Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we are all kind of on pins and needles about what the President is going to say today in his speech on the budget at George Washington University. I hope he comes forward with a strong program to get the budget deficit down because Presidential leadership will help us get the job done. Congress can do it on its own, but it will be a lot easier if we know we are working with the President instead of against the President. I hope the President's remarks reflect the fact that elections have consequences and the consequence of the last election was a very strong message to Washington that we ought to get spending down and government ought to be smaller. In anticipation of what he says, I wish to make some remarks, and my anticipation is based upon things that have already been said from the White House by staff about the direction the President's speech is taking. If we learned anything during the last 2 years, it is that America can't tax and spend its way back to prosperity. The voters understood that and sent a powerful message to Washington last November: Stop piling debt on the next generation. Stop the overspending that mortgages our children's future and jeopardizes job creation. Thanks to the gravitational pull of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives responding to the results of the last election, the compass is starting to point in the right direction. Despite the two-against-one lineup of the debate, meaning the President and the Democratic Senate on one side and the House under the control of the Republicans on the other side--that two-to-one lineup--we have a continuing resolution at the start of what must be a long-haul, committed effort. The continuing resolution we will pass this week is just the beginning because the hard work has only just begun. That is reflected in the leadership demonstrated by the House of Representatives' Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan. He did what the President failed to do in his budget proposal--get serious. Today, I hope we have evidence that the President is getting serious. But up until now, the President ducked, even ignoring his own deficit reduction commission report fresh off the printer. He hasn't said yes or no whether he supports the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission. In sharp contrast, House Chairman Ryan stepped up and put ideas on the table for fiscal responsibility. Today, in response to this effort, to show the voters we got it in the last election and that it is time to reduce spending in Washington, the President is giving his speech on reducing the debt. After reluctantly coming to the table for very modest reductions in spending that are going to be in this continuing resolution we will hopefully pass this week, the President has quickly moved past any focus on getting spending under control and seems to be going back to that same old saw that we have to have tax increases to reduce the deficit. But history proves tax increases do not bring an additional dollar to the bottom line. Tax increases are a license to spend even more than the $1 that might come in from a tax increase, and we also know increasing taxes is not going to reduce the deficit. Only growing the economy is going to reduce the deficit. Tax increases can have a detrimental impact on growing the economy because government consumes well; it doesn't create well. Only workers and investors and people who invent and people who create, create wealth. There has always been a tug of war in Washington between tax-cutters and big spenders. There are those of us who believe taxpayers have a right to keep more of their own money and decide how best to save and spend and invest those dollars. Others in Congress and in Washington believe Washington knows best and work relentlessly to divert more private resources into the public coffers. Recycling even more tax dollars through Washington, especially during an economic downturn which we are in now, and eight-tenths percent unemployment proves it. Doing more of that doesn't make sense if we want recovery. Consider the work of two U.S. Presidents from opposite sides of the political spectrum. Study the history of John Kennedy on one end and Ronald Reagan on the other. They understood that raising taxes bore negative consequences for job creation and economic growth. My colleagues may remember that during World War II and afterwards, we had 93 percent marginal tax rates. Who decreased that? Not some Republican President but a Democrat President. He reduced it because it was not raising revenue and it was hindering the economy. We had a situation when corporate and personal income tax rates climbed during the Great Depression, we have proof unemployment kept climbing as well. In fact, if there are two things we want to remember from Hoover that we should never make these mistakes again, they are that he raised taxes tremendously high and he signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, leading us into the Great Depression. As America struggles to shake off the biggest economic downturn in decades, we can't afford to repeat the same mistakes. We should learn from history. In an economy where consumer spending accounts for nearly 70 percent of the Nation's gross domestic product and small businesses account for 70 percent of the new jobs, it would be foolish to divert even more of America's taxpayer money into the Federal Treasury. With a