Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, throughout my years in Congress, I have worked to keep drugs out of our communities. We have all seen the destructive impact drugs have on our communities, and our families. For years, we have heard tragic stories of the lives impacted by drug abuse. These problems plague our society and we must remain united in this struggle to end abuse and addiction. In 1997 I, along with then-Senator Biden, sponsored legislation to create the Drug Free Communities, DFC, program. I believed then--as I still do today--that one of the most effective ways to prevent drug abuse is by supporting community antidrug coalitions to identify, prevent and eradicate the sources of abuse at the grass roots. Since the enactment of the Drug Free Communities Act, thousands of community antidrug coalitions have received Federal support to further their efforts to halt drug abuse in their communities. Coalitions, across the country and in my home State of Iowa, are confronted with unique challenges, but they are leading their communities in finding ways to overcome them. For example, the Van Buren Safe Coalition in Keosauqua, IA implemented comprehensive community wide strategies to address the growing marijuana problem in their community. They conducted town hall meetings to raise awareness about the dangers of drug use; facilitated various community and youth education opportunities; and partnered with local schools to ensure drug policies and codes of conduct were in place. As a result, the Van Buren County SAFE Coalition reduced marijuana use among 11th graders by one-third in a 5-year time span according to the Iowa Youth Survey. The Kossuth Connections coalition, which is headquartered in Algona, IA, is also taking action to fight underage drinking and smoking within its communities. According to the Iowa Youth Survey, current underage drinking and smoking, although still below the statewide average, has increased slightly between 2008 and 2010 in this county. As a result, the Kossuth Connections coalition has partnered with local businesses that sell alcohol and tobacco to ensure compliance with laws requiring age restrictions on selling alcohol and tobacco products. Youth from the county have surveyed area stores, inspected advertisements and product placements, and helped to determine whether or not the store displays a ``We ID'' sticker at the counter. These youth are committed to ensuring local stores are in compliance with the law and are actively working to reduce underage drinking and smoking. These coalitions are a small sampling, but they represent the incredible efforts that many are putting into controlling and reducing drug abuse in our communities. Now is not the time to abandon community drug prevention efforts. Unfortunately, recent trends indicate youth drug use nationally is on the rise and new synthetic drugs like K2/Spice and bath salts are gaining in popularity. In fact, the latest Monitoring the Future Survey indicates that one in nine high school seniors used synthetic drugs like K2/Spice in the past year. This is the first year this survey tested students on synthetic drug use. The high number of users in such a short time span illustrates how rapidly drug use can spread among certain populations and communities. It is discouraging to see these surveys and to read about more tragedies on a daily basis. These negative trends will continue if they are not aggressively addressed. It is vital that communities are made aware of abuse trends and the new drugs coming on the horizon. The actions community antidrug coalitions can take to stem the growing tide of rising drug abuse, like synthetic drug abuse, can and have made a real difference. By holding town hall meetings, launching school programs, and confronting local businesses that market or sell inappropriate products community coalitions are making a real positive difference. Whether it is a synthetic drug outbreak, a meth epidemic in a Midwestern town, or an increase in underage drinking, community antidrug coalitions will lead the way to unite their community against drug abuse. It is vital in these tough times that these coalitions continue to receive support from their communities and from the Federal Government. That is why I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Leahy, in introducing a bill to reauthorize The Drug Free Communities Support Program for an additional 5 years. This reauthorizing legislation recognizes the good work local antidrug coalitions have done over the years, but it also recognizes the fact that resources at the Federal level are tight and that authorizations need to more closely resemble appropriations. Further, this program is part of an ongoing review conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that I, along with Senator Feinstein, requested to study the effectiveness of the program. This study will take some time to develop and should not hinder our efforts to reauthorize the program, but should also be taken into consideration once the results are available. We must remain vigilant and not relent in our efforts to eradicate drug abuse. Drug abuse flourishes when the problem is ignored. If we are going to make a better future for our children and communities, we must face this menace together.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation designed to help family farmers across this nation have a more level playing field when it comes to livestock markets. The bill would prohibit meat packers from owning livestock. The ownership of livestock by packers compromises the marketplace and hinders the ability of the farmer to receive a fair price. It is simple, as one meat-packing executive once told me, packers own livestock so that when prices are high, they slaughter their own livestock. When prices are low, they buy from farmers. I would love to say opportunities for independent producers have gotten better since the last time we debated this bill during the 2008 Farm Bill. But that simply isn't the case. We are to the point where most farmers have to deliver their livestock to one of a few very large packers. Farmers' bargaining power is diminished by the sheer size and economic position of the packers. But beyond that, farmers have to compete with the livestock owned by the packing plant itself. The packer ban would make sure the forces of the marketplace work for the benefit of the farmer as much as it does for the slaughterhouse. I am sure there will be folks in the packing industry that point out that farmers are doing okay right now, and that's great that farmers are experiencing a good period. I am pleased anytime the hard work of livestock farmers results in a good price. But I don't want my colleagues here in the Senate to be lulled to sleep and think just because prices are good right now means we don't have competition issues in the livestock industry that need to be addressed. This is about ensuring farmers are able to get fair prices for years to come. We need to work today, and implement this reform, to ensure the next generation of independent farmers has an opportunity to raise livestock and receive fair prices as a result of their hard work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation designed to help family farmers across this nation have a more level playing field when it comes to livestock markets. The bill would prohibit meat packers from owning livestock. The ownership of livestock by packers compromises the marketplace and hinders the ability of the farmer to receive a fair price. It is simple, as one meat-packing executive once told me, packers own livestock so that when prices are high, they slaughter their own livestock. When prices are low, they buy from farmers. I would love to say opportunities for independent producers have gotten better since the last time we debated this bill during the 2008 Farm Bill. But that simply isn't the case. We are to the point where most farmers have to deliver their livestock to one of a few very large packers. Farmers' bargaining power is diminished by the sheer size and economic position of the packers. But beyond that, farmers have to compete with the livestock owned by the packing plant itself. The packer ban would make sure the forces of the marketplace work for the benefit of the farmer as much as it does for the slaughterhouse. I am sure there will be folks in the packing industry that point out that farmers are doing okay right now, and that's great that farmers are experiencing a good period. I am pleased anytime the hard work of livestock farmers results in a good price. But I don't want my colleagues here in the Senate to be lulled to sleep and think just because prices are good right now means we don't have competition issues in the livestock industry that need to be addressed. This is about ensuring farmers are able to get fair prices for years to come. We need to work today, and implement this reform, to ensure the next generation of independent farmers has an opportunity to raise livestock and receive fair prices as a result of their hard work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we turn to the nomination of Margo Brodie to be U.S. District judge for the Eastern District of New York. This will be the 69th judicial nominee of President Obama which the Senate has confirmed during this Congress. Overall, more than 70 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed. We continue, on the Senate floor and in the Judiciary Committee, to work together to reduce the number of judicial vacancies. We have held 21 nominations hearings during this Congress, with 80 judicial nominees appearing at those hearings. All in all, over 85 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have received a hearing. We will hear from additional judicial nominees later this week. So even as we continue to hear concerns about the judicial vacancy rate and claims of obstructionism, I would note we are making progress as we continue to confirm judicial nominees. But let me emphasize again that for more than half of the vacancies, including those designated as ``judicial emergencies,'' the President has failed to submit a nomination. So critics need to look at the beginning of the process when commenting on vacancies. I would like to say a little about our nominee today. Ms. Brodie earned a BA from St. Francis College in 1988, and her JD from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law in 1991. She began her legal career as an assistant corporation counsel for the City of New York in 1991. In this role, she defended city agencies and officials in the performance of their duty to manage municipal affairs. In 1994, Ms. Brodie became an associate with Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, representing clients in various types of civil litigation. Since 1999, Ms. Brodie has served as an assistant