Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words of the Senator from Louisiana. Likewise, it is a pleasure not only to work with her, but the two of us have been able, on most foster care and adoption issues, to find a broad coalition of Senators. Many people don't have permanence because of the lack of adoption or because of faults within the foster care system. These Senators are very interested in bringing changes in legislation that makes that permanence and stability more a fact and creates a better quality life for these young people. I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership. I likewise, as she has, rise to honor National Adoption Month. I will take a few minutes to discuss my support for S. Res. 302 and for policies that promote and encourage adoption. For years, I have championed efforts to increase awareness of adoption and help streamline the process for families who open their hearts and homes to children who have no other family. S. Res. 302 helps promote national awareness of adoption and the children awaiting families, celebrates children and families involved in adoption, and, lastly, encourages the people of the United States to secure safety, permanency, and well-being for all children. As cofounder and cochair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have taken a keen interest in helping children who find themselves in the foster care system. In the United States today, more than 400,000 children live in the foster care system. Many of these children have been welcomed into adoptive homes. However, over 105,000 of those in foster care are still waiting to be adopted. According to the Administration of Children and Families in my home State of Iowa, more than 4,700 kids entered the foster care system last year, a total of 6,500 kids were in my State's foster care system in 2010. Foster youth simply desire to have what so many of us were blessed to have; that is, a home with caring, loving parents and siblings. In other words, in a short statement, they want permanency. They want stability. Too many older children in foster care, especially those with special needs, are often the ones who wait the longest to leave foster care. These kids are less likely than younger children to find what we refer to as ``forever homes.'' While research shows that 40 percent of the Americans have considered adopting, many are reluctant because they are unsure of the adoption process. They have inaccurate perceptions about the children who are eligible to be adopted. Some believe children in foster care are there because of delinquency and other behavioral problems. The unfortunate fact is most children who are in foster care are there because they are abused, neglected or abandoned. These vulnerable children desperately need a family structure. They need parents who serve as positive role models, helping them become bright and successful members of their community. While progress is being made to increase adoption, there is always more work to be done. Helping in this process are numerous agencies and nonprofit organizations that work tirelessly to find worthy American families who want to be adopting parents. In Iowa, one such agency is Four Oaks Family and Children Services of Cedar Rapids, IA. Four Oaks has had a recruiter working with Wendy's Wonderful Kids since 2005. Wendy's Wonderful Kids is an innovative program of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, named after the late American business icon who founded Wendy's Restaurants. The foundation's mission is to promote adoption. It recently released a report about the success of the Wendy's Wonderful Kids Program. Specifically, the program is more focused on hard-to-place children. Recruiters work with children to find them the most appropriate placement. This program is a success story. Congress has also adopted and acted on legislation. In 2008, I was part of a bipartisan effort to pass the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act of 2008. This new law represented the most significant and most far-reaching improvement in child welfare in over a decade. It provided additional Federal incentives for States to move children from foster care to adoptive homes. It included legislation that I had introduced to make it easier for foster children to be permanently cared for by their own relatives, including grandparents, aunts and uncles, and to stay in their home communities. That, of course, is one way of bringing about greater stability. Provisions in the law also made all children with special needs eligible for Federal adoption assistance. Previously, that assistance had been limited to children who were removed from very low-income families. The law broke new ground by establishing opportunities to help kids who age out of the foster care system at age 18 by giving their respective States the option to extend their care and by helping them pursue education or vocational training. In late 2009, Senator Mary Landrieu and I formed the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth to give older youth in and out of care and their families a place where their voices could be heard. We wanted foster youth to be part of this legislative process. By hearing from young people and from their families who have experienced the foster care system firsthand, congressional leaders will become more aware of the issues facing young people and their families. The caucus has and will continue to generate new ideas to prevent negative outcomes and create new opportunities for success. We wanted to focus on helping young people when they age out of the foster care children, typically at age 18. As many as 29,000 children age out every year without ever having found adoptive placement. Without the security of a family, they often end up homeless, end up incarcerated or end up maybe addicted to drugs. Children who age out of the system enter adulthood without knowing what it was like to be raised having their own families because they were under the State's supervision. In a sense, the State was their family, and that is not much of a family. They missed out on having a mom and a dad and maybe brothers and sisters to grow up with and to learn from and with whom they would have relationships for the rest of their life. They missed out on a very important part of childhood that they will never know, one that too many of us take for granted. They are thrown into the world and forced to take care of themselves. They struggle to pay bills, to find and hold a job, and to simply make ends meet. That is why adoption awareness is so very important and hence the resolution we are talking about. Since the First National Adoption Day in 2000, more than 35,000 children have joined ``forever families'' during National Adoption Day. In 2010 alone, adoptions for almost 5,000 children were finalized through 400 National Adoption Day events in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These are impressive numbers--numbers that make us proud of the work being done to help foster children get the proper care. But there is always more work to be done. I have said that twice but can't say it too many times. It is through awareness such as this that we can help the work to continue. In passing S. Res. 302, this body will make an important statement about our collective support for the needs of foster children. It recognizes the families who took the giant leap to open their homes to other children. National Adoption Month is about kids who need a home, it is about kids who just want a mom and a dad, it is about helping children who are victims of neglect and abuse, and it is about giving children living in foster care the ability to live their dreams. We need to keep working together to break down the barriers to adoption so every child feels the relief of a solid family. I am proud to support the many kids who wait for permanency and stability but, more importantly, I want to salute the many organizations that are helping to make their dreams come true. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, because of the attack against Congresswoman Giffords, there has been some legislation introduced for more gun control. We are going to have to take a good look at that piece of legislation, as we have unanimously passed legislation after the tragic shooting in Virginia Tech in April of 2007. I am not going to deal directly with that specific piece of legislation, but I wish talk about some of the general approaches to gun control that are being discussed. Getting back to Virginia Tech, the national debate surrounding updating Federal gun laws gained national attention following the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech and now, of course, has come up again because of the attack against Congresswoman Giffords. Following the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, Congress passed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That goes by the acronym of NICS, N-I-C-S, so I will be referring to the national instant criminal background check by that acronym. This bill, as I said, passed the House and the Senate by unanimous consent and was signed into law by President Bush. Despite the strong bipartisan support the NICS Improvement Act had, the improvement act was not a perfect piece of legislation and is a good example of why we need to be very careful when we legislate to avoid unintended consequences. So I am raising some of these issues in regard to the possible consideration of legislation that has been introduced because of the terrible attack on Congresswoman Giffords. For example, in the next bill it actually--with unintended consequences but still doing it--stripped thousands of veterans and their beneficiaries of their second amendment rights simply because they had a fiduciary appointed on their behalf. Oftentimes, a fiduciary is appointed simply for managing disability compensation pensions or survivor benefits. Under an interpretation by the Department of Veterans' Administration, veterans who have a fiduciary appointed are often deemed ``mentally defective,'' and are then consequently reported to the FBI's NIC system and consequently prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Under the NICS Improvement Act--and that was a bipartisan bill--with unintended consequences, this happened: Around 114,000 veterans and their beneficiaries have been automatically denied their second amendment rights. It is a terrible irony that veterans, who have served their country on the battlefield, who have been entrusted with our national security and have been provided firearms by their very government, are the same people the NICS Improvement Act harmed by taking away their second amendment rights, all without a hearing or formal adjudication. We honored and celebrated Veterans Day last Friday. Yet, we are possibly going to be debating new legislation to restrict the second amendment rights of citizens without fixing the unintended consequences of our last major gun law, the NICS Improvement Act. While the horrific events in Tucson are still fresh in our memories, as we discuss new gun control laws we also need to move forward on bipartisan legislation, such as the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, introduced by a bipartisan couple, Senator Burr and Senator Webb. This bill would fix the unintended consequences to thousands of veterans caused by the NICS Improvement Act. A hearing we had this week offered me an opportunity to discuss illegal firearms tracking and the government's efforts to stop it. At the forefront of this is the Department of Justice's failed operation called Fast and Furious, where the ATF knowingly allowed illegal purchasers to buy guns. The more we learned about Fast and Furious, the more we have discovered that senior Justice Department officials knew or should have known about these nearly 2,000 guns ending up in the hands of criminals, including the drug cartels in Mexico. At the first House oversight hearing on Operation Fast and Furious, multiple ATF agents testified that fear spread through the Phoenix field division every time there was news of a major shooting event. So that brings us back to the tragedy for Congresswoman Giffords. Specifically with regard to the Congresswoman's shooting one agent said: There was a state of panic, like, . . . let's hope this is not a weapon from that case. And ``that case'' was the Fast and Furious case, where our government decided to encourage licensed gun dealers to illegally sell guns to straw purchasers with the idea that we would follow them across the border. But there wasn't any following. So it was an effort doomed to failure in the first place. The Fast and Furious operation was failed in concept, in design, and in execution. As the Attorney General said last week, before our Judiciary Committee: It should never have happened. And the Justice Department officials who knew about this program, including those who allowed false statements to Congress, need to be held accountable. I thought it was fitting that late last week, Attorney General Holder finally wrote to the family of Agent Terry, the person who was murdered with two of these Fast and Furious guns found at the murder scene. This is the very same Attorney General who had an opportunity to apologize to the Terry family when he was asked by Senator Cornyn, Have you apologized to the Terry family? The Attorney General said, No. He said, Would you like to apologize now? That is what Senator Cornyn asked him. He gave an answer, but it wasn't an apology. So we have a letter late last week going to the Terry family. In his letter, he stated he was sorry for their loss, although he refused to take responsibility for the Department's role in Agent Terry's death. At the root, then, of Fast