smaller tax liability, small business owners can expand their operations, upgrade their equipment, and hire more workers in their hometown communities. But tax policies designed to increase revenues for more government spending will not help these hometown business leaders create new jobs that can attract and retain talent and vitality in those small towns. What is more, raising Federal tax rates would stunt the positive ripple effect that occurs in the local economy and in the local tax base when small businesses are able to grow and expand their sales output and profits. Raising taxes sets the stage for paralyzing setbacks for small business. So we should not forget that many small business owners are subject to the highest marginal tax rates and Federal estate taxes. I have worked for a long time for tax policies that give small business owners the freedom and opportunity to hire, expand, and grow their businesses without having profit-burning taxes and overly burdensome regulations get in the way of getting ahead and living the American dream and creating those jobs. Marginal tax rate increases are especially harmful to small businesses because small businesses are typically organized as flow-through entities. Since small businesses create 70 percent of the new jobs and unemployment, at 8.8 percent, remains historically high, it doesn't make sense to raise taxes on small businesses. Supporters of the tax increases for those earning $250,000 a year would like to camouflage the tax hit on small businesses, but their attempts to mislead cannot withstand an honest examination. The marginal tax rate hikes would directly target flow-through businesses that employ 20 million American workers. It is a waste of resources for Washington to recycle tax dollars through the public sector when small businesses can do more good and get more bang for their own buck and taxpayers, in general, deserve more bang for their buck. I have a chart that shows my colleagues an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the official nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress. In its January 2011 ``Budget and Economic Outlook'' report, CBO reports that taxes have averaged 18 percent of the gross national product from 1971 to the year 2010. So this is the historical average. What is very significant about an average going back to 1971--is it seems to me a level of taxation the people of this country have not revolted against. It is a level of taxation that has not been harmful to the U.S. economy, as we have seen great growth during this period of time. So here is where we are. Beyond the very negative impact of tax increases, there is no evidence that tax increases lead to deficit reduction. In fact, if history is any guide, Washington will simply spend the money. I often quote a Professor Vedder of Ohio University who has studied tax increases and spending for more than two decades. This is the very same study I was referring to as I started my remarks today. ``Over the entire post World War II era through 2009, each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 in new spending.'' So it is akin to a dog chasing its tail. It is never going to catch it. If we raise $1 and it doesn't go to the bottom line, and Professor Vedder says it doesn't go to the bottom line, it is a license to spend $1.17. How do we ever get ahead? Then we have people who want to increase taxes because another dollar coming in is going to lead to $1.17 of spending. It would be one thing for me to vote for a tax increase if it went to the bottom line. It is another thing to vote for a tax increase that just allows more spending and raises the deficit instead of getting the deficit down. People in my State of Iowa don't tell me they are undertaxed. They know all too well the problem is that Washington overspends. Before this chart is taken down, just so my colleagues can understand, there is no reason to raise taxes above this historical average to bring in more revenue because we can see the projection by CBO. The existing tax rates are going to bring in more revenue without increasing tax rates just because of the economy growing. With the existing tax rates, revenues coming in will return to the level we had after the 2001 tax bill--that bill reduced taxes by providing the biggest tax decrease in the history of this country. We brought in additional revenue with reduced rates--more revenue than would come in by raising marginal tax rates. That ought to be calculated. You should not do anything that is going to destroy this situation. Some are proposing eliminating the cap on wages for social security taxes. This would result in a huge tax increase of 6.2 percent on income over $106,800. Both employees and employers pay these taxes. Those in favor of this will argue that it is needed to protect benefits for social security beneficiaries. We have been down that road before. We raised the tax rate in the 1980s. This was supposedly also to protect benefits, but look where we are now. There is no guarantee that raising taxes in that way will guarantee benefits. Referring to this chart again, to be specific on this growth out here, CBO projects that taxes will average 19.9 percent of gross national product from 2010 to 2021, rising to 20.8 percent of GDP by 2021. If we increase taxes, I think it will put that economic growth in jeopardy. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from Investors Business Daily.

