. His words would still resonate today. In 1982, I told my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee that I wanted to do the right thing for the United States, and this is what I said at that time: The real issue here is what is best for United States citizens. In trying to maintain that perspective, I have come to the conclusion through the course of attending many hearings on this issue, that increased border and interior enforcement along with employer sanctions and a secure worker eligibility identity system is necessary to regain control of our borders. This is a philosophy that continues to guide me on this issue of immigration yet today. But I expressed my concerns with the legalization component at the time. I echoed the recommendations of the Select Commission on Immigration. That Commission said a legalization should, No. 1, be consistent with U.S. interests; and, 2, the program should not encourage further undocumented migration. The commission believed that a legalization program should not begin until new enforcement measures had been instituted. The Commission knew then, as I did and as I know now, that ``without more effective enforcement, legalization could serve as a stimulus to further illegal entry.'' Those are the words of the Commission. You see, I didn't think permanent residency should be granted until we had a worker eligibility system. I offered an amendment on that point in 1982, but that amendment failed. The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate passed a bill in 1982, but it did not pass the House of Representatives. We tried again in the next Congress. The Senate passed a bill in 1983, and the House followed in 1984. We convened a conference committee between the House and the Senate, but Walter Mondale came out opposed. So we adjourned for the elections and failed to finalize a bill that year--2 years before President Reagan finally signed a bill. We returned in 1985 to pass our bill again. That year, Senator Simpson included a provision to trigger the amnesty program only after enforcement measures to curtail illegal immigration were in place. Doesn't that sound familiar? Congress passed a final bill in November 1986. The vote in the Senate was 63 to 24 and the House vote was 238 to 173. Over the years, many Members have offered amendments to water down the enforcement provision in the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. That was the name of the legislation. Senator Simpson and Congressman Mazzoli were the leaders of that effort in 1986. There was a lot of opposition to employer sanctions, especially by Senator Kennedy. He wanted, in his words, ``criminal penalties to be based only upon injunctive finding of a pattern or practice.'' He tried to sunset the employer sanction. Senator Kennedy also fought hard to move the legalization cutoff date from 1980 to 1982 so more people could benefit from the amnesty. The 1986 bill was supposed to be a three-legged stool: control of illegal immigration, the first leg; a legalization program, the second leg; and the third leg, reform of legal immigration. We authorized $422 million to carry out the requirements of the Immigration Reform Act and created a special fund for States to reimburse their costs. The 1986 bill included a legalization program for two categories of people: one for individuals who had been present in the United States since 1982; and the second for farm workers who had worked in agriculture for at least 90 days prior to enactment. A total of 2.7 million people were given amnesty. We also had enforcement. For the first time ever, we made it illegal to knowingly hire or employ someone here illegally. We set penalties to deter the hiring of people here illegally. We wrote in the bill that ``one essential element of immigration control is an increase in the border patrol and other inspection and enforcement activities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to prevent and deter the illegal entry of aliens into the United States and the violation of the terms of their entry.'' So let me again repeat one of the principles the Gang of 8 included in their framework enunciated last week: ``We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.'' Unfortunately, the same principles from 1986 are being discussed today. Legalize now, enforce later. But it is clear that philosophy doesn't work. Proponents of amnesty today argue we didn't get it right in 1986. I agree the enforcement mechanism in 1986 could have been stronger. That is why they need to be strong this time around. But I am already concerned some will attempt to water down the principles that have been put forth on enforcement measures. President Obama doesn't seem to favor triggers. The senior Senator from New York said just last week that border security wasn't going to stop legalization. In his words, he said: We're not using border security as an excuse or block to the path of citizenship. Advocacy groups are already talking about ensuring that a border security commission doesn't stand in the way or have veto authority over a legalization program. One theme from 1986 is shining through today. Some say we need to legalize the millions of people who are already on U.S. soil. They say we need to bring them out of the shadows, know who is here, and give them a chance at U.S. citizenship. They imply that this would be a one- time deal because we would get it right this time--like we thought we got it right in 1986 but didn't. In the 1980s Senator Simpson was convinced that what we did then would be a permanent solution to our immigration problems. He stated: We are attempting to assure that this is a one-time only program. . . . The purpose of legalization is not to award or reward or include the largest number of persons available. It is to bring forward into a legal status those most deeply entrenched in a society they would be least likely to return home to when the job