and Furious--and a lot of rhetoric surrounding gun control legislation--have been the gun trafficking statistics provided by ATF. These unclear statistics have fueled the debate and contributed to undertaking such a reckless operation as Fast and Furious. For example, in 2009, both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton stated that 90 percent of the guns in Mexico were from the United States. But that statistic later changed to 90 percent of the guns that Mexico submitted for tracing to the ATF were from this country. This year, that number has become 70 percent of the guns submitted by the Mexican Government for tracing were from the United States. All the different percentages beg the question, what are the real numbers? Articles discussing the 70-percent number misrepresent the facts, as I pointed out in a letter to then-ATF Acting Director Melson in June of this year. First, there are tens of thousands of guns confiscated at crime scenes annually in Mexico. The Associated Press stated that in 2009, over 305,424 confiscated weapons were locked in vaults in Mexico. However, the ATF has acknowledged to my staff, in a briefing on July 29, 2011, that ATF does not have access to the vault in Mexico described in that story. ATF also acknowledges that only a portion of the guns recovered in Mexico are actually submitted to the United States for tracing. In a November 8, 2011 court filing, the chief of ATF's firearms operation division made a declaration saying--now, remember, this is in a court filing: It is important to note, however, that ATF's eTrace data is based only on gun trace requests actually submitted to the ATF by law enforcement officials in Mexico, and not on all of the guns seized in Mexico. That court filing further states that: In 2008, of the approximately 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General's Office informed ATF that it had seized, only 7,200, or one quarter, of those firearms were submitted to ATF for tracing. So if Mexico submits only 25 percent of the guns for tracing, then the statistics could be grossly inaccurate one way or the other. The discrepancies in the numbers do not stop there. ATF also informed my staff that the eTrace-based statistics could vary drastically by a single word's definition. We have an example of different definitions. The 70-percent number was generated using a definition of U.S.-sourced firearms. That happens to include guns manufactured in the United States or imported through the United States. Thus, the 70-percent number does not mean that all guns were purchased at a U.S. gun dealer and then smuggled across the border; it could simply mean that the firearm was manufactured in the United States. So when my staff asked ATF, how many guns traced in 2009 and 2010 were traced to U.S. gun dealers, the numbers were quite shocking in comparison to the statistics we previously heard. For 2009, of the 21,313 guns recovered in Mexico and submitted to tracing, only 5,444 were sourced to a U.S. gun dealer. That is around 25 percent. For 2010, of the 7,971 guns recovered in Mexico submitted for tracing, only 2,945 were sourced to a U.S. gun dealer. That is only 37 percent, a far cry from 70 percent or 90 percent that we have been hearing over a long period of time, not to mention that the guns in 2009 and 2010 from gun dealers could include some of the nearly 2,000 firearms that were walked as part of our own Justice Department's Operation Fast and Furious. We need clearer data from ATF and from Mexico. Mexico needs to open the gun vaults and allow more guns to be traced, not just the ones the Mexican Government selects. We need to know if military arsenals are being pilfered as a source--as media articles have claimed the State Department points to in diplomatic cables. When it comes to the diplomatic cables, I sent a letter to--actually it was yesterday--Secretary of State Clinton seeking all diplomatic cables discussing the source of arms from Mexico, Central America, and South America. I believe this information is relevant to Congress, given that I discovered in a July 2010 cable, as part of my Fast and Furious investigation, that cable titled, ``Mexico Weapons Trafficking--The Blame Game,'' seeks to dispel myths about weapons trafficking. Among other things, the State Department authors discussed what they perceived as ``Myth: An Iron Highway of Weapons Flows from the U.S.'' These cables are vitally important to Congress's understanding of the problem. Further, given that they appear in documents that ATF submitted to Congress as part of Fast and Furious, there should be no reason for the State Department to withhold them as part of our legitimate oversight, even if they are classified. There is a lot more to be said about the specific problems with the legislation that might be coming before the Judiciary Committee as a result of Congresswoman Giffords' tragedy. We have to ask a lot of questions to flush out some of these serious problems. We don't want to happen in this legislation what happened in the NICS Improvement Act when 114,000 veterans were denied their second-amendment rights and, consequently, avoid these unintended consequences. We should not be legislating away any constitutional rights people have under the second amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank Senator Johanns for his leadership in this area. He has spoken on regulations quite regularly on the Senate floor and also in our caucus, and I thank the Senator for his leadership in that area. No. 1, I would say there is a certain irony between a President who is going around the country now and talking about, We have got to pass legislation to create jobs, at the very same time as the Senator demonstrated in his remarks that there is a health care bill law being instituted that is making people unemployed. There is also a certain irony in what the President does and the Secretary of HHS does with what Speaker Pelosi said at the time the bill was up: You know, we have got to pass this bill to see what this bill does. Well, now we are finding out what it does, and people don't like what it does. You spoke about regulations causing unemployment, and you spoke about 10,000 pages of regulations. That is probably 10,000 pages of regulations out of the 66,000 pages of regulation that we have had this year, and 10,000 of that deals with health care. But think about the other 57,000 pages that deal with other pieces of legislation that are a problem for small businesses--particularly small businesses. I guess it is a problem for all business, but particularly for small business. And so far, a few regulations have been issued adding up to that 10,000 pages. People can read this 2,700-page bill and understand what is in it, and most of them read it and understood what was in it before Speaker Pelosi said, ``We have got to pass it to find out what is in it,'' and didn't like what was in it. But in this bill, there are 1,693 delegations of authority to write regulations. So if you have 10,000 pages so far based upon the new regulations that have been written, just think what it is going to be like when all of the pages are printed for the 1,693 regulations. So I think we are at the tip of the iceberg so far in this legislation, and the damage that is done to employment and lack of job creation has just started. That is my comment on that. I have some remarks I wish to make, if it is okay with the Senator; and if he has to go to a committee meeting, I understand. This is not the first time this situation has happened in Iowa, and it is coming at a time when people need stability. American families are struggling to put food on their table, pay their utility bills as winter arrives, and purchase health insurance as costs are skyrocketing. In other words, the President has promised: Pass this legislation and it is going to keep health care premiums down, but that is misleading people, and at a time when, as Senator Johanns said, another promise made was: If you like what you have, you are going to be able to keep it. Well, I don't know exactly the figure--I have got it here coming up. There is a figure of several thousand people in our State who aren't going to be able to keep the health insurance they like and they already have because of this company closing down individual policies. Unemployment continues to hover around 9 percent and 1 million Americans are underemployed, and here we have a health care bill that is causing more people to be unemployed, as well as not keeping the health insurance they want. With the economic situation our country is facing, Congress must reexamine its actions and realize the errors that were made because of partisan votes. This bill was an entirely partisan piece of legislation, unlike most social contracts in America that have been passed, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, civil rights legislation. Those were bipartisan pieces of legislation because it was felt that when you are making this difference in America, you ought to have a broad consensus that major changes such as this ought to be made. But in this particular case, it was very partisan. I want to go over to what Senator Johanns said about the Des Moines Register article. The American Enterprise Group, an insurance company participating in individual health insurance markets in Iowa and Nebraska, is leaving the market. This action shows the importance of repealing and replacing the health care overhaul passed by Democrats in Congress and signed by the President last year before the situation deteriorates even further. Just think what it is going to be like when we get the rest of these 1,693 delegations of authority to the bureaucracy to write regulations. American Enterprise notified 110 employees in Iowa and Nebraska that they will lose their jobs sometime during the next 3 years. American Enterprise is leaving the individual health insurance market as a result of the instability caused by the implementation of this health care reform bill. American Enterprise stated it will no longer sell individual health insurance policies because of the regulatory environment created by the health care reform bill. This isn't an isolated incident for Iowa, this one company, because the Principal Financial Group left the small group insurance market in 2010, and Principal Financial isn't a small Main Street operation. It is one of the major financial groups in the United States, but still, they could not find it to be competitive to stay in the individual market. This has cost many Iowans their jobs, while leaving scores of small businesses and their employees to choose from health insurance plans in a health insurance market where there is less and less competition. The regulatory culprit in this incident is a medical loss ratio regulation of this legislation. This regulation requires insurers to pay a certain percentage of premiums in claims. I know supporters will defend the regulation as ``keeping insurers in check.'' But the real world effect is to force insurers to leave the market, thereby reducing competition and choice available to consumers--not exactly what the President promised, that we are going to have competition, keep price down, and people are going to have choice, they are going to be able to keep what they want if they have it. But in this case, for these people, that isn't a promise kept. That turns out to be a falsehood. The small group and individual markets happen to be very vulnerable. That is the problem. Insurers risk and set their premiums accordingly. Insurers are making a rational decision to get out of the market because the risks have become too great. Competition is reduced. Costs rise. Once upon a time, the President promised Americans that if they liked the insurance program they have, they can keep it. This is more evidence that that promise rings hollow. This recent planned pullout will leave 35,000 individuals without insurance plans that they have grown accustomed to. Forcing people to choose a different insurance option can lead to higher costs and may limit the health care accessibility these individuals have depended on for years. This is especially detrimental when these individuals have preexisting conditions or acute chronic disease. The President specifically promised that if these people want to keep their health care coverage, they would be able to do it with the passage of that law. This is just one of the many examples of how this overhaul has led to broken promises made by the President when pushing through the passage of this legislation in a partisan way. These problems will certainly continue as more regulations are written. The Congressional Budget Office expects people in the individual market to see an average of a 10-percent to 13-percent rise in premium costs solely based on the passage of the health care law. Does that increase accessibility or affordability? No, of course it doesn't. Not only has the health care overhaul caused health insurance companies to leave parts of the health insurance market and health insurance costs to increase, it has also put added burden on employers. Some employers will no longer offer their employees health care coverage. Higher taxes and mandates put on employers by the new health care law have left many employers without resources to maintain current coverage for family members of their employees. The negative impact this legislation is having on large employers and those insured by employers was demonstrated by the National Business Group on Health. In its recent annual survey, overall planned costs for larger employers are expected to rise by 6 percent in 2012. The National Business Group on Health also notes that 7 out of 10 employers will lose their grandfather status, meaning employees will lose their current