Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Judiciary Committee will be holding hearings soon--and many times--on responding to mass killings such as the recent school shooting in Newtown, CT. Admittedly, that was a terrible tragedy. We are all sympathetic to the families of the victims of that horrendous crime. President Obama has asked Congress to pass legislation in response to that event. I look forward to the hearings the Judiciary Committee will hold on this very important subject because we need to know more about the problem and potential legislative action. There will be plenty of occasions to discuss specific gun, mental health, and other legislative responses to Newtown. Today, I would like to address the President's rhetoric when he announced his proposals. I was surprised at a number of the President's statements. For instance, he is directing the Centers for Disease Control to conduct research into the causes of gun violence. But gun violence is not a disease, and lawful gun ownership is not a disease. It is a constitutionally protected individual right--the famous second amendment right, not only part of the Constitution for 225 years but reinforced by two recent Supreme Court decisions. The President said we suffer from an ``epidemic of violence.'' Although there is too much violence in America, violent crime rates are at their lowest level in 50 years--not at epidemic levels, at least epidemic when compared to the last 50 years. There is a reason for that. Police practices and investigative techniques have improved, and we in the Congress have helped with grants to assist local law enforcement, higher incarceration rates for violent criminals, and an end to parole in the Federal system. Notably, crime rates are at their lowest level in 50 years at the very same time more guns are in circulation than ever before. But what has not declined is mass killings, such as we had in Newtown, CT. Of course, this should be our focus. But what the President said that most surprised me concerned the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Let us consider principles first. The Declaration of Independence listed grievances against British Government action that violated individual natural rights of the colonists at that time. Even the declaration did not raise grievances against individuals or grant powers to government. The Constitution exists to create a limited federal government. As Madison wrote in Federalist 51: In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. In other words, the Government of the United States under the Constitution is a limited government, and the Constitution is to protect the people from the government, not for the government to give people rights and powers that the government then in turn could take away. On the other hand, the Constitution does give broad powers to the Federal Government, but it separates them among branches and between the State and National Governments. The Framers believed these structures would adequately control the government so as to protect individual liberty, but the American people disagreed. They believed the Constitution gave the Federal Government so much power that it could be tyrannical and violate individual rights. So as a condition of ratification, they demanded, and received, assurances that a bill of rights would be added to the Constitution. Each of those rights, including the second amendment dealing with guns, was adopted to yet further limit government power and to protect individual rights. In other words, the people who wrote the Constitution in 1787, in the spirit that they believed at the time, the Constitution, just the way it was originally written, was adequate to protect individual rights. But we were not going to get the Constitution adopted without the promise of a bill of rights. So the Bill of Rights went yet further, but the Bill of Rights is not a limiting factor as evidenced by the ninth amendment, which said none of the previous eight amendments in any way disparages the rights of citizens, all of those natural rights that are too big that we cannot even enumerate. Then, of course, the tenth amendment went on to say all powers not specifically given to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and the people thereof. Nothing in the Bill of Rights applied to the actions of private individuals or granted power to the Federal Government. So how far were the President's remarks from the intent of the Constitution's Framers? President Obama's remarks turned the Constitution on its head because he said: The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. The right to assemble peacefully, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness--[are] fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech and high school students at Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown. This is incorrect because except for its prohibition on slavery, the Constitution limits only the actions of government, not individuals. When a criminal commits murder, no constitutional right is violated. So, for instance, the right to peacefully assemble is all about protecting individual rights to organize, to protest, or seek to change government action. It is violated, for instance, when government officials hose down civil rights protesters on the sidewalk. That right is trivialized and mischaracterized as protecting shopping and watching movies. Those constitutional rights are not a source of government power to enact legislation, as I think the President has suggested. Quite the opposite. They are designed solely to preserve individual autonomy as against the government. Protecting individual rights rather than expanding governmental power may be particularly appropriate in addressing mass killings. One of the reasons so many people died in some of the tragedies the President cited was the failure of the Federal Government, the State government, or the local government, but government generally to protect its citizens. Police not on the scene cannot arrive at a mass shooting such as Newtown in time to stop it. At Columbine the police employed techniques that are no longer used because they did not stop killings that occurred after their arrival. At Virginia Tech, government officials made decisions after the shooting started that some even have argued may well have led to unnecessary deaths. The President cited constitutional protection of individual rights as a basis for expanding Federal power against private individuals. No wonder millions of Americans fear that Congress may enact legislation that could lead to a tyrannical Federal Government. I cannot accept the President's claim that ``there will be politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical, all-out assault on liberty[,] not because that's true, but because they want to gin up fear.'' The President reads the Constitution differently than it has ever been understood: as a source of power against individual rights rather than a check on government power that guarantees those individual rights. This necessarily and understandably leads many citizens to fear that their individual rights will be violated, and that extends well beyond the second amendment. It should be a matter of deep concern to all of us when the President wants to use the power of government to corral individual rights. For 225 years the Constitution has established a government that is a servant of the people, not its master. As the Judiciary Committee and all of us consider and debate legislation arising from the tragedy at Newtown, I hope we will proceed with the proper understanding of the relationship that the Constitution establishes between governmental power and individual liberty. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my fellow Members know the issue of transparency is a very favorite topic of mine, and I come to the floor to speak about transparency as it relates to a very specific problem within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is no secret I have worked to bring greater transparency and accountability to all parts of the Federal Government because with transparency I think we get more accountability. The voters of Iowa have entrusted me to continue my oversight responsibilities no matter who occupies the White House, and since I am a Republican, people might think I am doing it because we have a Democratic President. I think I have a reputation for being an equal opportunity overseer of the executive branch of government. For several years I have been conducting oversight of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; everybody knows this is commonly referred to as HUD, H-U-D. HUD's core mission, according to its Web site, is to ``create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all.'' These responsibilities have grown larger and more complex over the last few years. The mortgage crisis continues to affect the housing market. Secretary Donovan was recently tapped to oversee the Hurricane Sandy recovery in the Northeast. HUD's yearly budget is nearly $38 billion. Secretary Donovan should understand the importance of oversight and transparency to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. I have my doubts, though, because while I have sent dozens of letters to HUD, the Secretary has not signed a single reply. The responses I do receive are often months late and don't answer some of my most pressing concerns. For instance, last August I sent a letter requesting information on conference spending and employee bonuses. HUD provided no conference spending documents but instead urged me to review a list of inspector general audit reports. My staff has reviewed these audit reports, but none of the audit reports provide a comprehensive review of conference spending. What is even more frustrating is that the response never referenced bonus spending at all. It seems oversight and transparency are not high priorities at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Every year HUD provides at least $4 billion to public housing authorities across the country--along with nearly $19 billion of section 8 vouchers. In 2009, the Obama administration provided yet another $4 billion in stimulus funding for the housing authorities--all with little or no oversight. Public housing authorities operate in a gray area. HUD argues that they are State and local government entities, and it is thus--according to HUD--State and local governments that bear the primary responsibility for the housing authority actions. Up to 90 percent of their total funding comes from the Federal Government, thus making it HUD's responsibility to ensure the money is spent as intended. My office went to work to determine the compensation packages for a handful of housing authorities spread around the country--mostly in the larger cities. Some authorities would not provide responses, but others responded with some troubling answers. It became apparent many executive directors were living very high on the hog. The fact is executive salaries, and other compensation at some public housing authorities, were a major problem and the amounts were then hidden from the taxpayers. Some housing authority executive directors were earning high six- figure salaries and benefits that sometimes included a vehicle, housing allowance, and lucrative bonuses. Many of the executive directors were making more than even the Governor of the State they were located in. From Los Angeles, CA, to Boston, MA, they were raking in huge salaries. Unfortunately, no one at the HUD Headquarters in Washington, DC, was watching or even showed any concern. In Philadelphia, the executive director's salary was $300,000, plus a $45,000 bonus. He had a housing authority car and driver, and the housing authority actually paid his mortgage. This money is supposed to help people with very low incomes afford safe and decent housing, but instead they were concerned about their own salary and their own housing. The taxpayers' money was meant to go to the lower income people for safe and decent housing and all the money was not being used for that. It is not supposed to subsidize the housing costs of a government bureaucrat in Philadelphia who already makes $345,000 a year. In Chelsea, MA, the executive director's salary was $360,000. He cashed out weeks of unused leave and sick time while only spending about 15 full days per year in the office. These executive directors used taxpayers' money to build and protect their own fiefdoms, usually at the expense of the poor. In Philadelphia, this included spending millions of dollars on an army of well-connected lawyers. Ironically, these lawyers were paid with taxpayers' money to thwart investigations that were aimed at safeguarding taxpayer money. The HUD Office of Inspector General had done battle with these armies of lawyers over and over around the entire country, and the taxpayers are funding both sides of the fight. In addition, no-bid contracts and contracts steered toward friends seemed to be