Mr. GRASSLEY. According to this article, even if the government confiscated all of the income of people earning $250,000 a year, the money would fund the Federal Government today for a mere 140 days. CBO statistics tell us that the top 5 percent of households earn 29 percent of the income and pay 43 percent of the income tax collected by the Federal Government. This chart here shows that these 5 percent of households have seen their taxes go up or hold steady while the other 95 percent of households have seen their taxes go down. We are in a situation where people are talking about increasing taxes on higher income people because, supposedly, they can afford it--and probably they can afford it. But I get sick and tired of the demagoguery that goes on in Washington of taxing higher income people. This group of people is already paying 43 percent of all of the income tax coming in to the Federal Government, while 47 percent of the people in this country don't pay any income tax whatsoever. How high do taxes have to go, generally, to satisfy the appetite of the people in this Congress to spend money? And particularly, how high do marginal tax rates have to go to satisfy those clamoring for higher taxes that the wealthiest in this country are paying enough money? In addition to the CBO statistics on households, IRS statistics show that 1 percent of the wealthiest people make 27 percent of the income and pay 40 percent of the income taxes. If it be 41 or 42 percent, maybe we can look at it. But I never get the sense from anybody who is proposing these higher marginal tax rates on upper income people that they are ever going to be satisfied that those people are paying enough taxes. So I will get back to what I said. You could confiscate all the income earned by people that make over $250,000 a year but you are only going to run the government for 140 days. What do you do for the rest of the year if you only want the wealthy to pay all the taxes? We ought to have some principles of taxation that we are abiding by. I abide by the principle that 18 percent of the GDP of this country is good enough for the government to spend. That leaves 82 percent in the pockets of the taxpayers for them to decide how to spend. Because if 535 of us decide how to divide up the resources of this country, it doesn't do as much economic good. If the money is left in the pockets of the 137 million taxpayers to decide whether to spend or to save it, and how to save it, or what to spend it on, it responds to the dynamics of our economy. They would be participating in the American free enterprise system in a way that the 535 Members of Congress don't know enough how to do. If we relied upon the 535 of us to decide how to spend more resources of this country, we would not have the economic growth we have. We would be Europeanizing our economy, and we know that is bad. This principle of 18 percent of gross domestic product is good and it has been consistent throughout recent history. This chart here shows that it is not a straight line, but it is pretty even over a 50-year average. I think it averages out at about 18.2 percent. You have the marginal tax rates going back to 93 percent during World War II and staying there until, as I said, Senator Kennedy becomes President and he decides the marginal tax rate is too high for the good of the economy and he reduces it. I am told because of the Vietnam war, it went up. It stayed even at 70 percent until President Reagan. Then it goes down to a 50 percent marginal tax rate. Then it stays there a while. In 1986, it goes down to 28 percent. Then we have the promise of no new taxes when President Bush reneged on that promise, and it went back up to almost 40 percent. Then they went up again here and stayed here, and then we had the tax decrease of 2001. Do you know what this shows? Everybody has an idea that if you raise the marginal tax rates, you will bring in more revenue. But the taxpayers, workers, and investors of this country are smarter than we are. We have had a 93-percent marginal tax rate--then 70 percent, 50 percent, 28 percent, and now a 35-percent marginal tax rate. But, regardless of the rate, you get the same amount of revenue, because taxpayers have decided they are going to give us bums in Washington just so much of their money to spend, and it works out to be about 18 percent of gross domestic product. So we have a President who will probably give a speech today and say we are going to raise taxes on higher income people because, like him, they ought to pay more money. What do you get out of it? You can mess with these marginal tax rates all you want to, but you will bring in about the same amount of revenue. Why? In part because people have decided that, if we are going to tax them to death, they are going to take more leisure and they are going to invest in nonproductive investments. Bottom line--increasing taxes doesn't bring more revenue into the federal Treasury. You have to keep marginal tax rates low so you can expand this economy. As we have seen, when taxes go down, unemployment goes down; when taxes go up, the incentive to employ is gone. So here we are. The national debt poses serious risk to the long-term economic health of the United States. It puts a heavy burden on taxpayers who will have less take-home pay to save, spend and invest if they have to send more money to Washington. Washington needs to champion policies that grow the economy and create jobs, and in turn, increases revenue to the federal Treasury, enabling deficit and debt reduction, not defend ways that grow the government. The President and 535 Members of Congress collectively represent many different constituencies across the ideological, political, geographic and demographic spectrum. Although representing many, we can work as one to make America an even better place for posterity. If we continue to live beyond our means and get in the way of job-creating economic opportunity, we will push future generations over a fiscal cliff of no return. That is why Washington must clamp down on new spending and shrink the national debt. I hope we have a President who is willing to look at history and learn from history in his speech today. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suppose I and a lot of my colleagues had an opportunity to hear the President's speech this afternoon. It is very nice that the President is being engaged for the first time in the budget debate and the long-term fiscal problems of this country, and the deficit problems of this country. It is good he is following on with some of the recommendations of his own deficit reduction commission. We have to remember a little less than a year ago he appointed a deficit reduction commission. They reported on December 5. It seems as though they had broad bipartisan support because the four Senators on the commission--two Democrats and two Republicans with probably very different political philosophies of the four--have endorsed it. Then, all of a sudden, since December 5 until today, there has been a lot of quiet on the part of the President of the United States about whether he likes what his deficit commission suggested. I don't know the details of where he is coming from, whether he agrees with every detail that is in the deficit reduction commission recommendations, but at least he is getting on board along the lines of what 64 Senators--32 Republicans and 32 Democrats--said in a letter about a month ago to the President: We are ready to start tackling some of these big problems, but we need leadership. Maybe this speech today is an answer to that leadership. Or, if I want to be cynical about it, I could say maybe the President gave his speech today because of the very positive comments that Congressman and Chairman Paul Ryan got for his budget ideas that he released last week. But the President also took advantage to renew the class warfare--the demagoguery of taxing the wealthy. It doesn't contribute much to the debate. In fact, I think it makes it very difficult to bring people together. Or, if I want to be cynical, I could say this is maybe the President's first speech about his reelection. But either way, I think there is analysis that we have to look at very carefully and see if it does the economic good that is intended in the speech, even though it is welcome that the President is being engaged at this time. So I would give some reaction to some of the things the President said, but I want this as background: From World War II through 2009, every dollar of new Federal tax revenue coming into this Treasury resulted in $1.17 of new spending. Think of that: Every new dollar coming in wasn't a dollar that reduced the deficit, it was a dollar that resulted in $1.17 of additional spending. That is like a dog that chases its tail and never catches it. So we are sending a new dollar to Washington to do something about the budget deficit and nothing happens as a result of that, except more deficit. The President made the point that tax reductions in 2001 and 2003 added tremendously to the deficit he inherited or the part of the deficit that now exists. But, in fact, the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003 resulted in more revenue to the Federal Treasury. The expanding economy, spurred by the Tax Relief Acts of 2001 and 2003, helped to reduce the annual budget deficit from $412 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007, not because we taxed more but because we taxed less and we had more economic activity as a result. That brings me around to the principle of deficit reduction. Obviously, when I say a dollar of additional taxes doesn't go to the bottom line, that doesn't do anything about the deficit. But on the expenditure side, reducing that and the economic growth that comes from it is what reduces the deficit--more economic activity. Even the most sincere arguments that raising taxes would reduce the deficit and the debt do not have history to back them up. Outside of Washington, it is obvious to people the problem is not that people are undertaxed but Washington overspends. The voters said this so loudly and clearly in the last election, and elections are supposed to have consequences. I think the budget agreement of midnight Friday night is evidence of words from the grassroots of America getting through to Washington, DC. I think most people at the grassroots are cynical whatever happened, and I suppose we have to do a lot more to prove to them there might be a different day in Washington. But it was pretty loud and clear the results of the last election and the message sent to Washington. Government spending increased by 22 percent during the last 2 years, a nonsustainable level of increased expenditures. If we follow the budget proposed this year by President Obama, we would add another $13 trillion to our national debt over the next decade. This debt gets in the way of economic activity that creates jobs, and it is a terrible burden to leave to future generations. We