health care plans and employers will be subject to additional regulations. According to the same survey, 3 out of 10 employers are unsure if they will continue to insure employees due to the health care overhaul. Other employers will increase the employee share of the insurance premium, and many employers state they will likely lower the level of health care coverage offered to their employees. Walmart, as an example, will not allow many of its new part-time employees to receive health care insurance through the company. Many of these workers are underemployed. They work hard yet do not always have adequate resources to purchase health care insurance on their own, especially as costs in the insurance markets continue to increase due to the new law. Additionally, many businesses are simply dropping coverage for their own employees because of the extra costs incurred in the legislation. It is more affordable for some employers to drop coverage for their employees and pay the fine associated with the employer mandate. An employer must provide health insurance for their employees if they have more than 50 employees or 50 full-time equivalents. Employers who are required to insure employees will be fined $2,000 per employee who seeks health insurance through one of the exchanges created under the health care overhaul, and any employer-sponsored plan must meet the definitions of HHS on what an adequate plan is under the mandate. This requirement will increase insurance costs for employers and employees when they must upgrade health insurance benefits in order to meet the standards defined by HHS. Forcing employers to provide health insurance when they have a tough time hiring new employees just adds to the burden employers are facing in this struggling economy. Employers will likely pay their increased health insurance costs by reducing employee take-home pay or by increasing the employee share of health insurance premiums. Also, employers will continue struggling in future years as the Federal Government increases year by year the requirements of health insurance benefits needed to avoid a penalty. Furthermore, employers already faced with economic uncertainty have to deal with the government regulations that continue to change, adding to uncertainty. An HHS rule released last November allows fully insured group plans to switch insurance providers as long as the insurance benefit provided to the beneficiaries remains comparable. However, this is only for group plans that switched after November 15 last year. HHS wrote this new rule so more group plans can find affordable coverage and shop around for similar coverage at cheaper rates. But if the group insurance plan carrier was changed before November 15, the plan would lose grandfather status and then be subject to a whole bunch of new regulations. Ironically, what created the need for this new rule was another rule the President's administration and HHS crafted in June last year that stated plans would lose their grandfather status if they switched carriers. This chaotic situation shows what happens when the government is given more authority to regulate the health insurance market. What we have is a mess. We need to put a halt to the implementation. We need to repeal the law and start over again with commonsense solutions. We need to move away from the regulatory and bureaucratic nightmare that is costing Americans their coverage and too many Americans their jobs. With 10,000 pages of regulations at this point, just think what it will be like when all 1,693 regulations get written. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm Judge Evan Jonathan Wallach to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Federal Circuit. With this vote, we will have confirmed 54 article III judicial nominees during this Congress, and 18 in just over a month. In only eight sessions of Congress in the past 30 years has the Senate confirmed more judicial nominees. Our progress extends beyond the Senate floor and into the Judiciary Committee, where 88 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have had their hearing. That is compared to only 76 percent of President Bush's nominees at a comparable point in his Presidency, in the 108th Congress. To date, 72 percent of the judicial nominations made by President Obama have been confirmed. Overall, we have made real progress on 85 percent of the judicial nominees submitted this Congress. Furthermore, these nominees have been processed in a very fair manner. Circuit nominees have had a hearing within 66 days after nomination, on average. President Bush's nominees were forced to wait 247 days. The same can be said of President Obama's district court nominees, who had their hearings, on average, in just 79 days. President Bush's district court nominees waited 120 days, on average, for a hearing. President Obama's circuit and district nominees have been reported faster than those of President Bush--in fact, almost 35 percent faster. I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would acknowledge this cooperation, and they sometimes do. But it is important to remind everyone that our duty as U.S. Senators is not to rubberstamp the President's nominees. We must carefully examine the records and qualifications of each nominee before us to determine if they are fit to serve the public for lifetime positions. I don't believe my constituents would expect any less. The fact that we are here, confirming the 54th article III judicial nominee, shows we have been performing our due diligence. However, we will continue to hold quality confirmed over quantity confirmed. I would like to say a few words about Judge Wallach. Judge Wallach presently serves as a judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade. He was appointed to that court by President Clinton in 1995, following confirmation by the Senate. I would note that the Federal Circuit, the court to which Judge Wallach is nominated, is the appellate court for the Court of International Trade. In addition to international trade, the court hears cases on patents, trademarks, government contracts, certain money claims against the U.S. Government, veterans' benefits, and public safety officers' benefits claims. Of particular interest to me, this court has exclusive jurisdiction over cases related to Federal personnel matters. That includes exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB, which hears whistleblower cases under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Evan Wallach received a bachelor of arts from the University of Arizona in 1973, his juris doctorate from University of California Boalt Hall School of Law in 1976, and his bachelor of laws from the University of Cambridge in 1981. Judge Wallach began his legal career as an associate attorney with Lionel Sawyer & Collins where he eventually made partner. Over time, the emphasis of his practice became media law. He also defended libel actions and represented newspapers on day to day issues, including employee grievances, collection actions, and copyright protection. While he remained with Lionel Sawyer & Collins, he took several leaves of absences. From 1987 to 1988, Judge Wallach worked as a general counsel and public policy adviser to Senator Harry Reid. He also served as a judge advocate for the Nevada Army National Guard from 1989 to 1995. In 1991, Judge Wallach was called up to active duty to serve as an attorney in the Office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army-International Affairs Division during the first gulf war. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Wallach with a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today the Senate will confirm two more judicial nominees, which will be the 52nd and 53rd article III confirmations of this Congress. We have confirmed 17 judges in the past 30 days. I may sound like a broken record, but despite what others have said, we have and continue to make real progress on consensus nominees. We have taken positive action on 85 percent of the judicial nominees submitted by President Obama this year. Over 91 percent of nominees submitted during President Obama's Presidency have had their hearing. With these votes, only during 8 of the last 30 years has the Senate confirmed more judicial nominees than we have done during this year. I would like to say a few words about the nominees, both of whom I support. Scott Wesley Skavdahl is nominated to be a district court judge for the District of Wyoming. He is a graduate from the University of Wyoming and their College of Law. Judge Skavdahl began his legal career in 1992 as an associate attorney at the law firm of Brown, Drew, Massey & Sullivan. After 2 years with the firm, he departed for a 3-year clerkship with the Honorable William F. Downes on the District Court for the District of Wyoming. In 1997, he returned to private practice at the firm Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, where he made partner in 2000. From 2001 to 2003, Judge Skavdahl served as a part-time U.S. magistrate judge. He also served as a State district judge for the Seventh Judicial District of Wyoming from 2003 to 2011. In February 2011, Judge Skavdahl was appointed U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Wyoming, a post he holds to this day. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Judge Skavdahl with a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating. Richard G. Andrews is nominated to be a district judge for the District of Delaware. Mr. Andrews received his bachelor of arts from Haverford College in 1977 and a juris doctorate from the University of California at Berkley Boalt Hall School of Law in 1981. He began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Collins J. Seitz, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Andrews then joined the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Delaware as a Federal law clerk. After a year in that position, he was named an assistant U.S. attorney. Mr. Andrews spent the next 24 years in that office, handling a mix of criminal and civil cases in Federal district court. He has served on three occasions as acting or interim U.S. attorney, was first assistant for a number of years in the office, and served as chief of the Criminal Division. Since 2007, Mr. Andrews has served as State prosecutor within the Delaware Department of Justice. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has rated Mr. Andrews with a substantial majority ``well qualified,'' minority ``qualified'' rating.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I intend to object to proceeding to the nomination of Jessica Rosenworcel and Ajit Pai to be commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission. I will object to proceeding to the nomination because the FCC continues to stonewall a document request I submitted to the FCC over 6 months ago on April 27, 2011, regarding their actions related to LightSquared and Harbinger Capital. Since then, I have repeated my request to the FCC through letters I sent on July 5 and September 8 and the FCC continues to deny my request for documents. During the course of my correspondence with the FCC, the FCC has made it clear that it will not voluntarily turn over documents to the 99.6 percent of the Members of Congress and Senators who do not chair a committee with direct jurisdiction over the FCC. As I said in my September 8, 2011, letter their actions are misguided and unsupportable. It not only sets a dangerous precedent for Federal agency to unilaterally set the rules on how it engages with Congress it also prevents any meaningful ability for the vast majority of Congress to inform themselves of how an agency works. Several months ago, I had to take similar action when I supported Senator Chambliss' hold of James Cole's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General in order to get documents from the Department of Justice. In the end, the documents we uncovered shed light on the Department's actions regarding Operation Fast and Furious and the murder of Agent Brian Terry. I strongly believe that it is critical for Congress to have access to documents in order to conduct vigorous and independent oversight. It is unfortunate that this administration, which has pledged to be the most transparent in history, disagrees. As long as they continue to do so, I will be forced to take steps like this in order to ensure that Congress receives a complete picture of this administration's actions.