U.S. attorney with the Eastern District Court of New York. From May 2005 to March 2006, she served as a legal advisor to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offices Commission, ICPC, in Nigeria. From 2006 to 2009, she supervised new AUSAs in the General Crimes Section in roles as deputy chief and chief. In October 2009, she became the counselor to the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office. In her current position as deputy chief of the Criminal Division, she supervises over 100 Criminal Division AUSAs in the areas of public corruption, civil rights, terrorism, organized crime, gang violence, narcotics trafficking, and business and securities fraud. She also advises the office on legal policy and management issues. Ms. Brodie has received a majority: ``Qualified;'' minority: ``Well Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in recent weeks, we have seen the Obama administration reverse quite a few of its positions on very important issues, so I am going to go through several of those positions that have been reversed to remind people of the number and the consequences of those reversals, and also to remind people that when Presidents make promises, they do not always keep them. This has continued to be a recurring pattern, where the administration's deeds have not lived up to its words. Here is the record: The administration reversed its position on employer funding for employee contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs under the new health care law. Those of us who opposed the President's law when it was passed in 2009 and 2010 warned Catholic groups that, if it passed--meaning if the health care reform bill passed--religious institutions would be required to pay for these services. For some religious institutions, payment or providing these services would violate their constitutional right to freely exercise their religion under the first amendment. Sure enough, when the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation implementing the President's health care law, religious-affiliated entities, such as colleges, hospitals, and charitable organizations, were required to pay for these services. If these institutions did not pay, then they would face a $2,000 fine per employee, per year under the health care reform bill. Many Catholic entities objected. They correctly saw the rule as a threat to their freedom of conscience, protected by the first amendment. But many non-Catholics also were angered. They knew and feared that if the health care reform bill proposed by President Obama allowed the government to run roughshod over some people's freedom to practice their religion, it could do the same for practices of other religions beyond Catholicism. The regulation was a direct assault on freedom of conscience, and the American people knew it. It was no longer a contraceptive issue. The issue was freedom of religion. So last week the President ordered a change. No longer would the employer, such as religiously affiliated institutions, have to pay for coverage of services to which it conscientiously objected. Instead, the cost supposedly would be paid by insurance companies. Of course, somebody will ultimately have to pay the cost. After the President's reversal, employers will still pay insurance companies to provide for coverage and, more directly hitting the institutions, those that are self-insured will still have to pay not indirectly but very directly. Since the substance has not changed, the change appears to be designed to undercut opposition rather than to respond to legitimate objections to the earlier policy. Then we get back to basics: There is no such thing as a free lunch. We have to wonder how carefully the original policy was vetted by the administration. As a result, President Obama has been accused of waging war on religion. This particular policy violated the rights of religious entities and individuals, and the administration considers the matter somehow to simply be closed by the press announcement 1 week ago. But the Catholic bishops and many other religious organizations violently disagree. So Congress may have to overturn the policy if we want to abide by the strict words of the Constitution and freedom of religion, because if we don't, I expect the President's new policy will be challenged in the courts on the first amendment, free exercise clause, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Moving on to another change of policy. Another recent policy shift occurred on a different first amendment issue beyond freedom of religion. Turning to the right of free speech. The Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment required that corporations and labor unions be allowed to make independent expenditures on behalf of candidates. President Obama severely criticized that ruling of a couple years ago, and right after it was made he even objected in his State of the Union Address right in front of the same Supreme Court Justices. Even the New York Times has said his criticism at that time of the Citizens United decision was probably wrong. Nonetheless, President Obama has repeatedly said he thinks the ruling harms democracy. But now, President Obama has changed his mind. He is encouraging, under Citizens United, donors to give to a super PAC that supports his candidacy. He now says Democrats need to match the Republicans to tap these sources of campaign funds. Here, though, he has made more than a 180-degree turn. He has gone beyond simply asking donors to give to super PACs that independently support his candidacy. Under the new policy, even White House staffers and Cabinet Secretaries can attend super PAC events. At these events, corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals can pay large sums for access to key administration policymakers. These administration officials do not directly ask for money, of course, but they help to raise unlimited funds from corporations and unions. Of course, this is allowed under Citizens United, but it is the very same decision the President criticized and now he is going against his own criticism. I do not know what principled position would allow a President to condemn a decision and then have his administration officials help corporations and unions capitalize on that decision for his benefit. I suspect, of course, that the President would say he will still oppose that decision, even if he indirectly obtains the benefits of the Citizens United case. But I think it is very important that we understand letting a President have it both ways is not principled. Let us consider another issue--the issue of lobbyists. In December 2011, through a fundraising e-mail, President Obama wrote: We don't take a dime for D.C. lobbyists or special-interest PACs--never have and never will. But one of his campaign bundlers, former Representative Ron Klein, has raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for the Obama campaign. Do you know what. Mr. Klein is a registered Federal lobbyist. On the 2008 campaign trail, President Obama pledged there would be no revolving door between lobbying and serving in his administration. He issued an Executive order to bar former lobbyists from joining his administration to work at agencies they recently lobbied. Yet he issued a waiver allowing William Lynn, who had been a top lobbyist for a major defense contractor, to manage day-to-day operations at the Pentagon. More recently, he made Cecilia Munoz the head of his Domestic Policy Council. Ms. Munoz was a registered lobbyist through 2008. The administration has admitted to granting waivers for only a few lobbyists. Yet it has declined to identify all lobbyists to whom it granted waivers. The promise of transparency doesn't apply in this case, evidently. So the President's actual policy is, ``No lobbyists in my administration, unless I absolutely want them.'' Then there is the President's public commitment to transparency in government. I just mentioned one violation of that transparency. Now we go on to talk about his transparency problem. President Obama issued an Executive order to department heads. The order reads: My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency . . . '' But that is not policy the administration followed in responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The Obama Justice Department advised agencies to tell Freedom of Information Act requesters seeking certain national security- or law enforcement-related documents that those documents did not exist. He said to tell them these documents do not exist, even if the agency knew the documents did exist. The process seems to have been to make a grand pronouncement and score political points. Then, when they think no one is paying attention, the policy shifts. I do not know who was responsible for vetting this blatantly dishonest policy, but the predictable firestorm ensued and, thank God, the administration has now backed down. This is not the only instance of the administration failing to practice what it preached concerning FOIA requests. A different Obama Executive order gave these directions: The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. That is not how the Department of Homeland Security handled FOIA requests. Homeland Security FOIA requests were sent to the Secretary's office for political appointees to review. Career FOIA staff were not allowed to respond to the requests without the approval of political appointees. The House Governmental Reform and Oversight Committee has demonstrated these political officials misused FOIA exemptions to prevent the release of embarrassing records. This was in direct violation of the President's promise. Moving on. As a candidate, President Obama stated that: [i]t is a clear abuse of power to use [signing] statements as a license to evade law that the President does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. However, in his first year in office, President Obama signed an omnibus appropriations bill that contained a standard provision that Federal funds could not be used to pay the salary of Federal employees who attempted or threatened to prevent another Federal employee from communicating with Congress. This provision has always provided important protection for whistleblowers against waste, fraud, and abuse in government, and somehow these whistleblowers, under the President's signing statement, wouldn't dare talk to Senator Grassley or other Senators about waste, fraud, and abuse. So how are we supposed to find out about it? Whistleblowers are very helpful. It happens that President Obama's signing statement contended that this provision did not detract from his authority to direct department heads to supervise employee communication with Congress. Worse, it said this authority would be used when employee communication would reveal ``confidential information.'' This signing statement, if carried out, would undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law, and it would harm the ability of Congress to conduct its constitutional duty to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Then just this week, the President flipped again on yet another subject. In 2009, he said he was ``pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.'' At the time he was sworn in, the deficit was $1.3 trillion. The fiscal year 2013 budget the President has just proposed would create a $900 billion deficit--much more than half of the 2009 level that he promised to cut in half. This is true even after he proposes to raise taxes, since the amount of the new government spending he seeks is so enormous. This is a long list of flip-flops, of failure to keep commitments, and hypocrisy. There are others as well. I give the President the benefit of the doubt in his altered views of the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo, and other national security issues. He holds an office in which he sees daily the unrelenting national security threats the country faces. But for the other issues I have raised, the consistency of the Obama administration is its inconsistency. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we turn to the nomination Jesse M. Furman, to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Furman was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last fall by voice vote. When we considered his nomination last year, a few items of concern were raised. These issues included writings he made while in college on gun control and an amicus brief he drafted opposing a religious club's access to school facilities for meetings. Based on his hearing testimony and responses to written questions, I was willing to allow Mr. Furman's nomination to move to the full Senate for consideration. In the interim, conditions have changed which require me to give a closer scrutiny to Mr. Furman's record and to the confirmation process in general. Generally, I am willing to give the President's nominees the benefit of the doubt when the nominee on the surface meets the requirements I have previously outlined. But as I indicated over the past few weeks, we are not operating under normal circumstances. The atmosphere the President has created with his disregard for Constitutional principles has made it difficult to give his nominees any benefit of the doubt. Given that I did have some doubts about Mr. Furman's record, I oppose his confirmation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If it is appropriate, I would like to ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for about 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. If a Republican like this Senator says that the President's 2013 budget doesn't pass the smell test, I would probably have half the country questioning my judgment. But I would like to quote the Washington Post's Dana Milbank's comments on the President's budget. This was recently in the Washington Post, these words by a columnist who I think is generally pretty favorable toward President Obama as a person and his administration, but there is great disagreement by this columnist about the President's budget. The White House budget for fiscal 2013 begins with a broken promise, adds some phony policy assumptions, throws in a few rosy forecasts, and omits all kinds of painful decisions . . . the proposal would add $1 trillion more to the national debt than Obama contemplated a few months ago. Dana Milbank added that the Obama budget ``is a nonstarter on Capitol Hill, where even Senate Democrats have no plans to take it up. It is, in other words, exactly what it was supposed to be: a campaign document.'' So with that background from somebody who is not a Member of Congress, not a Republican or Democrat--I don't know how he might be registered--I would like to give my views on the President's budget, but just so that people know it isn't just Republicans who disagree with the President's budget. I think you could sum up the President's budget with three words that might say you are giving it a D grade, and probably most people would give it an F grade, but they would be debt, deficit, distrust, and disaster--too much spending, too much taxing, and too much debt. This comes from the fact that earlier this week the President submitted--as he has to every year--a budget proposal, and this budget proposal was all too predictable. It was predictable because it follows the same path as his previous three budgets. With breathtaking irresponsibility, the President's 2013 budget would expand the scope of government by spending more money, increase taxes on job creators, particularly small business, and continue on the path of enormous deficits and record debt--deja vu. The President's budget proposal is supposed to be a serious document, a document that lays out the President's priorities along with the President's ideas on how to address our national fiscal and economic challenges. This budget fails those goals miserably. As a member of the Budget Committee, I have heard from numerous experts who come before that committee about the need for Congress and the President to get serious about the fiscal cliff we are approaching. We have had deficit commissions--you remember Simpson-Bowles, as an example--we have had task forces, and we have had what we call gangs, the Gang of 6, six Senators trying to work things out, and other Members of Congress. All have put forward deficit reduction plans. It is going to take more than a commission, and the President didn't even back the recommendations of his own commission a year ago. It is going to take more than task forces, and it is going to take more than gangs of Senators because the single most important political and moral leader in America is whoever holds the Presidency of the United States. In this particular instance of this executive budget, that person and that document has failed to lead on this critical issue. It does not matter how many commissions, how many tasks forces, and how many gangs of Senators we have, without Presidential participation a problem as big as this country's national debt is never going to be solved. What President Obama put forward on Monday of this week is not a serious budget. As I said before, it is a political statement. The fact is Americans are going to pay a heavy price for the President's unwillingness and inability to lead. While President Obama claims his budget will create an America built to last, his budget builds higher deficits and debt, a bigger, more intrusive government, and economic decline for future generations. We want to remember that more important than the economic points of a budget is, when we get a more intrusive government, the less economic and social freedom people have. By nearly every fiscal measure, President Obama's budget makes matters much worse. Not only has the President chosen to ignore the looming fiscal catastrophe, he has chosen to continue the course and even step on the accelerator. This year, the Federal Government will spend $3.8 trillion--equal to 24.1 percent of our GDP. During the past 60 years, we have averaged about 21 percent of GDP. So we quantify government growing dramatically from taking 21 percent out of the economy--that government spends, 535 Members of Congress spend; instead of 300 million Americans--and that is raised to 24.3 percent. Alarmingly, over the 10-year period ahead, in the 2013 budget, in this budget, spending never gets below 22 percent. So forever they are growing government and detracting from individual freedom. The President intends to lock in historically high levels of spending. Do not take it from me, but it is right here in these budget documents we have all been given this week. He is a big spender of other people's money. In dollar terms, spending goes up from $3.8 trillion this year to $5.8 trillion 2022. Over a 10-year period of time, this budget spends about $47 trillion, and during that period of time, it increases the national debt by $11 trillion. So it is clear this document the President gives to Congress under law is built to spend. President Obama's budget is also harmful to our fragile economy because it would impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase. I always go back to what I thought was a very wise decision President Obama made about 2 or 3 weeks before he actually took the oath of office. During the campaign, he reminded everybody he wanted to raise taxes. But when he got to being sworn in, he looked at how bad the economy was, and he clearly said it is not too wise to raise taxes when we are in recession. Maybe technically we are not in a recession, but for the 8.3 percent of the American people who are unemployed, it is not just a recession, it is also a depression for each one of them. So since the unemployment rate stands at 8.3 percent, and the President seems to be just fine this year, compared to 3 years ago when he was sworn in, that hiking taxes is not going to be harmful to the economy, it is not going to be harmful to those 8.3 percent of the people who are unemployed and looking for jobs, it is going to be. So why has the President flip-flopped on this issue of whether you ought to increase taxes when people have such high unemployment rates? This tax increase will harm the economy and result in fewer job opportunities, particularly among the small businesspeople who create or provide for 25 percent of the jobs in America and generally create 70 percent of the new jobs in our economy. That is where it is going to be very harmful. I recently asked Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke about the prospects of a tax increase and the impact it would have on our economy. He indicated a significant tax hike could slow the economy, slow the recovery. In my question to him before the Budget Committee, I quoted the Congressional Budget Office that says unemployment would go up and the economy would grow less if we had this big tax increase the President wants. The President has spent many hours speaking about helping our economy, investing in our future, and increasing economic opportunities for all Americans. While he is saying all those things that he is probably sincere about, at the same time he does not put his actions where his words are because he does not allow a pipeline to be built that will create 20,000 jobs right now and 110,000 indirect jobs connected with it. If he gets his wish to hike taxes by $1.9 trillion, it will harm all Americans, further prolong this already 3-year slowdown, while growing an even larger, more intrusive Federal Government impinging upon personal liberties to a greater extent. Maybe the President's purpose in imposing this huge tax increase is an effort to reduce the Nation's debt and that is probably what he would tell us, and he may truly believe that. Unfortunately, that is