common at many housing authorities. As early as October 2010, I asked HUD to provide salary and compensation information for executive directors at the 25 largest housing authorities. Instead of numbers, I received the following statement: In response to your questions related to Executive Directors' salaries, currently HUD does not regulate compensation for Housing Authority executive directors. However, in light of what has taken place with the Philadelphia Housing Authority, HUD is working closely with our Office of General Counsel to assess this policy. It is pretty obvious that is not an answer to anything I asked. HUD needs to take this issue far more seriously. Last Wednesday, the director of the Chelsea Housing Authority was charged with four felony counts. According to the Boston Globe, he was indicted for deliberately concealing his salary from State and Federal entities. I hope this is a warning to other housing authorities that abuse of taxpayers' dollars is totally unacceptable. I commend HUD Inspector General David Montoya, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts, and, of course, the FBI for vigorously investigating the problems in Chelsea. Others around the country need to take note of what happened in Chelsea. I understand this investigation continues, so stay tuned. The No. 1 priority for HUD and these directors should be to provide what the law intends with the taxpayers' money--to provide safe, decent, and sanitary housing for people in need instead of lining the pockets of directors. Feathering their own nests seems to have been the focus of some for far too long. Unfortunately, instead of getting straight answers from HUD, I must rely on courageous whistleblowers and newspaper accounts to actually get these facts. Due to mounting pressure, HUD requested the compensation data for the top five highest compensated employees at housing authorities across the country. The results must be really embarrassing because the Obama administration would make only aggregate data available to the public. That way, the administration has made it impossible to tell which authorities are the worst offenders. I asked that HUD make all salary data public in a June 2000 letter I wrote to Secretary Donovan. It is one of many letters the Secretary has failed to answer. In fact, no one at HUD responded to the letter at all. I have also sent letters to HUD requesting information about conference and travel spending, as well as the number and the cost of take-home vehicles for HUD and all public housing authorities. Letters were also sent about problems at New York City, Houston, and Port Arthur, TX, housing authorities in those cities. I am still waiting for responses from Secretary Donovan. Most recently, I sent letters in October of 2012 to Senate appropriators and the Senate Banking Committee with jurisdiction over these issues. There needs to be public hearings into the massive waste of taxpayers' money at HUD. My colleagues need to know the extent of the problems and that I am ready to work with Members of this body to address these issues. Mr. President, before I finish, I ask unanimous consent to have the referenced letters printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. To sum up, oversight, whether it is about HUD or any government bureaucracy, is necessary to protect the taxpayers. I take this duty seriously. I am not going away and will continue to vigorously oversee problems at HUD. I urge Secretary Donovan to make executive compensation and all funding data available to the public. It would shed light in an area that has rarely been seen with the light shining in. As some Supreme Court Justice said sometime, sunlight keeps mold from happening, or something to that effect. Transparency is not the only solution, though. HUD also needs to put controls in place to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. But transparency may be the quickest and most effective way to curb the worst abuses. The Obama administration could release that executive compensation data today if it wanted to, and it should release that data. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, during the next few weeks and months Congress and the President will again have an opportunity to demonstrate that we are serious about dealing with deficits and debt by reducing spending. We have the debt limit issue coming up, we have the sequestration issue coming up by March 2, and we have the continuing resolution issue coming up on March 27. So those are three very real times--and important times--to deal with deficit and spending. The reason we need to address the Federal runaway spending is obvious to everybody who has a family budget and wonders why Congress cannot live the same as families live--within our income. The reason we need to address the Federal spending is obvious-- because it is the real driver of our deficits and our debt. Spending is the reason we are up against the $16.4 trillion debt limit. Spending was the reason Congress and President Obama raised the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion just a year and a half ago. In 2006 the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, came to the floor and made a very passionate and thoughtful statement here on the Senate floor in opposition to raising the debt limit. Many of the reasons he gave then are relevant today. In fact, they are even more appropriate because the debt is much higher and we have a fiscal mess. It is instructive for my colleagues to hear the words straight from then-Senator Obama. He delivered these remarks on March 16, 2006. At that time, the Senate was debating raising the debt limit by $781 billion to a new limit then that seems very small today--about half of what it is today--raising the limit in 2006 to $8.9 trillion. So I thought it would be worth--for the President's benefit as well as our benefit--going over what then-Senator, now-President Obama had to say, so I am going to quote partially from his speech. This is from the 2006 debt ceiling debate: The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. He goes on to say: Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is ``trillion'' with a T. That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost $3.5 trillion. Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we will spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America. And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. Senator Obama went on to say: This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investment in infrastructure like bridges, ports, levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education, health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans--a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies. So what he said in 2006 is still very much true today, only we are in a worse situation. We are in a situation where he is now President of the United States, and through his leadership, something can be done about it. I wish to continue to quote him by saying--this is what he said in 2006: Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. The administration he refers to was the Bush administration at that time, and he was legitimately finding fault with that. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ``the buck stops here''. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. That is what Senator Obama said in 2006. That pretty much applies today as well. For these reasons, Senator Obama announced his position to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit in 2006. The national debt today is nearly double what it was in 2006 when President Obama called it a sign of leadership failure and a hidden domestic enemy. During President Obama's first 4 years, we added $6 trillion to the national debt--more than was added under President Bush's entire 8 years. Yet, under President Obama's recent budgets, he'd add another $10 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. That is his plan, to add another $10 trillion. Perhaps that is why, when given a chance, not a single Democrat in the Congress voted in favor of President Obama's budgets. When President Obama announced his vote against that debt limit increase in 2006, if we had a debt problem then and a failure of leadership in 2006, what do we have today? Surely President Obama, after 4 years of trillion-dollar deficits each year, believes that now is the time to reduce our debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies, as he stated as a Senator. At more than $16 trillion, President Obama must know that our national and economic security are undermined by our dependence on foreign countries to lend us money. In the summer of 2008, while on the campaign trail, Senator Obama made this statement when answering a question about deficits and debt. This will be the last quote I give. This is not from the floor of the Senate, this is from the campaign trail. He was asked about deficits and debt. The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents--number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back-- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic. Remember, he made these statements when annual deficits were a couple hundred billion dollars per year rather than the $1 trillion-plus deficits of each of the past 4 years. He made these statements when our national debt was $8 to $9 trillion rather than today's $16 trillion. That is close to $50,000 for every man, woman, and child, not the $30,000 it was when he spoke to us in 2008. So it is time for the President to acknowledge what he realized in 2006--that we have a spending problem--when he voted against increasing the debt limit. Earlier this month the President got his campaign wish to raise taxes on the so-called wealthy, even though it will do next to nothing to reduce deficits. But that is done. Now it is time to focus on the real driver of our deficits and debt: runaway Federal spending. I look forward to working with my colleagues and hopefully with President Obama over the next few months to finally take action to get our fiscal house in order. Leadership means the buck stops with him. It is time to stop shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. It is what Americans deserve, and with Presidential leadership, it can be accomplished. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are facing major changes in how the Senate operates and even minor changes can have big consequences. Since the Senator even from the smallest State represents hundreds of thousands of Americans, any change to how senators are able to represent their constituents' views is of great importance. We have heard plenty of talk from the other side of the aisle about how the Senate's current dysfunction simply boils down to Republican abuse of the filibuster. If you are a partisan Democrat and inclined to think the worst of Republicans, then that explanation may hold water for you. On the other hand, those who are more fair minded will find themselves wondering if there isn't more to the story. A fair analysis of what is wrong with the Senate must look at the situation from both sides. From the Republican point of view, the main gripe with how the Senate has been operating recently is the inability of the minority party to offer amendments and receive a fair hearing for our ideas. The Senate rules provide that any Senator may offer an amendment regardless of party affiliation. The longstanding tradition of the Senate is that members of the minority party have an opportunity to offer amendments for a vote by the Senate, even if those votes don't fit the agenda of the leadership of the majority party. Of course, if those amendments don't receive a majority of votes in the Senate, they cannot be passed. No one is arguing for some sort of right of a minority of senators to advance a minority agenda. However, it is not uncommon for an idea that comes from the minority party to attract votes from the majority party, even enough to pass. This can be inconvenient or even embarrassing to the leadership of the majority party. Perhaps there is a Republican amendment that would reveal a split within the Democratic caucus. Perhaps a Republican might offer an amendment that has broad public support and it would be hard for certain Democrats to explain to the people they represent why they voted against it. What's wrong with taking tough votes and showing the American people where you stand? Those who lecture us about majority rule can't have it both ways. If an amendment gets the votes of 45 Republicans and 6 Democrats, that is a majority, but that is exactly the scenario the majority leader has been trying to avoid. Minority amendments have routinely, systematically been blocked in recent years in the Senate. The Majority Leader has consistently used a tactic called ``filling the tree'' where he offers blocker amendments that block any other senator from offering their own amendment unless he agrees to set his blocker amendments aside. He is able to get in line first to put his blocker amendments in place because of a tradition that the Majority Leader has priority to be recognized by the presiding officer. This doesn't appear anywhere in the Senate rules and it arguably contrary to the rules. This so called filling the tree tactic used to be relatively rare, but it has become routine under this Democratic leadership. So what are Republicans to do if they have amendments they want to offer? We can ask the majority leader to allow us to set aside his blocker amendments so we can offer an amendment. His response has been to ask us what amendments we want to offer, and he will only agree to set aside his blocker amendments if he approves of the particular Republican amendment. If there are amendments that he doesn't like, he says ``No.'' Then, with amendments blocked, he makes a motion to bring debate to a close, or ``cloture''. When cloture is invoked, it sets up a limited time before a final vote must take place. By keeping amendments blocked while running out that clock, the majority leader can force a final vote on a bill without having to consider any amendments. Naturally, under these circumstances, members of the minority party who wish to offer amendments will vote against the motion to end debate and force a final vote until they have had an opportunity to have their amendments considered. However, when Republicans vote against the majority leader's motion to end debate, we are accused of ``launching a filibuster''. Many Americans may be surprised to learn that the Senate rules do not define what constitutes a filibuster. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a filibuster as ``the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly.'' The fact is, a filibuster can refer to any procedure perceived as dilatory, which is in the eye of the beholder. In the case I have described, if Republicans refuse to go along with the majority leader's attempt to deny Senators the right to offer amendments, is that an extreme dilatory tactic? I would say it is a logical response to an assault on our rights. Republicans can't be expected to vote for the majority leader's motion to end consideration of a bill before we have had a chance to offer any amendments. That brings us to the so called ``talking filibuster'' proposal that has been mentioned so much on the Senate floor. Some have proposed that Senators be required to talk non-stop on the Senate floor or a final vote can be forced, even if there have been no amendments allowed. In other words, when the majority leader has amendments blocked, if Republicans want to defend their basic right to offer amendments, they would have to go to the floor and debate non-stop. That doesn't make any sense. What does non-stop debate have to do with giving up your right to offer amendments? Here is where advocates of the so called ``talking filibuster'' confuse the issue. As I mentioned, a filibuster can refer to any tactic perceived as dilatory, but when most Americans think of the filibuster, they think of Jimmy Stewart in the classic film Mr. Smith goes to Washington standing and talking without stopping for an extended period of time to delay proceedings and make a point. It just makes sense that if you want to engage in this type of filibuster, you should have to actually speak. Some Senators would have us believe that somewhere along the line the filibuster was mysteriously transformed so Senators no longer had to talk on the floor of the Senate, but that is not the case. The filibuster itself hasn't changed, just what we call a filibuster. When Democrats complain about Republican filibusters, they aren't talking about Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibusters. They are talking about Republicans refusing to vote for the majority leader's motion to end consideration of bills without the opportunity for amendments. Again, the rules and traditions of the Senate dictate that Senators have a right to offer amendment. What justification can there be for forcing Senators to speak for hours on the floor or lose the right to offer amendments? That would just encourage the majority leader to block amendments even more and use this new tool to jam legislation through the Senate without considering alternative views. Such a situation would only make the underlying problem worse. This isn't just Republicans saying this. Listen to what the New York Times said: ``The use of filibusters has risen since the 1970s, especially when Republicans have been in the Senate minority. But the most recent spike of Republican filibusters has coincided with the Democrats' unprecedented moves to limit amendments on the Senate floor.'' The current majority has moved to cut off debate and amendments on a measure other than the motion to proceed over 100 times. This doesn't even tell the whole story because much of the time, the Senate Majority Leader doesn't have to actually use his amendment blocking tactic. He simply informs Republicans that he will block amendments, or refuses to commit to allow Republican amendments before making the motion to consider a bill. Republicans can hardly be expected to vote in favor of taking up a bill under these conditions. I should point out that it isn't just members of the minority party who have been affected by the blocking of amendments. There have been far fewer opportunities for Democrat Senators to offer amendments in recent years than used to be the case. Not all Democrats will agree with every aspect of a bill brought before the Senate by their own leadership. Rank and file Democrats might also have ideas to improve a bill that had not yet been considered before being taken up by the Senate. Those who claim to want to fix the dysfunction of the Senate but who focus only on the alleged dilatory tactics by the minority party and ignore the heavy handed tactics by the current majority party are at best only addressing half the problem. Moreover, to the extent any change to the Senate rules strengthens the ability of the majority to steamroll the minority, partisanship will only get worse. The rules of the Senate, which protect the rights of the minority, force the majority to work with the minority if they want to get things done. As a result, the Senate has historically been a more bipartisan place than the House. That is a positive feature of the Senate that we should not discard lightly. The role the Senate was intended to play by our Founding Fathers is clear. I have described before how the Senate, with its longer staggered terms and other features, was specifically structured to act as a check on the passions of temporary majorities as represented in the House of Representatives. I won't go into detail on that subject again because it is already in the Congressional Record, but I quoted James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, at length. I have heard some select quotes from the Federalist Papers also used by some on the other side to argue that the Framers of the Constitution actually favored a more strictly majoritarian system. One common quote is from Federalist 58, which discusses how only a simple majority is required for a quorum in the House of Representatives. Madison explains that this is to prevent a situation where a minority of Members can halt action by walking out, as happened with Democrat State legislators during the redistricting fight in 2003 and more recently in Wisconsin during the debate about collective bargaining for public employees. In context, I see nothing that would contradict the expressed concerns elsewhere in the Federalist Papers about tyranny of the majority. I have also heard a reference to Federalist 75, which ironically discusses the supermajority requirement in the Constitution for ratifying treaties. The discussion is about whether the supermajority ought to be two- thirds of Senators present or two-thirds voting, not whether there ought to be a supermajority requirement. We can never know what the Framers would have thought of the cloture rule as it currently exists. However, we know that the Senate was specifically intended to prevent the majority from steamrolling the minority. The fact is, our Constitution is a compromise between a purely majoritarian system where the rights of the minority are threatened by what Madison called the ``superior force of an interested and overbearing majority'' and the system under the Articles of Confederation where nothing could be done unless it was practically unanimous. Our goal should be to return to the tradition of the Senate as a deliberative body where all Senators have an opportunity to put forward proposals, and the Senate can work its collective will. Any reform of the Senate rules must balance the interests of the majority with the rights of the minority, not tip the balance toward one or the other. If we fail to strike that balance, partisanship will only get worse. That is easier said than done. I know several Senators put forward proposals that they think are fair and will fix the Senate. However, it takes more than assurances that you are willing to live under the rules you are prepared to impose should you find yourself in the minority. You can't say that for sure until you are in that position. Any serious attempt at a fair approach to the Senate's problems must involve engaging members of the other party and addressing their legitimate concerns. That means that any reform of the Senate rules must restore a full and open amendment process where individual senators of any party can offer amendments. Does the deal before us meet that test? I am not sure. The deal the two leaders have struck does include a guarantee of two amendments for the minority party, presumably picked by the minority leader. That at least acknowledges the legitimate concerns on my side of the aisle about the blocking of amendments. Two amendments is better than none, which is what we have had in practice. It is also better than a unilateral rules changes imposed by the majority on an unwilling minority. However, I have described how the right to offer amendments is a fundamental right of individual Senators representing their respective States. There are 45 Republicans in the Senate, not 2. It is also true that rank and file Democrats have plenty of proposals they have a right to put forward. They shouldn't have to ask their leader's permission to do so any more than Republicans should. Perhaps knowing that he will have to deal with two Republican amendments, the majority leader will decide to allow more bills to be considered under an open amendment process the way they should be. I hope so. However, it is also possible that the majority leader will decide that there is no reason to ever go back to the traditional open amendment process now that we have this new process that only guarantees two amendments. Two amendments could become the new ceiling rather than the floor. If that is the case, we will have made the Senate more partisan and more dysfunctional. It remains to be seen these changes will work in practice and I will be watching closely.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, I would point out that the majority has had this nomination pending since May 17 when it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. Not only for myself, but I think for a lot of people on my side of the aisle, this nomination is controversial and should not be moved via unanimous consent in the waning hours of this Congress. If this nomination were as important as the majority now seems to believe it is, this would have warranted debate and negotiations earlier in the session. Instead, the majority now seeks to raise this nomination in order to avoid having to resubmit the nomination for consideration. I think I have shown a very different willingness to accommodate the majority even on controversial nominations. For example, we agreed to remove William Baer just last week despite the controversy surrounding his nomination, and he was subsequently confirmed. So I am not opposed to discussing controversial nominations, including this one, but they need to be done in a way that allows debate and discussion prior to a vote. Given the controversial responses to written questions this nominee provided, there is need for debate and discussion on this nomination by the full Senate, not unanimous consent here at the last minute. Therefore, I object to the nomination being considered at this time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate turns to the nomination of William Joseph Baer, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Attorney General. If confirmed he will head the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. In considering the confirmation of the President's nominees, I give the President great deference. I believe he should have great latitude in selecting his advisors and officers. But that does not mean that I will not make an independent determination of the nominee's qualifications and fitness for the job. I am not here to merely rubberstamp the President's desires. Factors that I consider relevant include respect for the Constitution, fidelity to the law, intellectual ability, personal integrity, and professional competence. In reviewing Mr. Baer's entire record, I was disappointed to find he does not meet this test. Therefore I will vote no on his confirmation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, amendment No. 3348 is about smart government. It is about ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, while at the same time guaranteeing that Federal law enforcement agencies that face challenges following Hurricane Sandy have the resources they need to get the job done. Instead of simply providing funding, my amendment requires that within 7 days, the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security identify and relocate vehicles based at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of DOJ and DHS that are used for non-operational purposes. The vehicles identified will then be used to replace those damaged by Hurricane Sandy that are used by the FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, and Secret Service. This is a good government amendment and one that actually achieves the goal of replacing operational vehicles used by Federal law enforcement faster than the underlying bill. If this is an emergency, as we have been told, these agencies can spare some of the hundreds of vehicles they have sitting at their headquarters that they currently have for non-operational purposes. I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense, good government amendment. If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendments en bloc. The amendments were agreed to.