talk dollars and cents when we talk about the deficit and the debt, but it is a moral issue of whether those of us of our generation ought to live high on the hog and leave the bill to young people such as these pages here who have to pay for it. It is a moral issue as much as it is an economic issue. This trillions of dollars of debt gets in the way of economic activity that creates jobs, and it is a terrible burden on future generations. Washington needs to get behind policies that clamp down on spending and, as a result, we will grow the economy. Increased economic activity increases revenue to the Federal Treasury, enabling deficit and debt reduction. We know that to be a fact, because from 1997 to the year 2000, we actually, because of the growth of the economy, paid down $568 billion on the national debt during that period of time. The answer is not ways to grow government. We need to grow the economy, but we don't grow the economy by growing government. Getting back to the issue of the President making a big deal in his speech about the 2001 tax cuts being a major cause of the budget deficit, and probably the implication of the unfairness of it because there weren't higher taxes on higher income people, I would suggest that the President is wrong in both regards. In 2001, the tax cut included an across-the-board income tax reduction and reduced the tax rates on the lowest income people from 15 percent to 10 percent. It resulted in removing millions of low-income people from the Federal income tax rolls entirely. It increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. The legislation included marriage penalty relief and the first-ever tax deduction for tuition. Two years later, after 9/11, the 2003 dividends and capital gains tax rate cuts spurred economic growth and created jobs. The result was more revenue to the Federal Treasury, not less. The expanding economy helped reduce the annual budget deficit--and I am repeating these numbers because they are significant--from $412 billion in 2004 to $160 billion in 2007. I know it is counterintuitive to a lot of people to hear a Member of the Senate say if you reduce marginal tax rates, you are going to bring revenue into the Federal Treasury, because the obvious common sense tells people that if you increase taxes, you are going to bring in more revenue. As I said earlier in a speech today, it doesn't work out that way because some people in this country can decide I have paid enough taxes, I am not going to pay any more. So they disincentivize to be productive, probably do leisure or invest in nonproductive activity. When you lower marginal tax rates, it encourages those people to be productive and, at the same time, creating jobs, growing the economy, and bringing more money into the Federal Treasury. When you look at the sources of the deficit, contrary to the President's claim, tax relief has been a small part. Unprecedented spending contributed much more to the deficit than the tax relief did and particularly in the last 2 years--a 22-percent increase in expenditures on top of the $814 billion stimulus. Here is something that probably is counterintuitive as well and probably something the President misses from his analysis of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills, which he blames the big budget deficit on. Those reductions actually ended up with taxes being more progressive. The effective Federal tax rate on the top 1 percent of households is more than seven times the rate paid by the bottom 20 percent of households. That is up from less than five times as much in the year 1979. If tax relief enacted since 2001 is allowed to expire in a little more than a year and a half--because last December we only extended the existing tax policy until December 31, 2012--if that happens at that time, a family of four with two kids who earns $50,000 today would see a $2,155 increase in their tax bill. More than 6 million low-income people who currently have no Federal income tax liability would be subject to the individual income tax, and that would be at a rate of 15 percent instead of the current 10 percent. Washington needs to learn that leaving more money in the pockets of the taxpayers unleashes a positive chain reaction in our economy. On the other hand, government spending doesn't create wealth because government is not an institution that can create wealth. Government is an institution that can only provide an environment for people outside the government to create wealth. In fact, what the government does is it consumes wealth and, as a result, doesn't generate a stronger economy. Instead of growing the government, Washington needs to focus on helping create private sector jobs. The President's new plan will reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. He does that by reducing spending by $2 trillion but raising taxes by $1 trillion, and, thus, lowering interest payments by $1 trillion. The President has again failed to realize that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. At least a couple times since I have been in the Senate, I have heard this argument: Let's increase taxes $1, and we will reduce expenditures $2 or $3 or $4--sometimes it is $2, sometimes $3, and sometimes $4 behind those ideas. That sounds very good, doesn't it? But here is why it doesn't work and why bringing in $1 in new taxes actually leads to spending of $1.17. I often quote Professor Dave Vedder of Ohio University, who has studied tax increases and spending for a long period of time. In fact, you increase taxes until you decide to do something else with the taxes. But appropriations are reviewed annually and, for some reason or other, after that first year, appropriations tend to creep up and up and up. Consequently, the well-intentioned raising of taxes $1 and reducing expenditures by $3 or $4--as well intended as it is, it gradually is eroded on the expenditure side--that half of that proposition--so you end up not reducing expenditures as you have originally indicated. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will confirm two more of the President's judicial nominees. Both of these nominees are for seats termed ``judicial emergencies.'' My Republican colleagues and I continue to demonstrate our cooperation. We have worked with the Democratic majority in moving consensus nominees through the committee and on to the Senate floor. With today's votes, we will have confirmed 17 judicial nominees in just 39 short days the Senate has been in session this Congress. Twelve of these confirmations were for those positions that are termed ``judicial emergencies.'' We have reported out of committee a total of 32 judicial nominees. That is 51 percent of the total nominees who have been submitted to the Senate by the President of the United States. To date we have held five nomination hearings with 21 judicial and executive nominees giving their testimony. We have another hearing scheduled for tomorrow, with four judicial nominees and one executive nominee on the agenda. With this productive pace, we have taken positive action on 60 percent of the judicial nominations sent to the committee this year by the President. Today the Senate will consider two nominations: First, Vincent Briccetti, nominated to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York. He received a B.A. from Columbia University and a juris doctorate from Fordham University School of Law. The nominee began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable John M. Cannella, U.S. District Court for the Southern District New York. After a short term in private practice, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney. That was also for the Southern District of New York. Later, he became a deputy chief appellate attorney. After working as an associate attorney in a law firm, the nominee started his own firm in 1992 and, as I report to my colleagues regularly on the ABA standing committee on the Federal judiciary, that committee has unanimously rated this nominee ``well-qualified.'' The second nominee is John Kronstadt, nominated to be U.S. District Judge, Central District of California. He received his B.A. from Cornell University and juris doctorate from Yale Law School. He began his legal career as law clerk to the Honorable William P. Gray, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. This nominee practiced law for nearly 24 years, most recently as a partner with Arnold & Porter. On November 14, 2002, Gov. Gray Davis appointed Judge Kronstadt to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. There he presided over criminal, civil, and family law matters. Again, reporting on the American Bar Association rating of this nominee, the nominee had substantial majority ``qualified,'' a minority, ``well qualified.'' I support these two nominees and urge my colleagues to support them as well. I congratulate each of the nominees for their achievement and, more importantly, for their long period of public service which will continue after their confirmation by the Senate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, is there a time limit in morning business?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, usually by this time on a Friday, or even a little earlier, I have had the pleasure of going back to Iowa on the weekend. I would much rather be doing that. Obviously, we have problems that have to be worked out, and there is reason for staying around this weekend, particularly for those of us who do not miss votes, and we do not want to miss a vote, hopefully, to keep government functioning. There is one advantage of not being on an airplane going back to Iowa on a Friday when I do not have committee meetings and constituent meetings: I have been able to listen to a lot of the speeches today. We do not get that opportunity Monday through Thursday very often. It is quite a pleasure to be able to hear my colleagues speak, as they have on both sides of the aisle, so strongly about differently held views in this body about the budget issues and subsidiary issues that are being discussed at this time. Listening to the debate, I have come to the conclusion that it was one big mistake that we did not get appropriations bills passed last year. I hope people on the other side of the aisle realize if those appropriations bills had been passed, we would not be here today worrying about shutting down government and reaching some gigantic compromise. I suppose on the other side of the aisle there is a lot of ill feeling about not taking advantage of the fact that last year there were 59 Democrats and only 41 Republicans in this body. The majority party could do just about anything it wanted to do. Of course, in the House of Representatives it was overwhelmingly controlled by the other political party, and that control particularly where appropriations bills pass. Looking back now, I realize there was not any attempt to bring up any appropriations bills, which obviously