not what he has planned. He wants to spend every dollar. His budget leads to an additional, as I said before, $11 trillion increase in debt--national debt--over the next 10 years. Debt held by the public increases from 74 percent of our economy today to 76 percent of our economy by the year 2022, at the end of this 10-year budget window. We have to compare that to the historic average since World War II, and that was just 43 percent, compared to where it is right now: 74.2 percent, going up to 76 percent. If people believe President Obama is putting us on a path to fiscal sustainability by taxing increases, I would suggest they look at the annual deficits over the next 10 years. These deficits never drop below $575 billion, and actually go up toward the end of his budget, rising to $704 billion by 2022. This budget puts America on the course of deficits and debt as far as the eye can see into the future. Additionally, the President took a pass on proposing any real changes to our entitlement programs, which are the real driver of future deficits and debt. That is only part of it. The main part of it is, do we want to preserve Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for future generations? Because if we do not do something about it, it is not going to be preserved. Again, he is absent from the discussion when Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid comes up. He has offered no solution in this budget, even though the Simpson- Bowles Commission he appointed--he never endorsed their recommendations 1 year ago; and why he did not endorse and trust the people he put in place to get a solution to these problems I do not know, but even the Simpson-Bowles Commission has solutions for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That is further evidence that the President has chosen not to lead on these very difficult issues. President Obama has spoken a lot lately about the issue of fairness. President Obama believes this type of budget, with higher taxes, more borrowing, and enormous deficits and debt will bring about fairness. If the President is referring to sharing in our Nation's economic decline, he is right. If he is talking about sharing in a Japanese-like prolonged period of stagflation, he is right. If he is talking about sharing in an economic collapse such as the one going on in Greece, he is right. It may not be tomorrow, but all signs point down the road in those directions because based upon the national debts of those particular countries, that is where we are headed. The budget proposed by President Obama will have all Americans sharing in higher taxes, a larger, more intrusive government, less freedom, and deficits and debt that will lead to economic decline for future generations. We all know a large budget deficit reduces national savings, leading to higher interest rates, more borrowing from abroad, and less domestic investment, which, in turn, would lower income growth in our country. This will hurt the lower and middle class the most. The gains President Obama touts in his budget that he is delivering to the middle class will be dwarfed by the loss of economic activity caused by deficits and debt. This is not a serious document. It is a political document. As evidence of how out of touch this budget is, few of my Democratic colleagues have even acknowledged President Obama submitted a budget, much less defend it. I hope the Senate will have an opportunity to debate and vote upon President Obama's budget. Last year, we had such a vote. Last year, the President's budget was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 97 to 0. Not a single member of the President's party supported his budget. So when constituents ask me why we cannot do something in a bipartisan way in Congress--and we do a lot in a bipartisan way that does not get the attention of the press, so people are cynical about Congress being bipartisan--I quote a 97-to-0 vote about whether there is bipartisanship, and that was a vote against the President's budget. Every Republican and every Democrat agreed. Once again this year, if we ever get this to a vote, I predict that very few, if any, will support this budget. Quite frankly, it would be humorous if the consequences of inaction were not so serious. We have a moral obligation to offer serious solutions for today and for future generations. The President's budget fails in this responsibility. He has chosen a politically expedient path rather than a responsible, forthright path. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will suffer as a result of this failure, and that suffering comes from this fact: that for nine generations of Americans, each succeeding generation has lived better than the previous generation, and a lot of Americans feel that is not going to happen with the next generation. That would be a sad commentary. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in the fall of 2010 I came to this Chamber to speak about my growing concern of synthetic drug use in this country. Specifically, I raised concerns about a popular new drug known as K2, or Spice, and I learned about this myself for the first time because a constituent of mine by the name of David Rozga committed suicide. David killed himself shortly after smoking a package of the drug he and some friends bought at a local shopping mall. At the time, David's death in June 2010 was one of the first associated with what was a new and very dangerous drug craze. Nearly 2 years after David's death, the use of synthetic drugs like K2 has exploded and is becoming a major problem across the country. In 2009 the American Association of Poison Centers reported only 13 calls concerning synthetic drug use. One year later, in 2010, over 1,300 calls were made to poison centers about synthetic drugs. So I have gone from 2009 to 2010, and now 2011. We have gone from 13 to 1,300 to last year, 12,000 calls to poison centers regarding synthetic drugs. The Monitoring the Future Survey, a survey of high school youth, asked students for the first time last year if they ever tried synthetic drugs. Roughly one in nine high school seniors responded they used synthetic drugs last year. These numbers are quite obviously an astonishing increase in just 2 years and they illustrate, of course, how rapidly the use of these drugs has come on the scene. These drugs are having a terrible effect on those who use them. Emergency room doctors across the country are reporting increasing uses of synthetic drugs in the number of users coming to the hospital. My staff heard from one such doctor from upstate New York about what she has seen. Dr. Sandra Schneider, from Rochester, NY, reported that users in her ER experienced psychotic episodes, rapid heart rate, very high blood pressure, and seizures. In some cases, users--many of whom were in their teens and twenties--suffered heart attacks and strokes and died as a result. Other cases involved users who tried to kill themselves, harm others, or got into a car accident while high on these synthetic drugs. How do we get from practically no use to where we are now? The people who manufacture and sell these drugs have circumvented the laws to easily sell synthetic drugs online, at gas stations, in novelty stores at the local shopping malls, and in tobacco stores and other shops. Many of the drugs are manufactured overseas, in countries such as China, and then imported into the United States. They spray chemical compounds, that have not been tested on humans and were not intended for human consumption, on dried leaves. They package and market these drugs to appear as legitimate products such as incense, bath salts, plant food, and snow remover. They slap a label on these packages stating that the product is not for human consumption to get around FDA regulations. Over 30 States have passed laws to ban various synthetic drug compounds. The Drug Enforcement Administration has also acted to stop these drugs. Although the DEA has used its emergency scheduling powers to control seven chemical compounds, there are too many on the market now for DEA to go through the long and laborious process to schedule each and every one. The makers of these drugs know this as well and have altered their chemical formulas--some as little as a molecule--to get around existing State and Federal laws. This is exactly the case in my home State of Iowa. Iowa passed a law last year that banned many chemical compounds. However, the law only listed a specific set of chemical compounds and the drugmakers are now altering their formulas. Recently, two Iowa youths have become victims of the new drugs. One is a Polk County teenager who got into a high-speed crash smoking a product called 100 Percent Pure Evil. This teen had two other passengers in her car. After smoking this product the driver became agitated and stated she wanted to kill herself. She started driving her car into several trees. When paramedics arrived at the scene they reported that everyone was badly hurt and the driver was vomiting blood. Thankfully all passengers survived the crash. Another teen in central Iowa experienced a near-death experience after smoking the same product. This teen purchased the product-- remember the name, 100 Percent Pure Evil--purchased it at a local store and started convulsing and vomiting shortly after smoking the drug. Once a paramedic got this boy into the hospital he fell into a coma. He, however, awoke from the coma the next day but had failed to recognize his mother or grandmother at the hospital. Thankfully this boy has since recovered his memory. Now he suffers occasional anxiety attacks. When the boy's mother told the police about the product and where he got it, she reported that the police told her there was nothing they could do about it because it was not known what was in the product and it may be legal. This product is still being reviewed to see if any compounds fall under Iowa's law. Nearly a year ago I introduced this legislation we named after the person who died 2 years ago, David Rozga. I introduced this bill with Senator Feinstein. It bans the chemicals that comprise K2/Spice. We designed the legislation to capture a wide variety of compounds so it would not be so easy to circumvent this law by altering the molecule. In fact, the Iowa Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy is crafting new legislation based on the legislation I introduced last year that captures more substances. My legislation was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee 8 months ago. It is currently being prevented from consideration by the full Senate by one Senator. The House of Representatives passed its version of the Synthetic Drug Control Act overwhelmingly last December, with over 70 percent of the Representatives supporting scheduling these drugs. Many of the opponents of this legislation stated on the House floor that by scheduling