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, most every Republican in this body and probably outside of this body would admit that President Obama inherited a very bad economy by the time he was sworn in. The only thing is, by every measure of the economy, this economy is much worse now than what he inherited. The Obama economy is bad because there is a prospect of taking more money from the American taxpayers with the biggest tax increase in the history of the country next year; and many brand new regulations that are very costly to the economy. Particularly small businesses do not know where they are going to be hit next and where their costs will be. We have this big budget deficit that is a damper on the economy. In every respect, things this administration are doing are putting a wet blanket on the economy. We have wrongheaded energy policies as well. We hear the President say, when he puts forth his jobs bill, touring the country in his bus: Pass this bill right now. Pass this bill right now. We have had some experience with efforts to pass bills ``right now.'' They got passed, like the stimulus bill, 1 month after he was sworn in, which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent. But it has never been under 8 percent since 1 month after that time. We have to pass the health care reform bill ``right now.'' And the health care reform bill was passed that very first year when the other party controlled everything, all three political branches of government. They had everything their way. And it was passed ``right now.'' We are finding out that passing something right now is not the way to do business, particularly if it is done in a partisan way. I think the extent to which the President would lead instead of being on the fringe would help this process along, because he is the only elected official in this country who speaks for the national voice. Each one of us representing our constituencies has a national perspective, but we also have to be worried about the needs of our constituents. Let's go to what the latest effort is of this President to turn this economy around his way and get this bill passed ``right now.'' Just a few weeks ago, the Senate considered a so-called jobs bill that would have provided $35 billion of the $447 billion for the purpose of creating or saving jobs for teachers and policemen and firefighters. This bailout was included by President Obama in this $447 billion stimulus bill No. 2 that he proposed in his speech before Congress this September. When it became apparent the Senate leadership didn't have the necessary votes for the whole package, then Majority Leader Reid chose to move this bill in parts instead of in one big package. Most of the reason he had to do that is because people in his caucus were not ready to vote for big tax increases or taking more money away from the American people and sending it to Washington. Proponents of that bill argued that this $35 billion bailout was necessary to prevent the layoff of teachers and public safety employees. Don't forget, this isn't the first time the Senate has considered this type of bailout because it was that bailout that just had to pass ``right now,'' in February of 2009, which was supposed to keep employment under 8 percent. That was the $814 billion stimulus bill Congress enacted in early 2009. It included bailout money for State and local governments. That is one of the reasons it didn't work, because whether it is the State, local, or Federal government, governments consume wealth. They don't create wealth. When we put half of that $814 billion bill into public employment, it doesn't create jobs. That money should have been used to stimulate private sector employment. President Obama stated that bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs over the following 2 years. That bill was supposed to create or save 150,000 jobs for teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers according to our President. Then, in August 2010 Congress passed another State and local bailout, this time sending $26 billion to States to save or create public sector jobs. At that time, Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, stated that this bill was ``a very important proposal, particularly to ensure that 160,000-plus teachers don't get fired as a result of bad State budgets.'' This $26 billion was the second effort by Congress to help States plug their budget holes while claiming that we were saving the jobs of teachers and other government workers. The truth is, these efforts to save State and local public sector jobs are more simply a bailout of State and local governments that have failed to rein in their own spending. State and local governments became addicted to tax-and-spend big government policies, and Federal bailouts have only aided the addiction. Rather than making the necessary and difficult budget decisions, these State and local governments come to rely on the spendthrift behavior of their Congress to spend more and plug budget holes. Nationally, the debt held by States is approaching $3 trillion. That doesn't even figure in unfunded pension liabilities. Some of the States in the worst trouble are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and California. The increase in debt has had a significant impact on their budgets or on their bond rates and their ability to find competitive bond rates and competitive financing. The free-spending State legislatures, coupled with a huge public work force, have driven up the cost of doing business in these States. It has negatively impacted their unemployment rate and their economic growth. For much of the history of our country, States have been responsible for financing their schools, police, firefighters, first responders, and other public employment. We know that throughout the 224-year history of our country most of the time these State and local governments have done a pretty darn good job. States that have done well have grown economically and attracted more jobs. With economic growth we are going to have more taxpayers. What this country needs is more taxpayers, not more taxes. States that haven't managed their budgets well have had, as you might expect, the opposite result. This competition among States has created a system that demands and rewards good government and, in the process, attracts employers and workers. A Federal bailout of States upsets this balance. It rewards bad behavior and ultimately hurts the American economy. Federal bailouts eliminate the risks associated with poor economic policies. The moral hazard of Federal bailouts is that it sends a message to bad actors that there are no negative consequences for their failure to effectively govern. At the same time, this type of Federal stimulus is ineffective at saving or creating jobs, and it does nothing to promote private sector growth. Annual Federal deficits are close to about 8 to 9 percent of GDP, and our national debt is $15 trillion. We cannot afford to bail out States and continue to encourage poor fiscal behavior by our States. The bailout of Democratic Governors and State legislatures--and I suppose I ought to include Republican Governors and Republican State legislatures, as well--and public employees may be good politics, but it is terrible economics and creates even worse fiscal situations. Rather than propose political solutions during this economic downturn, the President should work with Congress to find real, authentic, genuine solutions to our economic and unemployment problems. The recession began in December 2007, and nearly 1 in 10 Americans remain unemployed today. More than 26 million Americans are either unemployed or underemployed. The policies of the past 2\1/2\ years have not worked; they have made things worse. Now, for the benefit of people--and maybe we can't say this too often because it looks strictly partisan--but we all ought to admit that this President inherited a bad economic situation. It is nothing to be proud of for a Republican President or any of us Republicans who were in office at that time. But by any measure of the economy, this President has made things worse. The time for political documents has long past. It is time to govern, to work together, to get our economy growing again, and move the Obama economy into a bipartisan economy, at least to job creation. For those who are unemployed, it is a depression. It is time we did something to help turn this situation around. Private sector employers need an international trade agenda that opens new doors to sell U.S. agricultural goods and manufactured products and services. Obviously, I am glad the President finally sent to the Senate three trade agreements and that they were passed last month. They were delayed, though, unnecessarily for years, and the rest of the world is moving ahead without us. We are more than capable of increasing exports, but we need the markets to do it. It is very simple. Why worry about exports? Because only 4 percent of the people on the face of the Earth live in the United States. The other 96 percent live outside the United States. Who are we going to market to, the 4 percent? Yes. But if we are going to expand our economy, we are going to have to market to the other 96 percent. Thank God, President Obama has set an agenda that he wants to double exports. But in order to reach this goal and do everything possible to generate economic activity and opportunity in the United States, the President needs to move forward on other job-generating and trading initiatives without delay. It is time to put an end to job-killing Federal regulations--as I move on to a new subject of why the economy is not so good. New regulations from EPA, the Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board, and others are making it harder for businesses to grow. Understand that I said ``new'' regulations. I think sometimes people, when they hear us talk about a moratorium on regulations, they think we ought to take all of the present regulations off the books. They may not necessarily be good, but the economy has accounted for them already. When we have 9.1 percent unemployment, and we have all these new regulations coming out--66,000 pages of new regulations so far just this year--that just makes it very hard to decide whether we ought to hire somebody--particularly, for small business. Remember, small business creates 70 percent of the new jobs and about 25 percent of all employment in America. In some cases, new regulations are actually destroying jobs. With unemployment at 9.1 percent, it is time for the Federal bureaucracy to stop harmful, job-killing, new regulations. What we are calling for is not to stop ever regulating into the future, but to put a short-term moratorium on regulations so that people have a chance to get us out of the hole we are in with this 9.1 percent unemployment--let's say a measure of getting unemployment down to 7 percent before we have new regulations. It is also time to develop domestic energy resources that will create jobs while increasing domestic energy supplies. Nobody seems to be very concerned about spending $830 million every day--just in case that sounds phenomenal, $830 million a day is the amount of money we send overseas to bring oil into this country. That is a terrible subsidy to the volatile Middle East, which wants to train Americans to kill us or to reward Hugo Chavez, who badmouths us almost every day. We need to make more energy available, driving down prices, making our country more energy independent. The President's energy agenda is moving us backward because of not enough emphasis on the fossil fuels that are available in this country. It was only 3 years ago that natural gas was $14, $15 per unit because we thought we were using it all up in America. Recent discoveries tell us that we have natural gas for maybe 100 years. It is down to around $4 or $5 now per unit. But it is not a case of finding fault with the President on green energy because whatever source of energy we have, if we want a growing economy, we are obviously going to use more energy. We just must use it more conservatively. We ought to encourage conservation, and we should also encourage the use of fossil fuels wherever it can be found. It ought to encourage all sorts of green energy, and that is all the biofuels we in the Midwest talk about--the wind energy that my State is second in production of, and it is also solar, biomass, cellulosic, biofuels, all of the above. I said conservation, and I guess the fourth one would be nuclear energy. It is time to change course and develop energy sources at home and create jobs in the process. Finally, in 2009, President Obama said we don't raise taxes in a recession. He stated his position clearly: The last thing you would want to do is raise taxes on anyone during a recession because it would harm businesses and economic growth. We know when he said that unemployment was under 8 percent. So if we have 9.1 percent unemployment now and will for quite a bit into the future, aren't we still in a recession? So isn't the President's own benchmark the benchmark we ought to be using yet today? Yet we have the biggest tax increase in the history of the country--taking more money away from the taxpayers and sending it to Washington--coming up next year. Wouldn't it do a great deal of economic good if this President said exactly what he said about the time he was sworn in; that we shouldn't increase taxes during a recession. Yet we have all these jobs packages put before the Senate that include job-killing tax hikes. That is why they have been received with bipartisan opposition. To those who say the packages the President has proposed have been killed by Republicans, one of the reasons the majority leader had to change the President's tax packages for a vote here a couple weeks ago is because there is opposition within his own conference about that. A few courageous Senate Democrats have consistently said no to their leadership when it comes to raising taxes on small business and other job creators. The only bipartisanship we have seen so far is the bipartisan opposition to ill-conceived political documents. The Democratic majority needs to get serious about addressing our economic problems. It is time to consider policies that will get people back to work without harming the economy. It is time to stop the political aspects of this debate. The best way to do that, it seems to me, is to look at the other body--controlled by Republicans-- that has passed 15 pieces of legislation that will help turn this economy around. We haven't taken up any of them, although I think we are about ready to take up, thank God, one of the 15 that is referred to as the ``3-percent withholding.'' Unemployed Americans need to know we are going to do something to help create jobs and grow the economy, and taking up more of those 15 bills would be getting something done in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, so far the Democratic majority and President Obama are more interested in political strategies than creating jobs and economic growth. The only reason I say that is it seems to me there is little intellectual honesty on the part of the President when in a speech given to a joint session of Congress one evening--as he did in September--he would plead for bipartisan support and then, the very next day, go out on the road on a political venture and say he can't get the cooperation of the Republicans--pass that bill right now. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to alert my colleagues that I intend to object to any unanimous consent agreement for the consideration of S. 1014, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011. While the sponsors of the legislation adopted one amendment I offered during debate in the Judiciary Committee, and that amendment improves the legislation, the bill remains deeply flawed and I cannot support it. I oppose S. 1014 in its current form for a number of reasons, and I will just briefly describe them here. First, I believe strongly that we should analyze critically any expansion of the Federal Government, and first and foremost, determine whether there is a more efficient and cost effective way to allocate taxpayer resources. This is especially true during a time when our Federal debt is at historic levels. In its current form, this legislation creates 10 new judgeships and converts two judgeships from temporary to permanent. The legislation does not pay for the increased spending by cutting a corresponding amount of Federal spending. Rather, it raises the filing fees imposed on litigants. The sponsors of the legislation have argued, based on caseload statistics, that these districts have some of the highest caseloads in the country. That may be true if you believe that the caseload statistics accurately describe how busy a particular district is. I am not arguing, today, that these statistics are necessarily inaccurate, but I would simply note that there have been some questions raised over the years regarding how well those statistics describe the caseloads. Regardless, based on those same statistics, there are other districts that are slow and getting slower. If we conclude that some districts are disproportionately busy, and therefore conclude that we should increase the number of judgeships in those districts, then it only makes sense to offset the increase in judgeships by reallocating judicial resources away from districts that are slow. For this reason, I offered an amendment in the Judiciary Committee that would have reduced the number of judgeships in other districts by a total of 10. I will not take the time here to go through the statistics in each of the districts where I proposed eliminating judgeships. Suffice it to say, in each district slated for a reduction, the caseloads have decreased over the last 5 years, with the exception of 1 district, where the caseload has remained flat. And, even after you reduce the number of judgeships in these districts, they would still have caseloads that are well below the national average, across all 94 districts. If we are going to add judgeships, I believe this is the most appropriate way to do it. The amendment I proposed in committee would also have delayed the effective date for the creation of the new judgeships until after the next Presidential election. Because none of us knows for certain who will be sworn in as President in January 2013, delaying the effective date would remove politics from the debate. Not only would it remove politics from the discussion, but it is consistent with how this issue was handled in the past. For instance, when the chairman of the committee introduced legislation to create additional judgeships during the 110th Congress, this is the approach he embraced. Finally, I would note that the sponsors of the bill agreed to adopt a separate amendment I offered in the Judiciary Committee that would extend Whistleblower protection to Judicial Branch employees. This is an improvement. My amendment ensures that Judicial Branch employees are not simply left without redress when they face retaliation for blowing the whistle on fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. While I appreciate the bill's sponsors' willingness to adopt my amendment, and I believe it is an improvement, the underlying legislation remains deeply flawed for the reasons I have discussed. Therefore, I must oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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 for such time as I may consume, but it will probably be in the neighborhood of 20 or 25 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to take a few moments to talk about the importance of the oversight work of the Congress. It is a very critical function of Congress. As one of the three branches of government, Congress is a very important pillar of our government. Our system provides for checks and balances between the three branches of government. Not only do we in the Congress legislate, but we must make sure the other two branches are not overstepping their power, and that is the function of oversight. I have been conducting oversight of the executive branch since I first came to the Senate. I take oversight very seriously. It is often an overlooked function for Members of Congress. It is not a glamorous function. It is a lot of hard work. Some people have said recently that my oversight work is political. Quite honestly, people who say that are the ones who are, in fact, political or may be ignorant of what I do because I happen to be an equal opportunity overseer. I do not care if it is a Democrat or a Republican occupying the White House; if something needs to be investigated, I am going to investigate it. In 2008, I was glad to hear the President-elect talk about the most transparent government ever that he was going to institute under his administration. Unfortunately, up to this point, this administration has been far from transparent--at least far from transparent in the way he said he was going to be so transparent. If any of us thought it was bad before, it is worse now. But my message about oversight is combined with a very important reminder about the rule of law, a philosophy upon which our country was founded. So I would like to talk about this administration's evasive and disappointing response to Congress about two different policies: first, the immigration policy and administrative enforcement of that, and second, Operation Fast and Furious. I will first discuss immigration. Since the founding of our country, our immigration laws have been a source of discussion. We were born a nation of immigrants and still are welcoming to people coming to our country legally. We have welcomed men and women from diverse countries and provided protection to many who flee from persecution. We have been generous, and we will continue to be generous. Yet we have seen our country face many challenges and have attempted to restrict immigration levels. The first immigration law of 1790 tried to limit citizenship to certain individuals and institute what is called the ``good moral character'' requirement. We created quotas in the 1920s, to only do away with those quotas 45 years later. We even provided amnesty to millions of undocumented and hard-working people in the last big immigration law to pass Congress in 1986. Today, we are faced with another challenge of how to deal with more than 10 million undocumented persons. Congress struggles with this challenge on a yearly basis. It is important for lawmakers to bear in mind that the policies we make should benefit our country in the long term and that they must be fair to current as well as future generations. People in foreign lands yearn to be free. They go to great lengths to be a part of our great country. It is a privilege that people love our country and want to become Americans. At the same time, however, we must not forget the great principle upon which our country was founded, and that great principle is the rule of law. We want to welcome new Americans, but we need to live by the rules we have set. We cannot let our welcome mat be trampled on, and we cannot allow our system of laws to be undermined. As a Senator, like all of my colleagues, I took an oath of office to honor the Constitution. I bear a fundamental allegiance to uphold the rule of law. That is why I am deeply concerned about the immigration policies that are coming from this White House. The President's policies may be an impermissible intrusion on Congress's plenary authority over immigration law. They are pushing the envelope, and there is little transparency into their actions at a time when transparency was promised by this administration at the time they were sworn in. As many of you know, last summer I exposed an internal homeland security memo that outlines ways President Obama could circumvent Congress and grant legal status to millions of undocumented individuals. So this is where oversight becomes very important--whether or not this memo is an intent to get around a law Congress passes which the President of the United States, under his oath of office, has pledged to faithfully enforce. This memo was entitled ``Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.'' That title in and of itself kind of signifies efforts to get around law, to get around what Congress intended. Its purpose was, in their words, ``to reduce the threat of removal of certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.'' Now why, if you are enforcing and faithfully executing the laws of the United States, would you want to ``reduce the threat of removal of certain individuals present in the United States without authorization''? Aren't those words, ``without authorization'' in and of themselves an indication that people might be here illegally? The memo outlined more than a dozen ways to keep individuals in the country and to provide them with benefits or protections. I, along with my colleagues in the Congress, have asked repeatedly for assurances that those options were not being explored. But, you know what. Our concerns have not been addressed. The President and the Secretary of Homeland Security have only said they do not plan to provide such benefits to the entire population of undocumented individuals. They claim they will use their discretionary authority and pursue relief on a limited and case-by-case basis. To the extent to which it is limited and it is case-by-case, I confess, the law probably provides for some administrative discretion because if you are going to have people come to this country, Congress is not going to be able to write a law that is going to take every instance into consideration. But I go back to that title: ``Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.'' So there is a need to change the laws on immigration, update them. So if everybody admits there is that need, why do you need administrative alternatives, unless you are trying to get around what Congress intended? So we are asking these questions, and yet we have no idea if it is true that they want to do it strictly on a case-by-case and very limited basis because we have reason to believe we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people because we have no idea how many people are truly receiving the benefits and what standards are being used when determining that an individual is granted parole or deferred action. These are the questions that, in our oversight capacity, we are asking, but we are not getting very many answers, as I am going to show you here. Again quoting the title, ``Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform,'' this memo from last summer also included a proposal to lessen the ``extreme hardship standard.'' Under current law, aliens are inadmissible for 3 to 10 years if they have been unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days in the case of a 3-year inadmissibility or 1 year in case of 10 years of inadmissibility. The Department has discretion to waive the grounds for inadmissibility if it would result in an extreme hardship. Again, I am willing to grant that there is some leeway in the law here. The amnesty memo states: ``To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers and improve their chances of receiving them, Citizenship and Immigration Services could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for extreme hardship.'' Now, ``extreme hardship'' ought to mean the same from administration to administration, not some special definition of ``extreme hardship'' because we have a President who maybe wants to find some way of getting around the immigration laws because he does not want to work hard enough to get immigration reform passed through the Congress. Proponents argue that this redefinition of ``extreme hardship'' is needed for family unity and that the 3-year and 10-year bars are overly burdensome. Well, Congress did not consider the 3- and 10-year bars to be overly burdensome or we would not have put them in the law in the first place. If this standard is lessened, an untold number of undocumented individuals will be able to bypass the 3-year and 10-year bars that are clearly laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. My concern is that this policy, if implemented, is a blatant way to circumvent Congress and the law to keep as many undocumented aliens in the United States as possible. It is difficult to ascertain if this change or any other proposal from the amnesty memo is being considered by the Secretary, so I asked the Secretary about this very proposal when she testified before the Judiciary Committee about 2 weeks ago. She admitted that existing immigration law is difficult, but the Secretary would not deny that discussions about changing the standards are even taking place. Well, what about the memo to which I referred? Frankly, she refused to comment about the proposal during the