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act, also known as the FISA Amendments Act, is a crucial authority for the U.S. Intelligence Community. Unless we act to pass this legislation, the law will expire in just a few days from now. It must be reauthorized immediately for a 5-year period. I am familiar with the FISA Amendments Act, FAA, through my role as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, which along with the Select Committee on Intelligence, has jurisdiction over this legislation and oversight of the intelligence operations conducted by the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation. During the last year, my staff and I have engaged in extensive consultation with the intelligence community and the Department of Justice to understand how the FAA has been used. The committee held a closed hearing with witness testimony and questions from Senators as well. We debated this legislation in committee where I opposed the version produced by the Judiciary Committee which is now the basis of the Leahy amendment. I opposed it because I have learned a great deal both about the value of the intelligence collected under the FAA and about the lengths that the intelligence community goes to protect the rights of U.S. citizens when collecting that intelligence. Given the congressional oversight of this legislation, coupled with the built-in protections and oversight from the executive branch, the value of the intelligence gathered by this important legislation warrants reauthorization without the changes made by the Leahy amendment. The most important portion of the FAA is Section 702. It authorizes, with approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, an 11-member panel of Article III judges appointed by the Supreme Court, electronic surveillance of non-U.S. persons located overseas, but without the need for individualized orders for every target of the surveillance, as is required for surveillance of anyone inside the United States. The law specifically prohibits targeting U.S. persons, acquiring wholly domestic communications, or targeting someone outside the U.S. with the intent to collect information on a target inside the U.S. known as ``reverse-targeting''. It is possible that the communications of some U.S. citizens may be captured during the conduct of authorized surveillance. But that is only incidentally. The only way that a U.S. person's communication would be picked up would be if that person were in communication with a non-U.S. person overseas who had been targeted under the FAA. Some people think that a U.S. person has a constitutional right not to have his communications with a foreign target eavesdropped by the U.S. government without a warrant. But that's not how the fourth amendment works. It protects the rights of the person who is being targeted, not anyone in contact with him. For example, if the government legally taps the phone of a mafia godfather in the United States, it can listen to his conversation with anyone who calls him. It doesn't need a court-issued warrant for the person calling, only for the godfather himself. He is the one who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone. In the same way, when the government legally intercepts the communications of a terrorist living overseas, it can listen to his conversation with anyone who contacts him, even if the other party is in the United States. What matters is whether the government has the legal authority to intercept the communications of the terrorist in the first place. That's what the FAA provides. It is important to point out that no warrant is required because the target is not a U.S. citizen and is located overseas. So, the fourth amendment doesn't apply to him. Instead, under Section 702, the FISC approves annual certifications from the attorney general and director of National Intelligence about collection of information on categories of foreign intelligence targets, what procedures the intelligence community will use to accomplish this surveillance, how they will target subjects for surveillance, and how the IC will use the information. The government must also demonstrate to the court that it has special procedures to weed out intentional collection of communications of anyone located inside the United States and to minimize the use of any incidentally collected information. In addition, there is significant oversight of the program to protect U.S. citizens' rights. The law requires that the Attorney General and director of National Intelligence conduct semi-annual assessments of the surveillance activities. Furthermore, it authorizes the inspector general of the Department of Justice to review the program at any time. Both houses of Congress are provided the semi-annual reports and IG audits, as well as significant decisions of the FISC. These are on file with the Senate security office and any Senator and appropriately cleared staff can review them. This process works. Our oversight of the implementation of the statute has found no evidence that it has been intentionally misused in order to eavesdrop on Americans. Senator Feinstein, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and even Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, have stated that no such misconduct has been discovered. For these reasons, we should reauthorize the statute without any changes, as the House has done. The only adjustment to the existing statute in the House bill is replacing the expiration date of December 31, 2012 with December 31, 2017, a 5-year period. That is also what the administration supports and what the intelligence committee passed this summer. A 5-year period would allow the intelligence community to continue utilizing these valuable tools against potential terrorists or other intelligence targets without interruption or delay. It will provide the intelligence community with much needed certainty and stability in a program that works to save American lives. The combination of the statutory limitations on collection, targeting and minimization procedures, and acquisition guidelines, court review of those procedures and guidelines, and compliance oversight by the administration and Congress, ensure that the rights of U.S. persons are sufficiently protected when their communications are incidentally collected in the course of targeting non-U.S. persons located abroad. I urge my colleagues to support the House passed version of the FAA reauthorization so we can ensure that there is no interruption in one of our most vital national security tools.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak on an amendment to the pending bill--an amendment I will not be able to offer because I understand the majority filled the amendment tree so that we cannot make amendments pending at this time. So I would like to take some time, though, to inform Members about the importance of my amendment and why it ought to be included. I think it is simply about smart government. It is about ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely, while at the same time guaranteeing Federal law enforcement agencies that face challenges following Hurricane Sandy have the resources they need to get the job done. On December 7, the White House Office of Management and Budget transmitted a legislative proposal to Congress seeking supplemental appropriations for disaster mitigation relating to Hurricane Sandy. By all accounts, this action was a normal response to a Federal disaster and one that nearly all Members have supported for various disasters that have occurred in our home States. However, this request was unusual in several respects. For example, a large portion of the funds included in the President's request are unrelated, or at least extremely remote to the damage caused by the storm. This includes funding for fisheries in Alaska, funding for increased Amtrak capacity, and funding to be spent years into the future. Further, the funding request sent up by the President does not include any recommendation whatsoever for offsetting the spending. So, long story short, this request means more deficit spending. There is one part of the request that causes me particular concern-- and the purpose of my amendment--because it relates to my work as the ranking member of the Committee on Judiciary. In the President's request, there are specific line items for repairing and replacing Federal vehicles damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Specifically, the Justice Department requested $4 million for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, $1 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration, $230,000 for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and $20,000 for vehicles for the Department of Justice inspector general. Among other things, these funds are largely to repair and replace Federal vehicles damaged by water from the storm. The Department of Homeland Security requested $300,000 for the Secret Service, $855,000 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Again, this funding is largely for repairing or replacing damaged motor vehicles. The President requested this funding in an effort to replace these damaged vehicles. He cited operational use of these vehicles by law enforcement agencies as the reason they need to be replaced. Now, I understand that vehicles are a very important part of the work that these Federal law enforcement agencies undertake and are critical to ongoing operations in the field. However, I am concerned about simply providing funding for replacement vehicles in the field because the way the government operates, this funding will not reach the agencies immediately. Even when it does, it will take time for replacement vehicles to be located, purchased, and prepared for use. But given that this is an emergency spending bill, we can assume that these agencies need vehicles for immediate operational use. As such, my amendment seeks to place these vehicles into the hands of the agents in the field as fast as possible. Instead of simply providing funding, my amendment requires that, within 7 days, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security identify and relocate vehicles based at the Washington, DC, headquarters of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security that are used for nonoperational purposes. The vehicles identified will then be used to replace those damaged by Hurricane Sandy that are used by the FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, and the Secret Service. The amendment limits the funding provided for these vehicle purchases until a report is produced to Congress identifying the vehicle relocations. I think it is a very good government amendment and one that actually achieves the goal of replacing operational vehicles used by Federal law enforcement actually faster than in the underlying bill. Since we are told this funding is absolutely necessary for these agencies--so necessary as to warrant emergency funding that is not offset with spending reductions--this amendment actually improves the bill by getting vehicles to law enforcement immediately. The agencies who will likely oppose this will argue that this is unnecessary and that we should just write a check for the new cars. That is a ridiculous position