these compounds we are preventing scientific research. This is far from true. Any scheduled substance, even current Schedule I drugs such as cocaine and heroin, can be researched. Any scientist can apply to be registered by the DEA to research any drug. Just because we are removing the drugs from the store shelves does not mean we cannot study them. I say to my colleagues, it is now time for the Senate to take action. We cannot let the will of one Senator obstruct the will of many. I believe if our legislation received a vote and a fair debate in this body, it would pass overwhelmingly. So I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to get these drugs off the store shelves and off the streets, and I urge the Senate leadership to allow a debate and a vote on the issue. The American people, people such as the Rozga family and others who have been victims of these drugs, want to see this poison removed from their communities. I appreciate working together with the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from New York on this bill and similar bills as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask permission to speak as in morning business for about 12 or 13 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for over a year now I have been investigating Fast and Furious. That is an operation coming out of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. This has been a very complicated investigation. It has been made even more difficult because of the Justice Department's lack of candor and transparency. Basically, the Justice Department is stonewalling, interfering with Congress's constitutional responsibility of oversight. For example, the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General recently disclosed that it has received 80,000 pages of documents from the Department and over 100,000 e-mails. Think of what the Inspector General gets from the Department: 80,000 pages and 100,000 e-mails. How much do you think they have given the Congress of the United States, which has the constitutional responsibility of oversight? It is only 6,000 pages that we have received. Similarly, the inspector general has been allowed to conduct 70 witness interviews. How many has the Justice Department allowed the Congress, in our responsibility of oversight, to interview? Only 9 witnesses. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Committee On Oversight and Government Reform. The Justice Department did a document dump to Congress the Friday night before the hearing. That has become a very bad habit of the Department of Justice. In fact, without giving us any advance notice that it was coming, they actually put a CD under the door of our office, after business hours. What did they do for the press? They gave the same documents to the press 2 hours before they ever gave them to us. Yes, they managed to find time to leak the documents to the press during regular business hours. This is the kind of cooperation we get from the Justice Department in our constitutional responsibility of oversight. What I am telling my colleagues here is that we have a terrible lack of cooperation from the Justice Department. The Justice Department is not only thumbing its nose at the Senate, they are doing it to the entire Congress of the United States, when we know there are 80,000 pages of documents and they only give us 6,000 pages; when there are 100,000 e-mails and we get a handful of e-mails. Why would they be so mysterious by putting a disk under our door on a Friday night and giving it to the press 2 hours before? What sort of attitude is that of our Justice Department toward the cooperation you ought to have with our filling our constitutional role of oversight? So I guess I would say there is hardly any cooperation whatsoever from the Justice Department. Even though we get a dribble here and a dribble there, even though we get a CD under the door, instead of very openly face to face receiving documents, what we got last Friday did reveal further facts about a previously unknown proposal to allow these guns to cross the border. We have long known that in March of 2011, Deputy Attorney General James Cole had a conference call with all Southwest border U.S. agents. In a follow-up e-mail after the call, Mr. Cole wrote: As I said on the call, to avoid any potential confusion, I want to reiterate the Department's policy: We should not design or conduct undercover operations which include guns crossing the border. If we have knowledge that guns are about to cross the border, we must take immediate action to stop the firearms from crossing the border, even if that prematurely terminates or otherwise jeopardizes an investigation. Attorney General Holder himself told us in a hearing in May that Mr. Cole was simply reiterating an existing Justice policy in his e-mails, not communicating new policy. So imagine my surprise when I discovered in the document slid under my door late last Friday that while in Mexico Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer proposed letting guns cross the border. Mr. Breuer's proposal came at exactly the same time the Department was preparing to send its letter to me denying that the ATF ever does the very thing he was proposing. In a February 4, 2011 e-mail, the Justice Department attache in Mexico City wrote to a number of officials at the Justice Department: AAG Breuer proposed allowing straw purchasers to cross into Mexico so [the Secretariat of Public Safety] can attest and [the Attorney General of Mexico] can prosecute and convict. Such coordinated operations between the US and Mexico may send a strong message to arms traffickers. We have people here in Washington saying the program doesn't exist at the same time we have people talking down in Mexico City of what we are trying to accomplish by the illegal sale of guns. That e-mail I quoted, the recipient of it included Mr. Breuer's deputy, Jason Weinstein, who was helping to write the Justice Department letter to me that they would later withdraw for its inaccuracies. In other words, they wrote a letter to me on February 4 of last year that in October they admitted they misled us. Mr. Weinstein was sending updates about the draft letter to Mr. Breuer in Mexico at the very same time so he cannot say he didn't know about it. Yet, during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Breuer downplayed his involvement in reviewing the draft letter. It is outrageous to me that the head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division proposed exactly what his Department was denying to me was actually happening. The Justice Department's letter to me clearly said: ATF makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico. They said that at the very same time Mr. Breuer was advocating that a Justice Department operation allow weapons to be transported into Mexico. Further, what Mr. Breuer advocated directly contradicted what the Justice Department said its policy was. Is it possible they can have it both ways? No, you cannot have it both ways. If they didn't have a policy against such operations, and if the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, perhaps it is not a surprise that an operation like Fast and Furious sprang up. After all, as that same Justice Department attache wrote of a meeting a few days after his first e-mail: I raised the issue that there is an inherent risk in allowing weapons to pass from the US to Mexico; the possibility of the [Government of Mexico] not seizing the weapons; and the weapons being used to commit a crime in Mexico. Well, the light bulb went on. If you are selling 2,000 guns illegally and they don't interdict them, well, yes, they end up murdering hundreds of people in Mexico and at least one person in the United States. If the Justice Department did have a policy against such operations, this is a record of Mr. Breuer proposing to violate it. That is not just my conclusion, that is the Attorney General's conclusion as well. At last week's hearing in the House of Representatives, the Attorney General was asked to explain the contradiction between his deputy's anti-gunwalking policy and the evidence of Mr. Breuer's proposed operation to let guns cross the border. He could not answer that question, but the Attorney General answered: Well, clearly what was proposed in, I guess, February by Lanny Breuer was in contravention of the policy that I had the Deputy Attorney General make clear to everybody at Main Justice and to the field . . . Perhaps this disconnect between Justice Department policy and Lanny Breuer's proposal explains Mr. Breuer's previous inaction to stop gunwalking. When he found out about gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver in April of 2010, he failed to do anything to stop it or to hold anyone accountable. He simply had his deputy inform ATF leadership. Regardless, Mr. Breuer's contravention of Justice Department policy is yet another reason why it is long past time for Mr. Breuer to leave the Department of Justice. Mr. Breuer misled Congress about whether he was aware of the Department's false letter to me. To this day he is still the highest ranking official in any administration that we know was aware of gunwalking in any Federal program, yet he took no action to stop gunwalking. He failed to alert the Attorney General or the inspector general. Mr. Breuer has failed the Justice Department, and he has failed the American people. This failure raises some important questions. When did Attorney General Holder determine that Mr. Breuer was proposing allowing straw purchasers to reach Mexico with traffic weapons? What has he done about it? Will Mr. Breuer be held accountable for hatching a plan to directly violate the Attorney General's anti-gunwalking policy? The Attorney General clearly testified that the proposal was in contravention of that policy. How does the Justice Department know other senior criminal division officials were not proposing operations similar to Fast and Furious? These are just a subset of some of the major questions remaining in our investigation of Fast and Furious. It has now been 1 year since the Department sent me its false letter. How did the Justice Department move from its position of dismissing the complaints of whistleblowers to acknowledging that now those whistleblower complaints are true? What officials were internally dismissive of whistleblower complaints and who believes that they could have merit and should be taken seriously? To what extent did Justice Department officials seek to retaliate against whistleblowers? Exactly how and when did the Justice Department officials begin to learn the truth of what happened? Former ATF Director Ken Melson has testified how and when he learned that guns had walked in Fast and Furious. What about Attorney General Holder? When and how did he learn guns had walked? What about Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer? A year after Operation Fast and Furious concluded, who will be held accountable? Why didn't top Justice officials see the clear connection between Fast and Furious and previously flawed operations that they have admitted they knew about? How has the Justice Department assessed the mistakes and culpability of these officials? Finally, it is time for the Justice Department to stop stonewalling and start providing answers. It is time for Holder to share with Congress the other 74,000 pages of documents they have turned over to the inspector general. It is time for Holder to give us access to the dozens of other people the inspector general has been allowed to interview. In short, it is time for Holder to come clean with the American people. The sooner he does it, and the Department does it, the sooner we can get to the bottom of what happened. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the nomination of Cathy Ann Bencivengo to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of California. I support this nomination which will fill the vacancy that has been created by Judge Jeffrey Miller taking senior status. I would also note that this vacancy has been designated as a judicial emergency. After today, the Senate will have confirmed 126 nominees to our article III courts. I would note that even as we continue to reduce judicial vacancies, the majority of vacancies have no nominee. In fact, 46 of 86 vacancies have no nomination. Furthermore, 18 of the 33 seats designated judicial emergencies have no nominee. So when I hear comments about ``unprecedented'' vacancy rates, I would ask my colleagues and the other interested parties to look first to the White House. The fact is, the Senate is doing its job in providing advice and consent to the President's judicial nominees. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo presently serves as a U.S. magistrate judge for the Southern District of California. She was appointed to that court in 2005. She received a bachelor of arts from the Rutgers University in 1980, a masters from Rutgers in 1981, and her juris doctorate from University of Michigan Law School in 1988. Upon graduating law school, Judge Bencivengo became an associate at the law firm DLA Piper. There, she worked as a civil litigator, primarily handling intellectual property cases. In 1996, she became a partner at DLA Piper. She also was the national cochair of patent litigation for DLA Piper from 1993 to 2005. In 1994, Judge Bencivengo was appointed as a judge pro tem for the San Diego Small Claims Court. She served there until 2006, volunteering approximately six times a year and hearing judgments on about 100 cases. Since becoming a magistrate judge in 2005, Judge Bencivengo has presided over two cases that have gone to final verdict. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Bencivengo with a unanimous ``well- qualified'' rating. Mrs. BOXER: Mr. President, I am proud to vote for the confirmation of Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Judge Bencivengo was recommended to the President by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, and will be a great addition to the Federal bench. Judge Bencivengo will bring to the bench her broad experience as a skilled lawyer and a Federal magistrate. A graduate of Rutgers University and the University of Michigan Law School, Judge Bencivengo served as a partner and the National Co-Chair of Patent Litigation Group for the international law firm of DLA Piper. In 2005, she received an appointment to become a Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of California, where she has authored more than 170 opinions. I congratulate Judge Bencivengo and her family on this important day, and urge my colleagues in the Senate to join in voting to confirm this highly qualified nominee to the Federal bench. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 1 week ago we passed a very important good government bill, the one that would make sure Members of Congress cannot benefit from insider trading information. I added to that an amendment that I think is a good government amendment. It calls for people who are involved in political intelligence gathering--we don't hear much about that profession, but it is quite a business. I asked that they be registered just like lobbyists are registered, and I would like to speak to the point of why that is very important and why it is important to bring it to the Senate's attention, even though it passed by a vote of 60 to 39 just a few days ago. In the dark of night on Tuesday of this week, the House released its version of the insider trading bill that goes by the acronym STOCK, which wiped out any chance of meaningful transparency for the political intelligence industry. Think about the chutzpah of the people in the House of Representatives--a small group of people--taking out the language I put in that bill when similar language is cosponsored by 288 Members of the House of Representatives, but it happened. So that bill is coming back without the Grassley amendment on it, and we need to think about what we are going to do if we believe in good government, and if we believe there ought to be more transparency in government. What we are faced with is a powerful industry that works in the shadows-- economic espionage. They don't want people to know what they do or whom they work for. They are basically afraid of sunlight, I would guess. My amendment was adopted in the Senate on a very bipartisan basis, kind of a rare occurrence today. It simply requires registration for lobbyists who seek information from Congress in order to trade on that information. So isn't it very straightforward if trades are taking place based upon ``political intelligence''--that is their word, ``economic espionage'' is my word--obtained from Congress or the executive branch, people in this country should know who is gathering such information. Not requiring political intelligence professionals to register and disclose their contacts with government officials is a very gaping loophole that my amendment fixes. In fact, political intelligence firms actually brag about this loophole, and I will give an example about that bragging. This is on the Web site of an organization called the Open Source Intelligence Group, a political intelligence firm: Our political intelligence operation differs from standard `lobbying' in that the OSINT Group is not looking to influence legislation on behalf of clients, but rather provide unique `monitoring' of information through our personal relationships between lawmakers, staffers, and lobbyists. Providing this service for clients who do not want their interest in an issue publicly known is an activity that does not need to be reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, thus providing an additional layer of confidentially for our clients. This service is ideal for companies seeking competitive advantage by allowing a client's interest to remain confidential . . . Think about the words ``personal relationships,'' ``confidentiality.'' Basically, what they are saying is do all this under the radar. I wish to go back, if you didn't hear it the first time, let me repeat some of this for you, a much shorter quote: Providing this service for clients who do not want their interests in an issue publicly known is an activity that does not need to be reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, thus providing an additional layer of confidentiality for our clients. We have it here on paper, and I just read it to you. This firm-- probably one of many firms; I don't know how many firms are doing this--is telling potential clients: If you don't want anybody to know what you are asking of Federal officials, hire us. That is wrong, but that is why firms such as this don't want to register. If someone on Wall Street is trying to make money off conversations they had with Senators or staff, we should know who they are. It is that plain and simple. Since the passage of my amendment, which would require political intelligence lobbyists to register as lobbyists, I have heard a great deal of ``concern'' from the lobbying community. Political intelligence professionals have claimed they should do their business in secret for several reasons. Now, this is the explanation of why they need secrecy. First, they have said if they are required to register, they will no longer be able to sell information to their clients because people will not want to hire them. That makes me wonder, what do they have to hide? Second, they have said many of them have large numbers of clients, and it would take them a lot of time to register these large numbers of secret clients. Again, that makes me think we actually need more transparency to find out who are all of these people buying intelligence information. Third, they have claimed it would not address the so-called ``20- percent loophole'' that allows people who spend less than 20 percent of their time lobbying from having to register under existing laws as lobbyists. Not too many people know of that 20-percent loophole, but that is a pretty big loophole. A person can lobby, but they don't have to register if they don't spend more than 20 percent of their time on it. Well, on this issue I have some good news for these people. We don't make the mistake that caused the 20-percent loophole. My amendment requires anyone who makes a political intelligence contact to have to register. No loopholes, no deals, no special treatment, just everyone registers. Finally, I just want to assure people, particularly journalists, that they would not have to register. Now, that information has been floating around, and it has been floating around that some constituents looking for information in order to make a business decision might have to register. Not so. Only political intelligence brokers, people who seek information so others can trade securities, would have to register. As I said before, if people want to trade stocks from what we do in Congress, we should know who they are. After all, the basic underlying piece of legislation prohibits Members of Congress from having insider trading information and profiting from it. We ought to know with whom we are dealing. The American people deserve a little sunshine from this industry and on this industry. Last night, the House turned away from transparency. They supported the status quo. What we need is a full and open conference process so we can take up this very important issue once again that the House believes was somehow not very important, even though 288 Members of the House of Representatives--that is two-thirds of the House of Representatives--have signed on to this principle that these people ought to register. We can take that up then in conference, both the House and Senate, working together. Is every word in this bill the way it ought to be? If somebody wants to point out some things that ought to be changed, I am open to that. But don't forget, 288 people in the House have signed on. It can't be too bad. So if we don't get to conference or if we have to debate this again on the floor of the Senate, we might not get 60 votes again. So I worry we will miss the best opportunity we have had for openness and transparency in years. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Before I speak on the amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up my amendment No. 1493 and make that the pending amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that political intelligence is an approximately $100 million industry. The article also says that expert networks employ over 2,000 people to do political intelligence in Washington, DC. We have to say approximately because no one truly knows how many people work in this industry. We don't know from whom they seek information, what happens to that information, and how much they get paid. This is a problem if one believes in transparency in government and if one believes in the purposes behind this legislation, as I do-- the underlying legislation--that Members of the Senate and Congress should not benefit from insider trading information. So we have people in this city or people who come into this city to get information on what Congress might do or what their regulators might do that might affect the stock in some company or something, and this political intelligence information is gathered and given to people who presumably profit from it or I guess these people wouldn't be employed in the first place. So there is a growing unregulated industry with no transparency. If a lobbyist has to register in order to advocate for a school or a church or a private corporation, shouldn't the same lobbyist have to register if he or she is seeking and getting inside information that ends up in making people a profit? This is especially true if that information would make millions for a hedge fund or a private equity firm. We have current law. Under current law, this is not the case. We have no registration of these people and we don't know who they are. So we go back to amendment No. 1493. My amendment merely brings sunlight to this unregulated area. It defines what a political intelligence lobbyist is and requires that person or firm to register. In other words, it requires them to do what, under the 1995 law, every lobbyist has to do. I understand some would say there have not been hearings on this subject and that it should be studied first. But there isn't much that is complicated about this amendment. It is pretty simple. If a person seeks information from Congress in order to make money, the American people have a right to know the name of that person and who that person is selling that information to. That is just pretty basic good government, isn't it? It is the same as if a person is a lobbyist for a piece of legislation under laws going back to 1946 and amended since then, they have to register. The public has a right to know who the lobbyist is, whom they are working for, and what they are lobbying for or against. This amendment isn't just helpful to the American people, though. It isn't just helpful to make people responsible, because the more transparency we have the more accountability there is and the more openness we have in government the better off we are. So I make a case to help the American people, yes. But it is also going to help Members of Congress and our staff who are trying to decipher their duties under this proposed legislation. Senators have raised the question: How will we know if the people we speak to trade on what we say? So to answer that question, we require the people doing it to be responsible. So we achieve more transparency in government, and we even help Members of Congress and our staff because these political intelligence people are pretty smart. They know where to get the information because they come to us and ask questions, but we might not know why they are asking the questions. So it is going to help Members of Congress and our staff as well. By requiring lobbyists who sell information to stock traders to register, Members and staff then have an easy way to track who these people are and to whom they would sell their information. This strengthens the bill, from my point of view, and helps Members and staff comply with its requirements. So I hope we can pass this amendment soon and bring light and transparency to this growing industry and, when we are talking to someone, know who they are, what they seek, whom they are working for, et cetera. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. This is a good government amendment. Similar to the underlying piece of legislation, it is a good government amendment. The manager is going to tell you it ought to be studied a little bit longer. We have gone for far too long not having enough transparency in government. What my amendment does is it takes these people whom you call political intelligence professionals and has them register just like every lobbyist registers, so it is totally transparent when these people come around to get information from you that they sell to hedge funds. You will know who they are. You don't know that now, and transparency in government is very important if you want accountability. For the Senators and their staffs who have to abide by these laws, they want to make sure they are not doing anything unethical. They have to know who these people are. They can come around and ask us questions. I don't know how many times each of us has maybe been caught up in this. You give them information, and they have information that people don't have on Wall Street and they sell it. We ought to know what we are being used for, and this gives identity to these people. So I want these people registered like lobbyists.

Mr. GRASSLEY. There is a problem.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Do I have time to tell the Senators not to vote for Wall Street, vote for my amendment?

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have been asked by Senator Brown of Ohio if he could be recognized immediately after me.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, one week ago today, I addressed the Senate on President Obama's decision to bypass the Senate, and the Constitution as well, by making four ``recess'' appointments at a time when the President's recess appointment power did not apply. I explained in detail why the legal memo released by the Obama administration attempting to justify President Obama's actions did not hold legal water. Last Thursday, I laid out the case that this is not an isolated incident or a technical legal squabble. Rather, the President's recent actions are part of a pattern of disregard for the constitutional system of checks and balances. Today, I will address why such criticisms are justified and why such criticisms are necessary. First, is it legitimate for a U.S. Senator to criticize a legal opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel and the Senate-confirmed head of that office? I have no doubt Senators may criticize such opinions and, when the facts warrant, ask whether that office and its head are exercising the independence that is required for the Constitution to be upheld. Recently, we read some in the media apparently disagreed with this. They say it is wrong for a Senator to ever criticize a Senate-confirmed official's independence and judgment. They say that all a Senator can do is criticize the official's substantive arguments. I say nonsense. When the media makes these claims, it merely seeks to divert attention from the weakness of the opinion's actual conclusions and reasoning. In my statement last week, I laid out my disagreement with the contents of the Office of Legal Counsel. Of course, Senators and administration officials can reach different conclusions on the law; each can have a reasonable point of view; but that is not the case here. If the Office of Legal Counsel is to be ``the Constitutional conscience of the administration'' that some in the media characterize it to be, it must exercise a certain level of independence, as I mentioned in my statement. When a President who takes an expansive view of his power asks the Justice Department officials, who owe their job to him, whether he has the constitutional or legal authority to take such action, there is always the chance that pressure will overtake their responsibilities to provide their best legal judgment. That is why at Ms. Seitz' confirmation hearing and in a followup communication, we took very painstaking efforts to give her the opportunity to state on the record her commitment to providing independent legal advice, to make sure she would place loyalty to the law and loyalty to the Constitution above her loyalty to the President. That was our purpose. Ms. Seitz promised to act independently. She promised not to stand idly by if she thought the Constitution was being violated. The only way to tell whether the office has given independent advice, the only way to tell whether pressure has been resisted, is to review the arguments and the reasoning the Office of Legal Counsel provides. The media cannot address criticism of whether the head of that office is independent and has used good judgment without such a review. It is not enough that the media might agree with her conclusions. In this case, the analysis in the Office of Legal Counsel opinion was so poor as to raise legitimate questions concerning judgment and independence. The Office of Legal Counsel is supposed to give the President objective legal advice before that person acts. It is not supposed to provide a weakly thought-out rationalization for a Presidential decision to act that has already been made. Here, the arguments in the opinion are so weak that a fair-minded person can question the independence and judgment of the opinion's author. For instance, the opinion is internally inconsistent. It correctly recognizes that a President's ability to make recess appointments turns on the capacity of the Senate to conduct business. But in determining whether the pro forma sessions constitute a recess, the opinion does not consider at all the capacity of the Senate to conduct business and what it could do. Rather, it relies upon what individual Senators said, not what the institution said or can do, and it ignores not only what theoretically the capacity of the Senate had to act but even its actual actions. Similarly, the established meaning of the word ``recess'' is the same each time it appears in the Constitution. Giving the term the same meaning means that the President can make recess appointments, but that this is a limited power. The Office of Legal Counsel, contrary to clearly established precedent, inconsistently defines the term ``recess'' differently when it was used in different parts of the Constitution. But we cannot do that. The only thing consistent in the opinion is that it interprets recess each time in a way that expands the power of the President to make recess appointments and in such a way as to leave open the question of whether that power is limited in any meaningful way. Former Federal Circuit Judge Michael McConnell, himself a former Justice Department lawyer who has defended Presidential power, found the arguments in the Office of Legal Counsel opinion to be so implausible--those are his words--that ``it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Office of Legal Counsel is simply fashioning rules to reach the outcome that it wishes.'' Since the outcome that the Office of Legal Counsel wishes is to expand Presidential power contrary to the text of the Constitution, and also many decades of historical practice, it is quite fair to question the independence, the judgment, and the adherence to statements made during the confirmation process by the head of that office. The media again focused more on personalities than on substance, and they will say the Bush administration reached a similar conclusion, so how can Ms. Seitz be criticized. That is where the media is coming from. There are three points to be made that set the record straight for the newspaper. First, President Bush did not make recess appointments when the Senate was in pro forma session. Secondly, President Bush did not even claim he could make such recess appointments while declining to do so. Third, his Office of Legal Counsel did not issue any opinion that would be binding on future Justice Department advice. Unlike the public actions of the Senate-confirmed head of OLC, a lower level official in the previous administration, the Bush administration, apparently wrote a secret memorandum to the file on this subject. The existence of such a memorandum was not known until the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion referred to it and sought to rely on it. It is not possible to evaluate the reasoning of that memorandum because the Department of Justice has not agreed to release it, despite my request that they do release it. If the Office of Legal Counsel is to exercise the independent judgment that is necessary for it to properly perform its functions, it cannot rely on some sort of secret memo or memos from lower level officials. That approach creates incentives for the Office of Legal Counsel heads to avoid accountability. An incentive is created for the preparation of secret memoranda that make outlandish claims of Presidential power if they cannot be reviewed by anybody. No one knows of the memo. So its arguments do not face the transparency of public scrutiny. The President and Office of Legal Counsel take no responsibility for its conclusions. Then the Office of Legal Counsel later issues a public opinion on the subject. To bolster very weak arguments, it cites earlier memos. But it avoids transparency as well by keeping the memoranda secret, so no one can see that the opinion's weak arguments may be supported by only other weak arguments. It avoids accountability by suggesting that this question was already decided by an earlier Office of Legal Counsel memorandum. Instantly, the number of administrations that support expanded Presidential power goes from zero to two, neither one of which is said to be responsible for that expansion. That bootstrapping can never lead to a reasoned, objective analysis of Presidential power. It cannot produce the independent OLC that Ms. Seitz promised the Senate she would provide at her confirmation. The media has also made the strange argument that Ms. Seitz' opinion must be professional and her judgment and independence cannot be questioned because of her high professional reputation. Is that not a little bit backward? The legitimacy of the argument contained in a legal opinion is not established by the reputation of the person who wrote it. Reputations are not steady. They are established by the quality of the professional work, not the other way around. In the past, a prominent Democratic Senator called for a judge to resign because of his legal work as Office of Legal Counsel head. The Washington Post, in an earlier editorial, criticized the opinions of other Bush administration OLC lawyers as displaying ``the logic of criminal regimes'' and ``bringing shame to the American democracy.'' If the Post truly believes that criticizing Office of Legal Counsel lawyers is beyond the pale, they should retract their earlier opinions and condemn the far harsher rhetoric that was hurled against Bush OLC lawyers. While explaining what is wrong with the newspapers, I now go to explain why my criticisms were not just legitimate but they were absolutely necessary. Last Thursday, I laid out in great detail a long series of abuses of executive authority and usurpation of legislative authority by President Obama and his administration. In fact, he made his willingness to bypass Congress a campaign issue with slogans such as ``We can't wait for Congress,'' and those headlines and slogans were splashed all across the White House website. President Obama has made the decision to run for reelection not on his record, for obvious reasons, but against Congress. In doing so, he is daring Congress to defend its role as representatives of Americans from each of the 50 States in the face of his unilateral agenda. Some have suggested this is a clever political trap laid by President Obama; that if Congress resists the President's power grabs, it will validate his slogans and play into his electoral strategy. This may or may not be true. However, the stakes are greater than the next Presidential election, and the implications of the President's actions will be felt well beyond any short-term political gain. The Framers of the Constitution foresaw the temptation by one branch of government to try to usurp the powers of the other branches. In Federalist 51, James Madison explained how the Constitution was designed to prevent power grabs through an ingenious system of checks and balances. He wrote this long quote: But the great security against a gradual concentration of several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. Of course, this assumes a desire on the part of each branch to guard its constitutionally granted powers. If some Members of Congress are not willing to resist an encroachment because they place party loyalty above constitutional responsibilities or if members are reluctant to push back for fear of political consequences, then the system of checks and balances will not work as intended by our Constitution writers. All Members of Congress swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. That is our first obligation. I want to be clear that this is not an argument about constitutional semantics; it is one of fundamental principle. As Madison explains in Federalist 51: The ``separate and distinct exercises of the different powers of government'' is ``essential to the preservation of liberty.'' This also goes beyond an argument about the ends to which President Obama has used the new powers he now claims. His agenda is controversial, to be sure, or he would not have had to bypass Congress. Still, even those who support this President's policies should not be so quick to look the other way. Once the walls separating the powers allotted to each branch of government are eroded, they are very difficult walls to rebuild. The most eloquent expression of the philosophy on which our Nation was founded is, of course, the Declaration of Independence. I quote the all familiar: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . Based on these fundamental principles, the Constitution laid out a form of government designed to protect individual rights by resisting the concentration of power. This can be frustrating to those who would like a more activist government. Still, these features of our Constitution perform a very important role in preventing one faction of Americans from dominating another faction of Americans. I am sure President Obama is convinced his agenda is what is best for the country and that the ends justify the means in pursuing that agenda. But that is not the Machiavellian ideas that any of our Constitution writers had. Naturally, he doesn't see any danger in concentrating power in the Presidency because he believes he will use that power very wisely. Moreover, he has gone out of his way to identify himself with the school of thought that the constitutional separation of powers is an outdated barrier to change. Last month, President Obama gave a speech in Kansas in which he sought to link his agenda to Teddy Roosevelt's famous ``New Nationalism'' speech at the same place in 1910. The original speech marked the beginning of Roosevelt's break with many of his past policies and with the incumbent Republican President, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt then went on to challenge Taft in the 1912 election, heading up the Progressive Party ticket. You know that both Roosevelt and Taft lost. In that 1910 speech to which President Obama paid tribute, Roosevelt described his new nationalism as ``impatient of the impotence which springs from overdivision of governmental power.'' This philosophy seeks to fundamentally transform the United States from a nation founded on the principle that protecting the unalienable natural rights of each citizen is the paramount goal of government to one that empowers an enlightened elite to take whatever actions they deem necessary to correct perceived wrongs in society. In other words, throw the Constitution out the door. This may start out with very good intentions, but there is no guarantee that once our constitutional protections are gone, future leaders will always act in the most enlightened way. In fact, the single-minded pursuit of a better society at the expense of individual rights has led to some of history's worst tyrannies. Moreover, not only is the concentration of power in the executive branch contrary to the founding principles of our Nation, it is foreign to the realities of American civic life. With a country as large and as diverse as ours, no individual can claim to speak on behalf of all Americans. Our constitutional system, based on federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances helps ensure that each American has the opportunity to live their life as they see fit. I return to the words of James Madison: It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of society against the injustice of the other part. The voices of all Americans deserve to be heard through the elected representatives of the people. That is what is at stake. Those of us who were elected to represent the people of our States should do just that or we deserve not to be here. I yield the floor.