hearing. Indeed, she said she was focused on exercising enforcement functions, which gets me to my next issue. A year after the 2010 amnesty memo circulated, we learned that the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement--and we use the acronym ``ICE'' for that--which is the agency responsible for enforcing the law, apprehending and deporting undocumented people in this country, directed his agents to use ``prosecutorial discretion'' on those with whom they come in contact. What does this mean? In June of this year, Assistant Secretary Morton released a memo directing ICE officers to exercise prosecutorial discretion and to consider the alien's length of presence in the United States, the circumstances of the alien's arrival in the United States, particularly if the alien came as a young child. Also, take into consideration the alien's criminal history, the alien's age, whether there was service in the military, and whether they came here to pursue education in the United States. On August 19 of this year, Secretary Napolitano announced an initiative to establish a working group to sort through an untold number of cases currently pending before the immigration review office and also before the Federal courts to determine if they can be ``administratively closed.'' This gets into big numbers. There are more than 300,000 cases pending before the Executive Office of Immigration Review. The Secretary claims this process will allow them to direct resources at higher priority cases. This memo and initiative outlined by the Secretary are concerning, especially to those of us who said our country is based on the rule of law. These policies seem to contradict that very important philosophy underlying our whole system of law. On September 26 of this year, I led 18 of my Senate colleagues in sending a letter to President Obama expressing dissatisfaction with these prosecutorial discretion policies. We said this administration was encouraging undocumented aliens to come forward in hopes of relief. This letter to the President is part of our constitutional responsibility of oversight. It is going to the President of the United States, who said he was going to have the most transparent administration ever in the history of the country. So wouldn't you think we would get a lot of answers? We asked the President to rescind the June memo and end the initiative outlined in August, and requested that he make the Secretary available to all Members of the Senate to explain how his immigration policies are consistent with the rule of law. It is a very simple process: Have one of your Cabinet people come here and explain it all to us. Do you know what the President did? He asked a bureaucrat from the Department to respond to us on his behalf. The letter from this bureaucrat didn't address any points we made in our letter and shows a complete disregard for the concerns we raised. I tell a lot of people in both Republican administrations and Democratic administrations that I am overseeing--doing my constitutional responsibility of oversight. The longer you stonewall, when the truth comes out, the more egg you are going to have on your face. That is going to be true in this instance as well. This is what we expect from the administration. We have many unanswered questions about this prosecutorial discretion initiative. For example, how many cases will the working group sort through? You can quantify that pretty easily. What standards will be used for adjudicating cases? In the rule of law, you ought to be able to tell us what the process is and what the standard is. Will those already ordered removed be considered for relief? In other words, if somebody has already figured out you ought to be removed from this country, is someone going to step in and say, no, maybe you don't have to be removed? Will those with a criminal conviction be eliminated from consideration for discretion? We ought to know if you commit a crime in this country, besides coming here illegally, will you be removed or will you be given some discretion--what you call prosecutorial discretion? How much in taxpayer money will be expended for this effort, and when will the working group finish its work? Will the Department of Homeland Security keep the committee apprised and provide detailed information on who is granted a benefit, including work authorization? What will happen to individuals who have their cases ``administratively closed''? Congress passes the laws, the President takes an oath to faithfully execute those laws, and we have a constitutional responsibility to make sure that what Congress intended is carried out. We are not saying that maybe Congress's intent isn't being carried out. We want questions answered to determine whether they are being carried out. These are pretty simple questions to the President. We ask for the Secretary to come and answer these questions, and that doesn't happen. We get a letter back from some low-level bureaucrat who doesn't even answer the question. How far can you go, and be morally and ethically correct, as President of the United States, saying at the time you were sworn in that you are going to have the most transparent administration this country has ever seen, and then you stonewall Congress on simple questions such as this policy that you want to carry out, called prosecutorial discretion? We await answers and can only hope they will be more transparent about these policies than on the amnesty memo--assuming we get answers to our questions. The future of our country hinges, in part, on the policies this administration is making behind our backs. Congress has a role to play. That is not my position; that is the position of our Constitution. We need more sunshine in our government in Washington on amnesty and numerous other issues, including one of my oversight investigations that involves a Federal law enforcement operation that went critically wrong. I am now turning to Fast and Furious. This program was a multiagency effort, run by Federal prosecutors in Arizona and supervised by officials in the Justice Department headquarters here in Washington, DC. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, encouraged U.S. gun dealers--federally licensed gun dealers--to keep selling guns to people known to be transferring weapons to third parties. These buyers are called ``straw purchasers.'' There were lots of reasons for the gun dealers--federally licensed gun dealers--to be suspicious of this operation. The straw buyers were purchasing the kind of assault rifles preferred by the Mexican drug cartels. They repeatedly bought dozens of weapons at a time, and then returned days or weeks later to buy dozens more. They paid with paper bags full of tens of thousands of dollars in cash and bought very expensive, high-powered .50 caliber sniper rifles. All of this was plenty of cause for the dealers to report the sales to the ATF as suspicious, and then stop making the sales in the future. But the ATF had even more reason to be suspicious than the gun dealers had. The Drug Enforcement Administration, or DEA, had tipped off the ATF about the activity of the ringleader, using information from a wiretap in a related drug trafficking case. The ATF knew that some of the straw buyers were on food stamps, or unemployed, so a legitimate explanation for all the cash was very unlikely. Most important, the ATF knew that the straw buyers' guns ended up at crime scenes in Mexico just days or weeks after being bought in the United States. ATF knew all this information from the beginning of the investigation in late 2009. As early as January of 2010, the DEA wiretaps had even collected detailed information about who the ringleader was selling guns to, and that information was available to the ATF. Yet our government allowed the ring of straw buyers to grow and operate freely for about a year. Starting in late 2009, agents who later blew the whistle on the mishandling of the case were ordered to merely watch and record what the straw buyers were doing but not arrest them. The agents were not allowed to stop the straw buyers or even to question them. The agents were not even allowed to continue following the guns once they were transferred to unknown third parties or stash houses. Surveillance was simply abandoned. These details were apparently not provided to gun dealers, even though these gun dealers cooperated with the ATF from the very beginning. The government installed hidden cameras in at least one store, and dealers notified ATF each time one of the straw buyers came in for another purchase of guns. By March of 2010, the ATF had gathered evidence that the intent of the straw buyers was to transfer these weapons to criminals and to Mexican drug cartels. The ATF applied for wiretap authority and supplied all the necessary details to the Justice Department in Washington. Yet it was not until December 15, 2010, that a single one of the straw buyers was arrested. Was it just by coincidence or was it for some other reason that the day of the first arrest was the day that U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered? Two of the weapons bought right under the ATF's nose nearly a year earlier turned up at the murder scene. Within a day, the straw buyers of those two guns were finally arrested. The other straw buyers were indicted a few weeks later, in January 2011. ATF agents who knew the ugly truth blew the whistle. The whistleblowers made sure that Congress and the Terry family were fully informed. I started asking questions, and I have been asking questions ever since. But getting answers out of a Justice Department which is stonewalling is like pulling teeth. At first, the Department explicitly denied the allegations in writing, and officials implied it was all hogwash, in a widely attended briefing for Senate Judiciary Committee staff. But then the evidence started coming out. Document by document, witness by witness, the truth became so clear that it was no longer deniable. An internal briefing paper explicitly said that the strategy of the case was to ``allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place.'' E-mails proved that a gun dealer had prophetically worried that the operation could lead to the death of a Border Patrol agent. But ATF and Department of Justice officials reassured the dealers that cooperation was still necessary. They falsely assured the dealer that there were secret methods of stopping the guns before they went south. The House Oversight Committee issued subpoenas and held two hearings. My staff worked with them on two staff reports detailing the testimony and the documents we have gathered. The Justice Department stepped in and tried to control the flow of information, but we continued to receive documents and information from confidential sources. The Justice Department provided documents from the ATF files, but until yesterday very few documents from the Department of Justice files. The Department waited to deliver them until Halloween, to produce the first substantial batches of documents from the Department of Justice, even though we asked for documents at the beginning of the summer. They also waited until the night before the head of the Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, was set to testify before the Judiciary Committee to provide 652 pages of documents. Mr. Breuer also admitted to knowing all about gunwalking in what is referred to as Operation Wide Receiver as far back as April 2010. We have to go through these new documents to see what they contain. The first smaller batch of documents included several memos to Attorney General Holder that appeared to contradict the Attorney General's earlier claim that he had never heard of Fast and Furious until sometime in April of this year. The documents also show that Attorney General Holder's current chief of staff received a detailed briefing 18 months ago, in March of 2010. He was the Acting Deputy Attorney General at the time, so, obviously, the No. 2 person in the Justice Department. The Deputy Attorney General even took detailed handwritten notes on the presentation. However, Attorney General Holder says he didn't know anything about it until after the controversy became public. That is also what Mr. Breuer said today as well. I know the Attorney General was at least aware of the whistleblower allegations on January 31 of this year because I personally handed him two letters about the issues in my office on that very day. As for exactly what else he knew and when, his statements will have to be tested against the rest of the evidence as we continue to investigate. Included in the documents released recently were e-mails between senior Justice Department officials that explicitly talked about ``gun walking,'' and these memos were dated October 2010. ``Gun walking'' is a term the whistleblowers use for sitting by and not stopping the guns, even though the guns could have been stopped and people arrested. These senior Justice Department officials were discussing whether the head of their criminal division should attend upcoming press conferences on Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver. That second case is the one Mr. Breuer admitted to knowing about yesterday, where ATF had walked guns even before Fast and Furious. Their concern was over how tricky the press conference could become because of the guns that were walked. You know, it is kind of common sense. If you can't talk about it in a press conference, you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place. So these memos will show they clearly anticipated the controversy even 2 months before Agent Terry was murdered and before the whistleblowers came to me about it. This makes the initial false denials even more outrageous. Some have seized on the reference to a case from the