opportunities no longer are available. Senator Simpson said that a one-time amnesty would prevent us from a continuing series of amnesties. He said: The major reason for legalization is to eliminate an illegal sub-class within our society. This is the legislation that will eliminate this exploitable group. Some people like to say that they hope it will clean the slate; that is what we are trying to do is clean the slate. Well, those are good intentions by Senator Simpson, but, as I said, they obviously haven't worked. And it is an admonition to those who want to do it right, once and for all, to learn from the mistakes of 1986. Senator Simpson also said: The American people, in my mind, will never accept a legalization program unless they can be assured this is a one-shot deal and that this is it, this is a one-time occurrence. And the policymakers in this country are not going to allow it to happen again and will prevent the situation which gave rise to it. Well, as smart as Senator Simpson is--and he is a smart person. I like to see him on television, particularly when he is talking about why the President didn't back the Simpson-Bowles Commission on budget reform and fiscal reform. But here is a person who worked 6 years to get it right so we would never have to visit it again, when we had 3 million people who had come here, illegally violating our laws--get it fixed once and for all and thought he did. But I think now he would admit--and I have to admit because I was on the subcommittee--we didn't get it right. I voted for that. So now, as I am looking at a group of eight trying to say in the preamble of their working paper: We are going to fix this once and for all, well, you better check that it is not very easy to do that, and you better do it better than we did. The INS Commissioner at the time in 1986, Alan Nelson, told the committee that the legalization program was ``realistic and humane'' and said further that ``it is clear that this is meant to be a one-time proposal, and not intended to recur.'' In 1986, the committee report said: . . . the solution lies in legalizing the status of aliens who have been present in the United States for several years, recognizing that past failures to enforce the immigration laws have allowed them to enter and to settle here. Also, according to the report, the committee `` . . . strongly believes that a one-time legalization program is a necessary part of an effective enforcement program and that a generous program is an essential part of any immigration reform legislation.'' In 1986 the Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act. At the time, President Reagan hailed it as the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952. He stated that the legislation was a major step toward meeting the challenge to our sovereignty while at the same time preserving and enhancing the Nation's heritage of legal immigration--a heritage of which we all ought to be proud. What Congress, the public, and the President did not envision or did not want was another amnesty debate. The American people were told in 1986 that this would be a one-time shot. The incentive to buy in to the argument was the promise of enforcement. In 1985 Senator Simpson said: If legalization should occur before more effective enforcement is available, the illegal population is only going to grow very swiftly again, and that will create pressures for additional legalization. And it will not be a one-time only legalization; it will be a continuing series. Many believed that employer sanctions were the only way to curtail illegal immigration. One committee report stated that ``unless employer sanctions are enacted, the Committee is concerned that the situation will continue to worsen.'' In 1985 Senator Metzenbaum of Ohio said: When push comes to shove, there is only one realistic way that you can stop illegal immigration into this country, and that is by making it illegal and being tough enough that illegal immigrants cannot work in this country. Knowing what we know now, an immigration reform bill must include tough enforcement measures. We must stop flow at the border. We must expand and enhance legal avenues so that people are not coming here illegally. We must have a strong employment verification program. Unfortunately, we aren't enforcing the laws we have on the books today. The American people don't trust that we will enforce these laws in the future. We provided amnesty overnight in 1986 and didn't fulfill the other parts of the equation. Border security, enforcement measures, and legal immigration reform need to be the first things on our agenda in 2013. I chose to talk about this topic today because I believe we can learn from the past. We can learn from our mistakes. This isn't just about our history, it is about our future. Today, people in foreign lands want to be a part of this great Nation. We should feel privileged that people love our country and want to become Americans. We must make sure the decisions we make with regard to our immigration policies follow our longstanding ideals. We want to welcome new Americans, but we need to live by the rules we have set. We cannot let our welcome mat be trampled on or our system of laws be undermined. Let me end by echoing the words of President Reagan: Distance does not discourage illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship. My hope is that we will preserve the value of American citizenship, as President Reagan said. The path we take today will shape our country for years to come. It is my hope that we can find a solution while learning from our mistakes and ensuring that future generations don't have to revisit this problem down the road. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, along with several colleagues, I am introducing legislation to permanently authorize and expand the E- Verify program. My bill, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act, wil1 be a tool for employers who want a legal workforce and it will enhance our ability to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices. Known as the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify currently provides employers with a simple, web-based tool to verify the work eligibility of new hires. In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents. Because identity theft and counterfeit documents became a thriving industry after the 1986 bill, Congress looked to create a program to help employers verify the work eligibility of its new hires. We created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. Employers in this program can electronically verify a new hires' employment authorization by checking data of employees with records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. Currently, the E-Verify program is voluntary and free for all employers to use. It is a proven tool in combating illegal immigration. Today, I am proposing that the program be a staple in every workplace so that American workers are on a level playing field with cheaper foreign labor. My legislation would increase penalties on employers who continue to hire people unauthorized to work in the country. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary visas. My bill also addresses identity theft concerns. The Social Security Administration would be required to develop algorithm technology that would flag social security numbers that are being used more than once. For those who find themselves victim of identity theft, this bill would amend the criminal code to clarify identity fraud is punishable regardless if the defendant did not have knowledge of the victim. This provision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that an individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person. While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about worksite enforcement. The President and many members in Congress are going to make it a priority to pass an immigration reform bill this year. We need to act. We need change. We need a better system in place for future generations. Part of the discussion on immigration will be on a reliable employment verification program. People back home want employers to be held accountable. And, employers want to be responsible. People want to see our government do more to reduce the magnet for people to cross our borders illegally. We must take this opportunity to make sure that employers are abiding by, and able to abide by, the rules. Let us give them the tools they need to do that. I hope more colleagues will join me in my effort to achieve accountability through electronic verification and by making E-Verify a permanent program.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, along with several colleagues, I am introducing legislation to permanently authorize and expand the E- Verify program. My bill, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act, wil1 be a tool for employers who want a legal workforce and it will enhance our ability to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices. Known as the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify currently provides employers with a simple, web-based tool to verify the work eligibility of new hires. In 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ aliens not eligible to work in the United States. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents. Because identity theft and counterfeit documents became a thriving industry after the 1986 bill, Congress looked to create a program to help employers verify the work eligibility of its new hires. We created the Basic Pilot Program in 1996. Employers in this program can electronically verify a new hires' employment authorization by checking data of employees with records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. Currently, the E-Verify program is voluntary and free for all employers to use. It is a proven tool in combating illegal immigration. Today, I am proposing that the program be a staple in every workplace so that American workers are on a level playing field with cheaper foreign labor. My legislation would increase penalties on employers who continue to hire people unauthorized to work in the country. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within 3 years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary visas. My bill also addresses identity theft concerns. The Social Security Administration would be required to develop algorithm technology that would flag social security numbers that are being used more than once. For those who find themselves victim of identity theft, this bill would amend the criminal code to clarify identity fraud is punishable regardless if the defendant did not have knowledge of the victim. This provision stems from the 2009 Supreme Court decision holding that identity theft requires proof that an individual knew the number being used belonged to an actual person. While everyone may not agree with every aspect of this bill, it serves as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about worksite enforcement. The President and many members in Congress are going to make it a priority to pass an immigration reform bill this year. We need to act. We need change. We need a better system in place for future generations. Part of the discussion on immigration will be on a reliable employment verification program. People back home want employers to be held accountable. And, employers want to be responsible. People want to see our government do more to reduce the magnet for people to cross our borders illegally. We must take this opportunity to make sure that employers are abiding by, and able to abide by, the rules. Let us give them the tools they need to do that. I hope more colleagues will join me in my effort to achieve accountability through electronic verification and by making E-Verify a permanent program.