to take, and we see the damage on television so you know there is a purpose for the underlying bill. But if this is an emergency for these vehicles, these agencies can spare some of the vehicles they have sitting around at their headquarters for nonoperational purposes. These vehicles are given to employees in offices such as legislative affairs, budget, facility managers, and chief information officers and chief financial officers who may get cars to drive to and from work. Many may even sit unused for periods of time. Those are not operational needs. Just last year, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal titled ``Free Ride Ends for Marshals,'' which addressed how 100 headquarters employees of the U.S. Marshals Service returned government-owned vehicles to the motor pool instead of using them to commute to and from work. The article described how in recent years the proliferation of take-home vehicles for headquarter employees had exploded. While the article focused on reducing take-home cars at the Marshals Service, it is clear that the same argument can be made for reducing take-home cars at other agencies. In the case of this supplemental, if this is actually an emergency worthy of millions of taxpayer dollars, these agencies can inconvenience nonoperational personnel at headquarters to get these vehicles out to the fields and end the fringe benefits. In fact, according to inventory numbers provided to the Appropriations Committee, the Justice Department has 3,225 vehicles at the Washington, DC, headquarters of their agency alone. Surely, the Justice Department can find a handful of vehicles out of these 3,225 vehicles that could be sent to the field to replace the damaged vehicles--and get it done a heck of a lot faster than appropriating this money and going through a process that would not get them out there for a longer time. On top of that, my amendment would allow the funds to replace these nonoperational vehicles after they are relocated. So my amendment would at most create a very small inconvenience for these nonoperational staff for a short time. This amendment makes sense by modifying a request that, quite honestly, doesn't make a lot of sense. If this is an emergency, as we are told, the agencies should have no problem doing what my amendment asks. We owe it to the American taxpayers to spend their tax dollars wisely. This amendment doesn't go as far as we could, which would be to strike the provision outright. Instead, it gives the administration the benefit of the doubt that this is a true emergency and that these cars are needed. However, it forces the agencies to make a decision to temporarily inconvenience a few employees in Washington, DC, while ensuring the operational law enforcement elements in the field have the equipment they need. So I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense, good-government amendment, and I hope it can be considered somewhere along the line before we pass this final legislation. If I could say just a few words on the issue as a whole, I would like to take that opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind that every dollar that Sandy victims and local communities and infrastructure are entitled to, if it comes under existing law, they ought to have. Our country is always having disasters. That is a foregone conclusion. Throughout any year, there are always disasters to appropriate money for. Then, on a specific disaster, these problems go on for years after the money is appropriated--and it is years before some of the money is spent. All I have to do is look at Cedar Rapids, IA, and how they are fighting with FEMA after a 2008 flood to get some money as an example. So let's just understand in this body, so that there is no mistake, that New York and surrounding areas will get their money because the principle of FEMA money--and probably other disaster money as well--is simply this: At the beginning of a year, you have some money in FEMA. You never know what the disasters are going to be throughout the next 12 months, but when a disaster is declared there is money there to flow. When that disaster money runs out, as far as I know it has always been replaced--whether there is an earthquake in California or a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, or tornadoes like we have in the Midwest, and Sandy as the most recent example. As far as I know, there has never been any dispute under the laws at that time--and those laws don't change very often--that they do get the money out to the people who need it. Then when that fund goes dry, it is replenished by Congress. Unless somebody is seeking money in some way other than disasters that have been taken care of in this particular instance--and I don't know that they are, other than what has been pointed out that ought to be done through the appropriations process and not really an emergency. But for the emergency, I don't hear anybody wanting money for Sandy any different than any other emergency. I hope nobody is saying that Sandy ought to be treated differently than an earthquake in California or a hurricane in the South or tornadoes in the Midwest or wherever they might happen. I haven't surmised that is what they are trying to do. But if they are, they shouldn't say that Sandy ought to be treated differently than another disaster because generally a disaster is a disaster--whether it is an earthquake, hurricane, tornado, or Sandy. So the money is going to be there, and it will be there on time. You don't know 1 month after a disaster exactly how much money is needed. In fact, they asked for $80 billion from the Governors of those States. The President sent up $64 billion. Some people of expertise on this in our caucus have said there are certain things that aren't authorized, so that shouldn't be expended. Then I point out about some vehicles that can't be purchased right now to do the good they are supposed to do. We ought to be comforted that there is an attitude in this Senate, over decades, that the Federal Government is an insurer of last resort for disasters, whatever kind of disaster you have, at least disasters as described by existing law. New York will get its money and it doesn't necessarily have to be the $64 million; it is just to make sure there is money there for what is needed tomorrow and the next day and the next day. But we are not going to have a final figure on this for a long time. So we ought to move with some money to make sure it is there for what can be spent right now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to speak, as many of my colleagues have, about Senator Inouye. When I was a new Senator, the first encounter I had with Senator Inouye was when he invited me to go with him to the University of Hawaii to debate some issue--and I don't remember exactly what the issue was. Obviously, I didn't know what I was getting into because he had been in the Senate by then a quarter of a century, I believe, and I was new. But I was glad to be invited and felt honored to be invited. So I suppose every Senator here is going to be able to have a lot of memories of Senator Inouye. I come to the floor to pay tribute, as we ought to, to our friend. I have heard the tributes paid to Senator Inouye by his fellow Senators, and that has gone on over the past several hours since his passing. It is a strong testament to the character of Senator Inouye that his loss as a friend and colleague is so deeply felt. Senator Inouye impressed many of us with his quiet determination, his dedication to right and wrong, and his sheer decency. He was a gentle force in the Senate, with emphasis upon ``force,'' but that adjective ``gentle'' is very legitimate. He had a strong work ethic and was very productive on behalf of the entire United States. Also, of course, as all of us do, we have to look out for the people in our States, so he looked out for his beloved State of Hawaii as well. Because he was restrained in his demeanor, when he spoke he commanded real attention. He was well respected in the Senate for his life-long statesmanship and for his early displays of courage and sacrifice for our country. Barely out of his teens, Senator Inouye confronted more tests of his bravery than the vast majority of us will face in a lifetime. He passed those tests with flying colors, and his representation of American interests in the heavy combat theaters of World War II was something he had to pursue. For him, it was not a perfunctory act. Even though he was an eyewitness to the Japanese warplanes flying overhead in their assault on Hawaii, he could not enlist in the U.S. military at the time because he was Japanese American. He and others petitioned our government, and when they were allowed to enlist, he certainly did. He and his fellow Americans of Japanese descent went on to serve with tremendous skill and heroism. I encourage everyone to read about Senator Inouye's wartime experience, the medals he won and the bravery he established to win the Medal of Honor. He teaches all of us about answering the call to duty with determination and without hesitation, just as he did. His example of selflessness and his elevation of common cause over individual interest are especially relevant in these trying times. In Congress, if we all sacrifice more and worry about self- preservation less, we can accomplish a lot for the country Senator Inouye fought to save and to serve his people afterwards in the Senate. I am glad to have served with and learned from Senator Inouye. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, would it be appropriate if I ask for a rollcall vote on Judge Durkin?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will not use my entire time. If anybody else wants to speak, there will be time between now and 5:30 to speak. I think both these nominees will be approved overwhelmingly; obviously, the one with the voice vote probably will be, and I think the other one will be as well. Today, the Senate turns to the confirmation of these two U.S. district judges. Newtown, Connecticut Tragedy Before I address that issue, I express my condolences to the victims and families in Newtown, CT. As a nation, we join to express our grief and to offer support and comfort to this community. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who have suffered from this senseless act. From time to time I have given my colleagues an update regarding the facts of judicial confirmations. Despite our steady progress on confirmations, we continue to hear complaints from bar associations, interest groups, editorial boards, and even some fellow Senators. Of course, these are the same groups that remained silent or at the time cheered on the efforts to block judicial nominees of the previous President. Multiple filibusters, failure to hold hearings, pocket filibusters of one sort or another, and other tactics of delay and obstruction were routinely used against President Bush's nominees. By the end of his Presidency, President Bush had 53 nominees who were not confirmed. That is nearly one out of every seven who were blocked. Somehow that history seems to have faded. Today we continue to confirm this President's nominees, even in a lameduck Presidential election year. As I have stated before, the Senate rarely confirms judicial nominees during lameduck sessions in a Presidential election year. It did so in a very limited fashion in 1944, 1980, and the year 2004. The last time a President was reelected--President Bush in 2004--only three judicial nominees were confirmed following the election. That year, following President Bush's reelection, 23 judicial nominations that were pending either on the Senate executive calendar or in the Judiciary Committee were returned to the President when the Congress adjourned in December. Today President Obama will have 10 confirmations in this lameduck session, and obviously a lameduck session in a Presidential election year. This is a new record. No other President can claim that success. So for those who say this President is being treated differently, I must agree. President Obama will have the most postelection judicial confirmations of any President. This year has been a productive year for judicial confirmations. We have already confirmed 39 district judges and 5 circuit judges. Today's vote meets or exceeds the confirmations for Presidential election years in recent memory. During the last Presidential election year, 2008, the Senate confirmed a total of 28 judges, 24 district and 4 circuit. This Presidential election year we have exceeded those numbers. We have confirmed 5 circuit nominees, and these confirmations will bring the district confirmations to 41. That is a total of 46 judges this year versus 28 in the last Presidential election year. In fact, going back to 1984, there has been only one Presidential election year in which more district judges were confirmed. Let me emphasize that point. In only one of the past Presidential elections have more district nominees been confirmed. During this Congress, the 112th, we have confirmed 106 judges. That is the third highest total for any Congress going back to 1989 or, in other words, the past 12 Congresses. In total, the Senate has confirmed 168 district and circuit nominees during this President's first term. So I think by any objective measure one would have to conclude we are treating this President and his nominees quite fairly. I stated at the beginning of my remarks, I expect these nominees to be fairly noncontroversial or totally noncontroversial. I intend to support them. Today we vote on the nomination of Fernando M. Olguin, to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California and Thomas M. Durkin, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. After graduating from University of California Berkeley School of Law in 1989, Judge Olguin clerked for the Honorable C.A. Muecke, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Arizona. In 1991, Judge Olguin began working as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. There he prosecuted violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Public Accommodations Act. From 1995 to 2001, Judge Olguin was a partner at Traber, Voorhees & Olguin, where he litigated housing and employment cases on behalf of underprivileged clients. Since 2001 he has served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Central District of California. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a rating of Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified. Mr. Durkin received his B.S. with honors from University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana in 1975 and his J.D. with honors from DePaul University College of Law in 1978. Upon graduation, he clerked for Stanley J. Roszkowski, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. After his clerkship, Mr. Durkin joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois. There, he handled a variety of cases, including bank robbery, postal theft, narcotics, immigration cases, firearms cases, commodities, securities and tax fraud, and political corruption. Mr. Durkin also held a number of supervisory roles in the office, including Deputy Chief of Special Prosecutions, Chief of the Criminal Receiving and Appellate Division, Chief of the Special Prosecutions Division, and First Assistant United States Attorney. In 1993, Mr. Durkin joined Mayer Brown and focused on white collar criminal defense, internal investigations, patent litigation, securities litigation, civil rights litigation, consumer class action litigation, and product liability litigation. According to his questionnaire, Mr. Durkin has exclusively been a litigator and has frequently been in court his entire career. He estimates that he has tried approximately 95 cases to verdict. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave him a Unanimous Well Qualified rating. I support these nominees and congratulate them on their votes for confirmation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last Friday, December 7, 2012, the new United States Courthouse in Cedar Rapids, IA was dedicated. This facility was built to replace the previous courthouse, built in 1932, that was closed due to the extensive flood damage that occurred in June 2008. The new courthouse has five courtrooms and associated facilities for the United States Courts operations and also houses a number of Federal Government agencies. Groundbreaking took place in April 2009. The new courthouse opened to the public on November 5. It is my understanding the courthouse was completed within budget and on time. At the dedication ceremony last week, the keynote address was delivered by the Honorable David R. Hansen, Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a week ago I visited with my colleagues about the necessity of taking a closer look at the problems of Medicare and taking advantage of the opportunity we have now with the fiscal cliff debate, to bring attention to it because I do not think it was getting enough attention. There is no greater threat to America's growth and prosperity than our uncontrolled national debt. Currently, the country's debt exceeds $16 trillion. We face the so-called fiscal cliff that could send our economy into another recession. In these difficult times, we are challenged by the people we represent to find real solutions, not short-term bandaids. As we move forward, it is clear that we must discuss spending. I emphasize that word, ``spending.'' I know President Obama is hyperfocused on increasing taxes as part of his deficit reduction proposal. I think the election shows he is legitimate in doing that, but he could have declared victory about 3 weeks ago. And in the 3 weeks since then he could have spent time talking about the expenditure side of the ledger because if we are going to be serious about reducing our debt, we must talk about spending--not sometime next year, not only after we talk about taxes, we must talk about spending and talk about it now. We need to have a thoughtful conversation that focuses on where Federal spending most calls for control and containment. That is the purpose of my charts today. That is the purpose of my remarks. We must have a thoughtful conversation about where our Federal spending is taking us. It is past time for the President to engage on health care entitlements with proposals that affect the long-term growth of health care costs. I am going to try to dissect this issue into 3 divisions and point out where the problems are. The first division I will do, as shown in this chart, is the total government spending with everything except the interest on the national debt. By the way, this chart is from the Congressional Budget Office. It is not something I put together. It details, as I said, noninterest spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product. We can see the percentages of GDP of health care, Social Security, and other noninterest spending. So we can see over the period of the next 25 years fairly level noninterest spending. We can see that Social Security, even though it has funding problems over the next 25 years, is going to be fairly constant as well. But when we get to health care costs, we can see a very dramatic rise. I suppose I should have had this on bigger charts so it would be more dramatic than it shows. So this is the problem I want to address today. The driver of the cost is health care. And even though this chart only goes out 25 years, the board of trustees focuses 75 years ahead on Social Security and Medicare. So if this chart went out 75 years on Medicare, it would show about a $40 trillion deficit. So it is a very dramatic increase compared to other parts of Federal Government spending. I want you to look closely at these longer term projections as I proceed with some other divisions of this problem and segmenting the issue of health care, Medicare and Medicaid. It is pretty clear that we must address the growth of health care as well as entitlements. I do not think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can walk away from the issue. We should start by looking at where we are spending the most money in our health care entitlements. This next chart that we will put up divides this into three categories: Medicare-only health care costs, Medicaid-only health care costs, and then what we call the duals. The duals are people who qualify for both Medicaid and Medicare. The middle group, as I said dual eligible, account for just over 10 percent of the entire Medicare-Medicaid population. But we can see by the chart that the amount of money that is spent on that 10 percent is much greater than either Medicare only or Medicaid only. When we talk about the need to find ways to control spending for these dual eligibles, it is for a good reason. They are poorer, they are sicker, and more often they are in need of more extensive, as well as expensive, coordinated care. The inefficiency created in the misaligned incentives of Medicare and Medicaid is frequently cited as one of the areas in health care in the greatest need of improvement, not only for the quality of health care but also maybe a better caretaker of the taxpayers' money. ObamaCare created an office in CMS charged with creating demonstration projects to allow for greater coordination of dual eligibles. Those demonstration projects have been moving forward at breakneck pace, with nearly half of the States looking to participate. Essentially, all demonstrations under ObamaCare seek to give States greater control of the acute care of the dual eligibles--in other words, of this group here. CMS has the incredibly broad legal authority under ObamaCare to take these demonstrations nationally if they are successful. No one argues that the way Medicare and Medicaid coordinate the dual eligibles works very well. The coordination today is akin to asking me and somebody else to compose a letter with the other person writing the consonants and my writing the vowels. Giving the States greater control over duals may be a good answer. Some States might do a good job. But when we consider the fiscal challenges faced by the States, this should be a decision considered by Congress examining all possible alternatives and in consultation with States rather than something occurring through this regulatory action that we are seeing under ObamaCare and what CMS is doing with those demonstration projects. Furthermore, moving more responsibility to the States may miss a real opportunity to address an even larger cost problem. While some dual eligibles are expensive and need extensive long-term support and services, there are dual eligibles who, in fact, are relatively low cost. More importantly, though, is that not all the expensive Medicare beneficiaries are dually eligible. Take a look at this chart. In this chart we see the most expensive individuals in the Medicare Program. These are beneficiaries who have multiple, chronic conditions and functional impairments. Fifty-seven percent of them are eligible for Medicare only, and 43 percent of them are dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid. We have numerous studies showing that the care for high-cost, Medicare-only beneficiaries is just as complex, and the quality of care calls for as much attention as that of the dual-eligibles. So, then, legitimately ask the question of, Why are we splitting these two groups? These are two groups of similarly situated individuals. They all have need for improved care. They all have multiple conditions that are very expensive. Why do we tell some people: You get Medicare solely because you have income--income that doesn't qualify for Medicaid--and then we tell some people: You should get Medicaid solely because you don't have enough income. Why is it a good idea to give States control of poor beneficiaries? Why should low- income beneficiaries get one of 50 different models to coordinate their care and people with higher incomes get Medicare only? Why is CMS pushing States to take a greater role with a complex, expensive population when they are also being asked to find the resources to cover poor individuals in Medicaid and develop exchanges to cover people in the private market? Congress should consider what States should do in health care and what are reasonable expectations in those States. Congress should involve States in this conversation. If Congress wants States to administer benefits for the aged, the blind, the disabled, and low- income individuals, along with managing the exchanges for individuals with incomes over or up to 400 percent of poverty, Congress can do so. If health care is the primary responsibility of States, it is because of decisions made by this Congress. States are being asked to do so much in health care while also overseeing education, public safety, roads, bridges, and meet, in most cases, a balanced budget requirement. So I think Congress needs to step back and ask where the States are best able to focus on health care. We should ask States. When we look at the long-term spending growth of our health care entitlement, we should use this as an opportunity to reconsider the role of the States in providing health care coverage. What we ask of the States should be thoughtfully considered in any discussion. I know there are people telling us we shouldn't talk about health care entitlements now. President Obama hasn't come to the table yet on this issue. We don't have a choice. All you have to do is look at the numbers I have given you. Look at the spending. We only make the problem worse by putting it off. We can save Federal dollars by extracting more from beneficiaries, providers, and States, but that is not going to do the same thing we need to do when we talk about health care changes. It is the very same thing we went through when Obamacare was being considered by a bipartisan group. We need to do things to change the long-term growth curve of Medicare and Medicaid costs generally. That needs to be done right now. We need to talk about solutions to actually lower the growth curve and do it sooner than later. We are $16 trillion in debt. One of every $4 we will spend in this next decade will be on Medicare and Medicaid. When you get further down the road than 10 years, it is going to grow even more dramatically. We will see health care entitlements double as a percentage of GDP in the next 25 years. I said the trustees look ahead 75 years, and it is even a bigger problem 75 years out. If we want Medicare and Medicaid to not only survive--and I do--but also to thrive for the next generation, we need to be willing to ask fundamental questions and seek solutions that can affect the growth curve. I sincerely hope we are able to look for solutions that can make a real difference. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I had an opportunity to hear what Senator Udall of Colorado had to say about Iowa and my participation, and I thank him very much for his kind remarks. This year Senator Mark Udall is the champion of people speaking about the wind energy tax credit. I have spoken a few times, but he has spoken for every State that has a wind energy business. He has spoken many times more than I have, and I wish to compliment Senator Udall from Colorado for doing that. I think it is a foregone conclusion that after 20 years' of investment of taxpayer money in what we call the tax incentive for wind energy, and with the industry just about becoming a mature industry-- and there are different points of view within the industry, but in just a few years it will be starting to phase out--this wind energy tax credit can go away because it will be a mature industry much as the ethanol tax credit went away at the end of last year. So with this tremendous investment, it seems to me it would be a shame not to continue it so we can get to maturity, and then in a sense ratify the decision of the good investment of taxpayer money that has already been made. So today it is my privilege to join my colleague, Senator Udall of Colorado, on the floor of the Senate to discuss the importance of wind energy and the need to extend the production tax credit for wind. I appreciate Senator Udall's commitment to the production tax credit for wind energy. As I have said before, but I wish to say it again, he has come to the floor many times during the past several months to highlight the importance of wind energy in the various States. He has been a real leader on this issue. As Senator Udall has said, I have been a longtime supporter of the wind energy tax credit beginning with my authorship of the first wind production tax credit in 1992. At the time, I have to confess I didn't see coming, for my State or for the Nation as a whole, the big deal it has become not only in the production of wind energy and Iowa being No. 2 in the Nation, but also the component manufacturing that goes on in most every State involved in wind energy, including my own State. Particularly, I didn't foresee, at a time when most of our talk about exporting jobs is actually exporting jobs, and in my State, at least from two countries, Spain and Germany, we have been able to import jobs--or I should say import the ability to create jobs through foreign investment--for the component manufacturing. So it has been a success in so many ways. Maybe one other point that ought to be emphasized at this time: Some Members--and maybe more Members in the other body--seem to be more cynical about any sort of investment in green energy because of Solyndra and other places where taxpayer money has gone in the way of grants and then there has been immediate bankruptcy, resulting in a waste of taxpayer money. There is absolutely no benefit from the wind energy tax credit unless energy is actually produced. So it is not going to be one of those situations where through taxpayer money, through a tax incentive, money is going to some company and not reaping the benefits of it, the end result in this case being the production of wind energy. The production tax credit for wind is working and should be a part of the effort in Washington to get more Americans working. Nationally, the wind energy industry supports 75,000 jobs. There are more than 400 manufacturing facilities nationwide supplying wind components. Thirty- five percent of all new electricity generation added during the last 5 years was from wind, and this happens to be more than from coal and nuclear combined. Today, 60 percent of a wind turbine's value is produced in the United States, compared with just 25 percent in the year 2005. As I have said so often, my home State of Iowa is a leader in wind energy production and component manufacturing. Nearly 20 percent of Iowa's electricity needs are met from wind energy, powering the equivalent of 1 million homes. Almost 3,000 utility-scale turbines in Iowa generate lease payments to landowners, worth $14 million every year. Iowa is behind only Texas nationally in terms of installed wind capacity. The wind energy employs more than 6,000 Iowans. These jobs are at risk because Congress has so far failed to extend the production tax credit which is set to expire at the end of the year. In fact, hundreds of Iowans employed in wind energy have already been laid off because of slowing demand over uncertainty of tax credits, and there will be more laid off in my State except in one city where they are manufacturing components to go to Canada for use in wind energy in Canada. Certainty about tax policy and affordable energy, then, are factors for economic growth and getting unemployed workers back on the assembly line. As much energy as possible--both traditional and renewable--should be produced at home to create jobs and strengthen national security. Wind energy is obviously a free resource, and it is abundant in many places around the country. I suppose we could say wind is abundant every place, but at speeds that make the production of energy from wind cost- effective. In my State, most of these facilities are in northwest Iowa where the wind averages about 14 miles per hour compared to going diagonally down to the southeast corner of the State where it averages about 8 miles per hour. So if there is enough constant wind, this is very definitely a free resource. Wind is also a homegrown resource. The electricity it generates is produced on local farms for local customers and often adds investment value to the community. A clean, renewable source such as wind is not dependent on faraway countries with leaders, in the case of petroleum, for instance, who happen to be so hostile to the United States even as they take our energy dollars and maybe use those against us. That is why there is broad support for extending this worthwhile policy. Legislation in the House of Representatives to extend the production tax credit has 119 cosponsors, including 25 Republicans. In August the Senate Finance Committee, with a bipartisan vote, passed my extension of the wind energy production tax credit amendment I offered at that particular time. The Governors' Wind Energy Coalition and the Western Governors' Association have called for an extension of the production tax credit. The Western Governors' Association is an independent organization representing Governors of 19 States, and current membership includes 13 Republicans and 6 Democratic Governors. So there is pretty broad bipartisan consensus among Governors that this ought to be extended. I was pleased to join a press conference a few weeks ago with Senator Mark Udall and over 40 military veterans representing Operation Free. They were visiting Capitol Hill to meet with Members of Congress, encouraging Congress to extend the wind production tax credit. The wind energy production tax credit was created to try to level the playing field with coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation. The production tax credit for wind is available only when wind energy is produced. There is no benefit for simply placing the turbine in the ground. It is a tax relief that rewards results, and that is much different than failed taxpayer-funded grants and loans made since 2009 when a lot of that money went to companies that are now bankrupt. Those who want to do away with the wind energy tax incentive don't seem to mention that other forms of energy have received far more generous tax incentives for many decades longer than the wind energy industry. Oil and gas and nuclear power all received longstanding Federal support. I wish to emphasize, because I believe I read someplace, that one of the opponents of the wind energy tax credit being extended comes from nuclear. Do my colleagues think we would even have a nuclear industry in the United States since the 1950s or 1960s if it weren't for the Price Anderson Act that supports it as kind of a super--or an insurer of last resort? It would never have developed, and it is still in existence. Isn't it a little bit intellectually dishonest to say that wind should not have the tax incentive when other industries wouldn't even exist if they hadn't had it already? If we are going to have a discussion of which industries merit Federal support and which industries don't, the discussion needs to be intellectually honest. If we are having that discussion, everything needs to be on the table, not just wind energy. Can you think of 60 extenders that are going to sunset at the end of this year? Only one-- wind--seems to be attacked right now. This extension deserves a place in our year-end package of tax extenders to help give confidence investors want and employers need to keep and hire workers. There is no reason to exacerbate the unemployment problem by failing to extend this successful incentive. America's security in the short- and long-term depends on a robust effort to develop domestic energy sources. Before I leave the floor, this can be done by the extender bill all by itself being passed or it can be, as we hope, that President Obama and Speaker Boehner have some sort of framework for us to put meat on that framework so we do not go over the cliff and have this bill be a part of it. When that whole fiscal cliff debate is about jobs, we do not want to forget about these 75,000 jobs that are in wind energy. A lot of these jobs have already led to some layoffs. We could bring those people back to work pretty fast. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have been hearing a lot about the so- called Bush tax cuts from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Given the rhetoric being used by some on the other side to describe this tax relief, I would like to take this time to correct the record. But, first, during this talk about the fiscal cliff and about the tax cuts that sunset at the end of the year, all we have been hearing since the election is, What are we going to do about taxes? That is very significant as a result of the last election because I think it is a foregone conclusion there is going to be more revenue raised. But if we raise the amount of revenue the President wants raised, and raise it from the 2 percent he wants to raise it from--the wealthy-- that is only going to run the government for 8 days. So what will we do the other 357 days or, if we look at the deficit, it will only take care of 7 percent of the trillion-plus deficit we have every year. What about the other 93 percent? So the point is that we can talk about taxes and taxes and taxes, but it is not going to solve the fiscal problems facing our Nation. We don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. So we should have been spending the last 3 weeks talking about how we are going to take care of the other 93 percent of the problem. The President should have declared victory 3 weeks ago, and we wouldn't have had all this lost time between now and right after the election. But I said I wanted to set the record straight. This tax relief of 2001 and 2003 reduced the tax burden for virtually every tax-paying American. It did this through across-the-board tax rate reductions, marriage penalty relief, and enhancing certain tax provisions for hard- working families, such as doubling the child tax credit. Since the passage of this tax relief, there has been a concerted effort by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to distort the truth about the present tax policy of the Federal Government. That tax policy has been in place for the last 12 years now. They have attempted to distort the truth behind its bipartisan support, its benefits to low- and middle-income Americans, and its fiscal and economic impact. As one of the architects of the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation, I come to the floor to correct what I believe have become three common myths about this tax relief. The first myth is that this tax relief was a partisan Republican product. The second is that the tax relief was a giveaway to the wealthy. And the third is that the tax relief is a primary source of our current fiscal and economic problems. First things first. We often hear the other side divisively refer to this tax relief as