previous administration that suggests that gun walking was nothing new and that our investigation is partisan. Now, let me be clear: There is nothing-- absolutely nothing--partisan about my desire to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious. My motivation is to make sure nothing like this ever happens again, that the Terry family gets the truth about their son's murder, and also the untold number of Mexican citizens who may have been victims of this operation as well ought to be righted. During my testimony before the House committee, I asked the Members to put aside politics and just listen to the Terry family because they were going to testify later on, and also to listen to the whistleblowers as they testified that very day. But some people see everything through the lens of their own politics. Rather than listen to the evidence, they want to blame the second amendment for Agent Terry's death. Whoever pulled the trigger is the one to blame, not the second amendment. That is the person who should be brought to justice. The straw buyers who illegally bought the guns and the government officials who stood by and watched them do it all need to be held accountable. So that is the story of Fast and Furious so far. But what does it tell us about the rule of law in this great country we call America? When we talk about the rule of law, we are usually referring to the idea that government should make decisions consistently and those decisions be made according to law. Those decisions should be based upon some neutral principle rather than on someone's personal whims or bias. Those decisions should apply to everyone equally without allowing a lot of discretion for government officials to pursue their own agendas. In short, we should be ruled by laws, not men. Our government gets its authority from the consent of the governed. Representatives elected by the people write the laws, and the executive branch enforces them. However, over the years, our government has grown so big and so complex it is hard to hold government officials accountable for how they apply the law. In Fast and Furious it has taken us months to sort out responsibility because of this problem. There are dozens of bureaucrats pointing fingers and shifting blame. There are dozens of lawyers parsing words and shuffling paper. At the end of the day, what we know is that several people in government decided not to enforce the law--the law they took an oath to faithfully execute. These people believe it was within their discretion to allow straw purchasers to operate, despite all the evidence the law was being broken. In most other field offices, obvious straw buyers were stopped, questioned, and arrested but not in Phoenix, AZ. As one of the whistleblowers put it: Operation Fast and Furious represented a ``colossal failure of leadership'' at every level that was aware of it. Just what each official knew at each level in each agency is something that needs to be clear before our investigation is complete. For the rule of law to function properly, there needs to be supervision, accountability, and consistency. Remember the transparency the President promised? Transparency leads to accountability. Government officials must know their discretion to play around in gray areas of the law has limits. It is the job of elected leaders to enforce those limits on behalf of the people who elect them. But there are so many officials and so many decisions that accountability seems hard to impose. The President himself recognized this in the context of Fast and Furious back in March of this year. When the President was first asked about Fast and Furious on Spanish-language television, he was pressed about how he could not have known about it--kind of the very same questions we are asking the Attorney General. He was asked: How could you not have known about it? The free press in America asked the President how he could not have known about Fast and Furious, and by then it was 3 months after a Border Patrol agent had been murdered and illegally sold guns had appeared at the scene of the murder. This is how the President responded on Spanish-language television. This is a pretty big government, the United States Government. I've got a lot of moving parts. Mr. President, exactly. That is the problem. Government needs to be limited, government needs to be focused, and government needs to be constrained by the rule of law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Friday a week ago, the Secretary of HHS made a very important announcement regarding one specific provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Secretary Sebelius announced the administration would no longer be implementing the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act. The acronym CLASS applies to that part of the health care bill. She said: When it became clear that the most basic benefit plans wouldn't work, we looked at other possibilities. Recognizing the enormous need in this country for better long-term care insurance options, we cast as wide a net as possible in searching for a model that could succeed. But as a report our department is releasing today shows, we have not identified a way to make CLASS work at this time. This is not an ``I told you so'' speech, although it certainly could be. It isn't as though folks weren't raising significant concerns about the CLASS Act a long time before it ever passed. Two years ago, during the debate, Member after Member of the Senate came to the floor to argue the CLASS Act was destined to fail. Senator Thune led the fight to raise awareness about the fiscal disaster the CLASS Act has now turned out to be. The Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee called it a ``Ponzi scheme.'' The Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee stated on the floor that he was ``no friend of the CLASS Act.'' When the Senate took a vote on the CLASS Act, 51 Senators, including 12 Democrats, voted to strip it from the legislation. The majority didn't rule that day because an agreement required 60 votes to strip it out. I think special recognition should go to former Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. As ranking member of the Budget Committee while in the Senate, and a senior member of the HELP Committee, he was deeply concerned about the ultimate cost of the CLASS Act on future generations. He led an amendment to require the CLASS Act be actuarially sound. He did so not because he wanted to improve the CLASS Act but because he wanted to make clear the CLASS Act could not work from a fiscal standpoint. His amendment showed that, once implemented, the CLASS Act would take in revenues in early years and then begin to lose revenues in the outyears, ultimately either failing or requiring a massive bailout with taxpayer money to salvage the program. In a strange twist of budget scoring rules, his amendment, once accepted, led the Congressional Budget Office to score the CLASS Act as producing savings on paper in the short term. The score made clear the CLASS Act was doomed to failure, but as only happens here in Washington, a score showing the obvious failure of the CLASS Act then became an asset, particularly an asset because the Democratic leadership wanted to show this bill was revenue neutral or even revenue positive. It was used by the Democratic leadership not for what it provided beneficiaries but what it did for the overall health care reform bill. With the CLASS Act and some imaginary savings in the bill, it made the overall bill look as if it actually saved money. Those savings, of course, were a gimmick. Everyone in Congress knew it, but some chose to ignore it or, worse still, to celebrate it. The very first action on the floor for the Affordable Care Act was for the majority leader to ask unanimous consent to prevent amendments from spending the imaginary savings--and I emphasize imaginary savings--generated by the CLASS Act. It wasn't a motion to protect the CLASS Act itself but a cynical motion to protect its precious ``savings'' and the political value it had. Only in Washington, with overwhelming evidence on the table making clear a program would fail, would defense of the doomed CLASS Act become a virtue. The Chief Actuary at CMS stated: There is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection would make the CLASS program unsustainable. The risks were known then, yet Democrats in Congress plowed ahead anyway. Why, you may ask. Well, Megan McArdle noted in the Atlantic on Monday: The problems with CLASS were known from day one, but no one listened, because it gave them good numbers to sell their program politically. And it wasn't just political cover. The imaginary savings gave them protection against potential budget points of order. Would the Senate- passed bill have been subject to a budget point of order without the imaginary CLASS Act savings in the bill? That is a very legitimate question. The announcement by the Secretary of HHS provides an overdue vindication for Senator Gregg. His amendment made the announcement inevitable. Health and Human Services could not make a viable case for implementing the CLASS Act because of Senator Gregg's amendment requiring the CLASS Act to be actuarially sustainable. Our next action is clear. Congress should repeal the CLASS Act. It was not in the House health care reform bill. A majority of the Senate voted to strip the CLASS Act from the Senate bill. It was passed under laughably false pretenses. The responsible action for Congress is to repeal it in the first relevant piece of legislation. I take a back seat to no one on issues associated with improving the lives of seniors and the disabled. As ranking member of the Aging Committee, I oversaw critical hearings into deep and persistent problems in our Nation's nursing homes. I was the principal author of the Medicare Part D prescription drug bill, which is currently providing our seniors and people with disabilities with affordable prescription medications. On the disability front, one of my proudest achievements is the enactment of legislation I sponsored, along with the late Senator Ted Kennedy--the Family Opportunity Act--which extends Medicaid coverage to disabled children. In large part through my efforts, the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Act and the option for States to implement a home- and community-based services program were included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Along with Senator Kerry, I introduced the Empowered at Home Act which, among other things, revised the income eligibility level for home- and community-based services for elderly and disabled individuals. This is what I said about the CLASS Act on December 4, 2009: If I thought that the CLASS Act would add to this list of improvements to the lives of seniors or the disabled, I would be first in line as a proud cosponsor of the CLASS Act. But the CLASS Act does not strengthen the safety net for seniors and the disabled. The CLASS Act compounds the long-term entitlement spending problems we already have by creating yet another new unsustainable entitlement program. The CLASS Act is just simply not viable in its current form. That is the end of the quote I made on December 4, 2009, when that provision of the health care reform bill was up. But this is not an ``I told you so'' speech. No, Mr. President, I am here because I am offended by the way this administration and proponents of health care reform have used the disability community throughout the debate over the CLASS Act. Congress and the administration knew the CLASS Act would fail when it was being considered. The administration now somehow manages to treat this as a shocking discovery, and the fact that they are doing that is beyond me. But the way the administration has tried to soften the blow for the disability community rubs me the wrong way, because in the Secretary's statement on the CLASS Act I referred to, the Secretary said this: In fact, one of the main reasons we decided not to go ahead with CLASS at this point is that we know no one would be hurt more if CLASS started and failed than the people who had paid into it and were counting on it the most. We can't let that happen. Of course, they could have opposed the inclusion of the legislation and told the disability community the exact same thing back in 2009. Apparently, the administration is trying to tell the disability community that even though HHS can't implement the statute, they don't want to repeal it. Nicholas Pappas, a White House spokesman, said: We do not support repeal. Repealing the CLASS Act isn't necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working together to address the long-term care challenges we face in this country. After putting the political value of the savings ahead of the doomed policy, the administration finally admitted the CLASS Act was a failure. They apologized to the disability community. They said they don't support repeal of the CLASS Act. After years of dodging reality, it is time for the President and the majority party to treat the disability community respectfully and honestly. If the President believes the CLASS Act can and should be saved, he should put revisions on the table much as he threatened to in early 2010 but never managed to. Congress should weigh repeal of the CLASS Act against revisions that could be proposed to make it a legitimate program. We should do so with a full score--meaning from CBO--and in the context of our current fiscal climate with all our cards on the table, not the stealthy way it was handled in 2009. We should have a healthy and open debate. The insipid strategy of passing something into law with a wink and a nod toward making it all better in the future is unacceptable and disrespectful to the disability community purported to be served by the legislation. Our course is clear. For those of us who care about the disability policies, the days of ignoring reality must come to an end. We should repeal the CLASS Act and move on to other legislation that gets the job done in a fiscally responsible way. I yield the remainder of the time.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to please inform me when I have spoken 10 minutes. For other people who want to speak, I don't think I will speak that long.

Mr. GRASSLEY. My amendment No. 860 is a good government amendment for which I hope we can get broad support. There are special interests in Washington making the rounds opposing this amendment. These groups have argued this amendment will unduly burden the Justice Department, take away grant money for worthy causes or erroneously ban grantees from future funds. These special interests are trying to protect their income streams of Federal grants and don't want somebody looking over their shoulder to make sure they are spending taxpayer dollars wisely. This amendment is a response to the lack of oversight, accountability, and responsibility for how American taxpayer dollars are spent by grant recipients. It is a response to my work in the Judiciary Committee, uncovering fraud, misappropriation of funds, offshore bank accounts by nonprofit organizations. Can you understand that? Nonprofit organizations in America have offshore bank accounts, and many other shenanigans are occurring in grant programs administered by the Justice Department. To fix this, my amendment includes an accountability and fraud prevention package for grants administered by the Department of Justice. I am glad to report the National Taxpayers Union, an independent nonpartisan advocate for taxpayers, supports the amendment. For the last decade the inspector general has continuously labeled grant management at the Department of Justice a top management and performance challenge. That is from the inspector general. Despite the large sums of money the Department provides the grantees, the inspector general has repeatedly found inadequate controls on spending, inadequate oversight, and a general failure to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent by grantees in accordance with the programs. Each year, the inspector general audits only a small fraction of grants awarded by the Department. In fact, last year the inspector general audited 21 grant recipients. Keep the figure 21 in mind. The inspector general questioned more than one-quarter of all the taxpayer dollars these grantees received. These questioned costs occurred on a random selection of grantees and represent less than 1 percent of the total grant recipients. So we only audit--go over 1 percent, but of that 1 percent, 25 percent of them were found to have a waste of taxpayers' money or not proper accounting. Perhaps the most concerning part of these audits is that they are randomly selected. If the inspector general's random selection of grantees universally uncovers unauthorized errors, then we can see why we have a much larger problem. If the findings of the audit from 2011 were extrapolated through all the grants, that would mean nearly $500 million in questionable costs annually. My amendment requires the inspector general to audit 10 percent of the grants. It also requires the Attorney General to ban grantees for 2 years if they are found to have serious problems that have gone unremedied for longer than 6 months after the inspector general makes a negative finding. By requiring this remedy within 6 months, it ensures there is enough time to fix inadvertent mistakes but also ensures that truly bad actors are taken off the government rolls. My amendment also requires the AG to reimburse the Federal Treasury from the Justice Department budget if funds are given to an excluded entity and then requires the Department to recoup lost grant money from those grantees. It also includes a limitation on conference spending at the Department. Just a few weeks ago, the inspector general issued an audit on conference spending at the Department. We all heard about this audit, which revealed $16 muffins, the $32 Cracker Jack snacks, $5 cans of cola, the beef wellington appetizers, and other abuse of the money of the taxpayers by the Justice Department. What we have not heard is how, by this administration, spending at the Justice Department increased from $47 million in fiscal year 2008 to 1 year later $73 million and now 2 years later $91 million. Despite the biggest Federal deficit in history, the Justice Department, under this administration, has doubled spending on conferences in just 2 years. This is unacceptable, and it is why my amendment requires the Deputy Attorney General to sign off on all conference spending. My amendment would prohibit the Attorney General from providing any grant to a nonprofit charity that holds money in offshore bank accounts for the purpose of evading Federal taxes. If it is nonprofit, one would think they would be using their money for nonprofit purposes. This provision was the result of an investigation I conducted into the Boys and Girls Club of America, the national umbrella organization for thousands of local clubs. In response to my inquiry, the Boys and Girls Club of America admitted that, despite closing hundreds of clubs nationwide, it held nearly $222 million in investment, of which $54 million was in offshore investments and another $54 million in partnerships. When asked why this money was held offshore, I was told it was held to `` . . . avoid issues with unrelated Business Income Tax generated by hedge funds that use leverage.'' I support the mission of the Boys and Girls Clubs, truly I do. It is true nothing they did was illegal. However, given our current fiscal crisis, I cannot support Federal tax dollars being awarded as grants to those who hold millions of dollars offshore--I should say tens of millions of dollars offshore. Finally, I will note that my amendment includes a 25-percent matching requirement for grantees, as I heard the special interest lobbyists have been calling and sending panicked messages to many Members in the Senate opposing the matching requirement, arguing it would shut off Federal money to many grantees. This provision mirrors one recently included at a Judiciary Committee markup supported by all Judiciary Committee Democrats and some Republicans. Matching requirements are often required by grant programs that virtually all members have supported. The Government Accountability Office even reported in a 2006 report on grant management that to strengthen grant management, Congress should ``ensure mechanisms are of sufficient value'' when implementing grants. This is GAO speak for including a matching requirement so grantees are financially involved, not simply spending Federal taxpayer dollars. That said, I wanted to modify my amendment and strike this provision. However, I understand people on the other side of the aisle objected to that request so it would be easier to defeat my amendment. Remember, this is an amendment Republicans and Democrats accepted in the Judiciary Committee. This is big money at stake with Federal grants. Talk about special interests, the special interests have spoken. Those who oppose my amendment oppose holding grantees accountable for how they spend taxpayer dollars. Those who oppose my amendment are supporting giving nonprofit charities with money in offshore bank accounts taxpayer dollars. It will be interesting to see who opposes this provision, especially given the fact that everyone should oppose giving taxpayer dollars to those who hold money offshore. My amendment is a commonsense way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are protected. It is something we should have done long ago. I encourage all my colleagues to join me and send a signal that waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars has no place in a Federal grant programs at the Department of Justice. That would include all of them but particularly to organizations that hold money offshore to avoid taxes. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is a good-government amendment, and it goes after the Justice Department grant management program because the inspector general has had grant management at the top of his 10 major management challenges. The inspector general says that management of grants at the Justice Department is abominable, so this amendment is trying to take care of what the inspector general has said is needed to be done for a long period of time. Grant recipients would be held to basic principles of accountability. There are only a handful of grants audited each year, but out of that handful 25 percent talk about mismanagement, fraud, and things of that nature. A vote against my amendment would be a vote to allow fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer-funded grant programs. A vote against my amendment would allow nonprofit charities to continue to hold money in offshore bank accounts for tax purposes and still receive Federal grants. I have a letter in my office that justifies $54 million in offshore accounts. I hope my colleagues will vote for this good-government amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is supported by the National Taxpayers Union.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon we voted on a good government proposal that would have improved accountability for taxpayer dollars. That amendment focused on grants awarded by the Department of Justice. Soon we will be voting to repeal another good government measure; that is, the provision to ensure that government contractors pay their taxes by requiring that governments withhold 3 percent from payments to contractors as prepayment for their taxes. The provision was enacted in direct response to a series of Government Accountability Office, or GAO, reports about Federal contractors not paying their taxes. I have always said that taxpayers should pay what they owe--not a penny more, and not a penny less. And several GAO reports indicate that information reporting and upfront withholding significantly improve compliance. In fact, that is why the Federal Government withholds taxes from individual paychecks. Since the provision was enacted, I have heard repeatedly about the costs of implementation. I am disappointed by the misinformation that has been spread by the various outside groups--just like the ones that lobbied against my Justice Department grant amendment today. Specifically, one fictitious estimate by an outside group states that the cost to implement this provision is $75 billion. There is another made-up estimate that it would cost the Department of Defense $17 billion to implement this provision. I have a very long history, over 30 years in the Senate, of doing oversight of various Federal agencies. I cut my teeth in oversight by combating waste, fraud, and abuse at the Defense Department. I knew both the 75 billion and 17 billion numbers were bogus the first time I heard them. The Congressional Budget Office, or the CBO, the nonpartisan, objective scorekeeper for Congress, has estimated the cost of implementation to the Federal Government, including the Defense Department, to be $85 million over 5 years. Mr. President, I am a firm believer in reviewing laws that aren't working. This provision never even had a chance to work. However, I have heard from small business owners across Iowa about the burdens the withholding provision would impose on them, particularly with the economy still being in the dumps. For that reason, I support repealing this provision. My preference would have been to fix the provision so that small businesses and State and local governments would be exempted. However, that would have likely created even more complexity. Let me just say that, despite the rhetoric, large corporations would not have been impacted in the same way that small businesses would have been. They, especially defense and Medicare contractors, are not operating on a cash flow basis or on profit margins of 3 percent. They are just riding the coattails of small businesses in pushing for repeal of this provision. As we proceed to vote on repeal of this provision, let me remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that tax cheats are a very real problem. Tax delinquent contractors continue to be awarded Federal contracts, despite the administration's efforts to clamp down on awarding contracts to them. The most recent example is the award of stimulus contracts. A GAO report from May of just this year indicated that $24 billion in Federal contracts were awarded to contractors who owed more than $750 million of back taxes. This is not chump change. In the past year or so, Members of the House and Senate have supported measures to ensure that Federal employees pay their taxes. Well, Federal contractors should not be treated any differently. The country is in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal crisis. Tax increases are off the table so we need to ensure that we are collecting every dollar that is owed to the Federal Government. Senator Baucus and I continue to work on an alternative to 3 percent withholding. This alternative would prohibit the Federal Government from awarding contracts to tax cheats. In order to assist contracting agencies in identifying tax cheats, we would enable those agencies to check a contractor's tax status with the Internal Revenue Service. This new approach would be much narrower in focus than the 3 percent withholding provision. It should only impact the bad actors. When we have an opportunity to consider this provision, I would hope that my colleagues would support us in enacting it. Preventing tax cheating should be a bipartisan issue. I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.