the Bush tax cuts. Given the rhetoric on the other side, one would think all this tax relief was forced through along party-line votes. The record proves otherwise. The conference report to the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001 passed the Senate by a vote of 58 to 33. In all, 12 Democrats voted for this legislation. Senator Jeffords, who later caucused with the Democrats, also voted for it. As far as major pieces of legislation goes, it is difficult to find such major legislation passed with such broad support since there has been Democratic control of both the Senate and the White House. The President's 2009 stimulus bill, as an example, only had the support of three Republicans, as well as the Dodd-Frank bill. Of course, there is the health care bill, the President's signature legislation, which passed with no Republican votes. Moreover, all the 2001 and 2003 tax relief was extended in 2010, just 2 years ago, with strong bipartisan support, and signed into law by this President. At that time--2 years ago--the Senate vote tally was 81 to 19. Now, understand, that has to be considered overwhelmingly bipartisan. So just 2 years ago we had overwhelming bipartisan support for the Bush tax cuts. Yet somehow this is a partisan measure we are dealing with. Given this record, instead of calling it the Bush tax cuts, as they are called, we really should be calling it the bipartisan tax relief. I now would like to turn to the other side's criticism of the bipartisan tax relief or, as they say, tax cuts for the wealthy or another way they say it is it is a giveaway to the rich. This rhetoric demonstrates the difference in philosophy between this Senator and my Democratic colleagues. First of all, a reduction in tax rates is not a giveaway to anyone. The income a taxpayer earns belongs to that taxpayer. It is not a pittance the taxpayer may keep based upon the good graces of our government. The burden should not be on the taxpayer to justify keeping their income. Instead, it should be on us in Washington to justify taking more away from them. Secondly, there is a tendency on the other side to view everything as a zero sum game. In their minds, if someone has more, it means someone else will have less. So I would like to quote Ronald Reagan as the best example of this attitude when he said too many people in Washington ``can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.'' I believe this is what is driving the animus against the so-called wealthy on the other side. They are under the impression the wealthy got rich at the expense of someone less fortunate. The problem with this view is that in a free economy goods and services are transferred through voluntary exchanges. Both parties are better off as a result of this exchange; otherwise, it wouldn't occur. Moreover, wealth is not static. It can be both created as well as destroyed. At worst, the government is a destroyer of wealth. At best, the government is a redistributor of wealth. It is through the force of government the zero sum exchanges occur. It is the private sector that creates wealth through innovation and providing the goods and services we need and want. The leadership of the other side has become fixated on redistributing the existing economic pie. I believe the better policy is to increase the size of the pie. When this occurs, no one is made better off at the expense of anyone else. The constant rhetoric of pitting American against American based upon economic status is not constructive. It also has not been constructive to accuse those of us who support the present tax policy for all Americans as agents of the rich. And I will soon get into discussing why that isn't true, as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills. I do not support tax cuts for the wealthy for the purpose of wealth redistribution. I support progrowth policies to increase the size of the economic pie. Free market, progrowth policies are the only proven way to improve the well-being of everybody. My objection to the other side's characterization of the bipartisan tax relief is not only a philosophical one, but it is a factual one. The truth is that the bipartisan tax relief that was voted on in 2001 made the Tax Code more progressive, not less. With all the rhetoric around here over the last 5 or 6 years, nobody believes that, so I have a chart to show that. Since its implementation, the share of the tax burden paid by the top 20 percent has increased. Conversely, the bottom 80 percent has seen its share of tax burden decrease. Additionally, the percentage reduction in average tax rates between 2000 and 2007 was the largest for the lowest income groups. As you can see from this chart, there is a general trend downward from the bottom 20 percent to the top 20 percent. The bottom 20 percent saw their average tax rate drop by the 25 percent that is shown there. The top 20 percent, on the other hand, only saw an 11-percent reduction, with the proportionate in between. The truth about the bipartisan tax relief apparently has been recognized by my colleagues on the other side. They do not like to admit this, but this must be so since they now claim to support extending 75 percent of the bipartisan tax relief bill. In other words, 75 percent of what they are condemning of the 2001 tax bill the other side wants to make permanent law, which obviously I support too. You would think that if it really was a tax cut for the wealthy, however, the other side would be advocating letting all this tax relief expire. Certainly you would not think they would be advocating for more than half of it to be extended. To get around their seemingly contradictory position, they have stopped referring to the majority of the bipartisan relief as the Bush tax cuts. That term is now reserved only for the 25 percent they wish to see expire. They now refer to the 75 percent not as Bush tax cuts but as middle-class tax relief. So I have news for my colleagues. The middle-class tax relief you now claim to support is the same relief you previously demonized as tax cuts for the wealthy. Finally, it has become en vogue for the other side to blame the bipartisan tax relief for everything from the Federal deficit to the state of the current economy. Neither is based in fact nor sound economic reason. It is undisputed that in 2001 the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. However, as a June 2012 CBO report shows, the bipartisan tax relief role in turning this projected surplus into deficits is dwarfed by other factors. This is the 2001-2003 tax cuts. See that smaller piece of the pie? Then let's look at what else is the justification, according to the Congressional Budget Office--not this Senator--about where the deficit came from. First off, the June CBO report tells us that their budget surplus projections were simply incorrect. That happens a lot with CBO. I like to refer to CBO around here as God because what they say goes, and you have to abide by it if you don't have 60 votes. But they aren't always right. Unlike God, CBO is not omnipotent. They do not have perfect foresight, and every once in a while even they make mistakes. CBO's surplus projections were based on rosy economic assumptions as well as faulty technical assumptions that did not pan out. CBO failed to predict the bursting of the tech bubble that was so beneficial in propping up the economy of the Clinton years. CBO also could not predict the September 11, 2001, tragedy that hit New York and the Pentagon, killing 3,000 Americans, which wreaked havoc on our economy. So add up all these things. All told, these and other economic and technical changes account for $3.2 trillion or, as I show in this chart, these faulty assumptions accounted for 27 percent of the change of the 2001 projections from surplus to deficit. By far, the biggest reason for the change from surplus to deficit was an increase in spending. Some of this spending was justified. This includes bipartisan support for increased spending to protect our Nation against future terrorist attacks. But, of course, as has become the custom around here, we spent and spent and spent some more. This spending not only continued but escalated with the election of President Obama. His first act was to increase the deficit by $800 billion-plus through a failed stimulus package. In all, this increase in spending accounts for nearly 50 percent in the change from surplus to deficit. That is this part of the pie chart. So how about the tax cuts we hear so much bellyaching about from the other side? If you look closely at my chart, you will see I have divided the tax relief into two slices. These two slices add up to about 25 percent. Eleven percent of this, which I labeled ``all other taxes,'' primarily consists of the tax relief provided in President Bush's 2008 stimulus package, President Obama's 2009 stimulus, and the payroll tax holiday. Of course, these provisions had large Democratic support, as we all know. That leaves us with the 2001 and 2003 tax relief accounting for merely 12.9 percent of the change in the projected surplus. But understand what other people are saying--including, I think, even the President--about the reason we have this big budget deficit is because of the Bush tax cuts. Well, that is baloney. That is a far cry from being the driver of our deficits or even a substantial contributor. The truth is, even using CBO's static scoring assumptions, the tax relief did not push us into deficits. In fact, if the only change since CBO's 2001 projection had been the 2001 and 2003 tax relief, we would still be experiencing sizeable surpluses each year. Along with blaming the bipartisan tax relief for deficits, my colleagues on the other side have alluded to this tax relief as being a cause of our recent recession. The President even made this claim in an ad during the Presidential election. The exact logic of this claim escapes me. Apparently, it also escaped Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler. He described the reasoning supporting such a claim as a ``Rube Goldberg phenomenon.'' The Post was unable to find any respected academic study supporting this convoluted logic. There is good reason the Post could not find such a study. The focus of most economic research in this area is on the degree to which tax increases lower economic growth and tax decreases increase economic growth. There is considerable debate within this research, but it is difficult to find any suggesting that tax increases are good and decreases are bad for the economy. Now that I have explained and hopefully corrected these myths, I hope we can have a more constructive discussion on averting the fiscal cliff. Republicans have already stated they are willing to accept some new revenues. Speaker Boehner has put $800 billion in new revenues on the table. However, we still haven't heard any substantive ideas from the President or other leading Democrats about cuts to spending or entitlements. We haven't even heard the President say good things about the Simpson-Bowles recommendations--a commission he appointed, a commission that had Republicans and Democrats on it, a commission that reported conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats saying: We ought to do what we can to see the Simpson-Bowles approach through. It would be nice to see the President endorse a recommendation of a committee he appointed that had a suggestion for taking care of this fiscal cliff problem. If he had done that 2 years ago, we wouldn't be debating fiscal cliff today. So there are serious concerns on my side of the aisle that any agreement we reach will result in immediate tax hikes but promised spending cuts will never occur. We need more than just empty promises from the other side. The President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to get serious about looking at the spending side. It is time for the President to make good on his campaign promise of supporting a balanced approach to deficit reduction. I repeat what I said at the beginning. All we have heard for 3 or 4 weeks now since the election is all about taxes. Too often, that is what Republicans are talking about, although they have to be considered now as a result of the election. But if we give the President everything he wants in the sense of taxing the wealthy with the figures he wants, it still runs the government only for 8 days. What about the other 357 days? It only takes care of 7 percent of the deficit problems we face year after year, and it is going to be year after year into the future if we don't get something done about it. So what about the other 93 percent? The taxes aren't going to take care of that. You can't tax us out of this deficit problem because we have a spending problem. So if we had put as much time into the spending side of the ledger as we put into the taxing side of the ledger over the last 3 or 4 weeks, we would be well on the road and be certain to get out of here by Christmas Eve, which I have my doubts that we can. I yield the floor.