is not a good way to run the government. I did listen to some excuses from the other side of the aisle when people were asked: How come no appropriations bills were passed? The answer from one Senator: We only had 59 votes, and Republicans would not let us bring it up. Then I was in a quandary. There was not anything stopping the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party in the other body from passing almost anything they wanted to because it is just a political fact of life, whether you have a Republican majority in the House of Representatives or a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, as long as they stick together they can get anything done they want to get done. They can ignore the minority. They may not have been able to ignore the minority in the Senate, if 41 Republicans would stick together, but they hardly ever do. What a mistake it now must be for the Democratic Party not to have passed appropriations bills last year so we wouldn't be going through this. But it wasn't done. I think, now, looking back, it was probably because they didn't want discussion of budget issues before the election. They didn't want the public being reminded about the $1.5 trillion deficit. In other words, we borrow about 42 cents out of every $1 we spend, and we take in about $2.2 trillion and spend $3.7 trillion. That is in the neighborhood of a $1.5 trillion deficit. They probably didn't want that talked about. So come October 1, they passed a continuing resolution until December to get through the election, and then, when they got through the election, they would take care of it when we got back here. But the elections are supposed to have consequences, and they do have consequences. If they do not have consequences, representative government and democracy doesn't mean much. So as the President himself said, he took a shellacking and they couldn't get it passed before Christmas. So the new people came in and took over--and it was the biggest turnover in Congress since 1938--and with a lot of new people there were a lot of new things to learn and it didn't get done by March 4. It was extended before Christmas until March 4, then 2 weeks, until March 18, and then 3 weeks, until this very day. But what a mistake, with overwhelming majorities, this didn't get done in the usual time when we pass 12 appropriations bills to get things funded. It was very clear in the election that people wanted to stop this deficit spending, get the spending down, and get the size of government down. With the biggest turnover in Congress since 1938, they are going to expect some changes to be made, and that is what is going on right now with the level of expenditures. We are led to believe by people on the other side that money is not the issue; that it is some social policy that is being debated and holding this up from happening. But I know this. The only possibility of not shutting down government, at least that is partly through the Congress, the Republicans are the only ones who have put forward legislation to reduce spending and to keep government open. It is kind of a commonsense approach that is used by the other body in sending us a bill that will fund Defense through the end of the year, and it will give more time for negotiation on the rest of the budget. In funding Defense through the end of the year, we can't fight a war from week to week with how much money we have to spend. When we voted to put our men and women in danger in fighting this war on terror--with our men and women in danger, we should give them as much certainty as we can. Even now, with the possibility of not being paid--or the possibility their families are not going to get the support they are entitled to--it is just a terrible sin, when we have asked people to defend the country. So that is the bill we ought to be taking up. But here we are, and there isn't any desire here to take it up, and the President says he is going to veto the bill. Why would the President be vetoing a bill that is going to give certainty to the military, the Defense Department, and what they can have to spend to do the job they are supposed to do, which is the No. 1 function of the Federal Government, our national security, and particularly for the families who are standing behind them? So here we are trying to preempt, as far as domestic expenditures are concerned, the 22-percent increase that took place in 2009 and 2010. When we only have economic growth of 2\1/2\ to 3 percent, we can't be spending money at 22 percent increases, and that is on top of the $814 billion stimulus bill that was passed that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent--and which, obviously, hasn't kept unemployment under 8 percent. So preempt that and go back to the 2008 level of expenditures. I never heard people complaining in 2008 that there wasn't enough money appropriated to perform the functions of government. It is very necessary that we do that. But we can't incorporate that 22 percent up here and build that into the base over a 10-year budget window. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in difference between the 2008 level of expenditures and the 2010 levels of expenditures, and that is what it is going to take. We have to be looking ahead for the next 60 years, not just the next 6 months. We need to take this gradual step toward the reduction of spending so government stops spending money it does not have. We have to start making decisions that are necessary about the future of our country. To a great extent, Washington is responsible for some of this. We have to reduce wasteful government spending. We have to tighten our belt in Washington, as families do at home. When you have dug yourself into a hole, the No. 1 rule is, stop digging. This bill, sent over from the House, will be the first step toward doing that. But for sure the public has a right to know the facts. They do not want us, with the facts they know, leaving our children in a bankrupt situation, which is what we will do if we don't immediately intervene and do something about it. Also, this discussion about getting government spending down has something to do with simply creating an environment of certainty for our private sector. We have uncertainty in taxes, we have uncertainty in EPA regulations, and we have uncertainty from the standpoint of fiscal policy of the Federal Government--how much money are we going to continue to borrow and take away from the private sector. All these things lead to a reluctance of employers, large and small, in this country to hire people. So this debate is about creating jobs and putting in place a fiscal policy, along with a lot of other sensible policies. But when we use the words ``sensible policy''--people back home might not know this--we have to remember this city is an island surrounded by reality, and the only business in this town is government. People in government, including those of us who are elected, are in the wagon with somebody else pulling the wagon. So we have to go home to our districts and bring back some common sense. That common sense says government ought to live as families live--within their means. Those are the President's words, not mine. When we put his budget out in early February, he said: Government has to live within its means. Then what sort of a budget does he put out? A 10-year budget window that increases the national debt from $14 trillion to $26 trillion. I hope we get something agreed to tonight. I hope government does not shut down. It doesn't save money, like people think it should. It actually costs money, and it costs people the services they are entitled to. But if you don't remember anything else this Senator has said tonight, remember this: Elections have consequences, and there were great messages sent in this last election. The people expect us to let them know that we get it and that there aren't any excuses in the process. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in March, I introduced S. 454, the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act, to enhance the government's ability to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. One of the provisions in that bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to the public similar to other federal spending disclosed on www.USAspending.gov. That website was created by legislation sponsored by then-Senator Obama and Senator Coburn. It lists almost all federal spending, but it doesn't include Medicare payments made to physicians. That means virtually every other government program, including some defense spending, is more transparent than spending by the Medicare program. Medicare is funded by taxpayers, and in 2009, the federal government spent $502 billion on Medicare. Taxpayers should have a right to see how their hard-earned dollars are being spent. Also, if doctors know their billing information is public, it might deter some wasteful practices and overbilling. On the day that I introduced S. 454, I learned that Senator Wyden was also working on legislation to make Medicare payments to physicians available to the public. We decided to work together. Today, Senator Wyden and I are introducing the Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act, Medicare DATA Act. This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to make available a searchable Medicare payment database that the public can access at no cost. Our bill also clarifies that data on Medicare payments to physicians and suppliers do not fall under a Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, exemption. Under a 1979 court decision, Medicare is prohibited from releasing physicians' billing information to the public. But before that injunction, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare--now the Department of Health and Human Services--was in the process of releasing reimbursement data for all Medicare providers. Third parties that have tried to obtain physician specific data through the FOIA process have failed in the past because the courts held that physicians' privacy interests outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. The nonprofit, consumer organization--Consumers' Checkbook--for example, had filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services to compel disclosure of that data. The organization made its FOIA request to determine whether or not Medicare paid physicians who had the qualifications to perform the services for which they sought federal reimbursement, especially those performing a high volume of difficult procedures. In particular, the organization was looking for physicians with insufficient board certifications or histories of disciplinary actions. My question is: why wouldn't we want individuals examining this data to ensure that the government is protecting taxpayer dollars by preventing improper billing to the Medicare program? And why wouldn't we want public interest watchdog groups helping to look out for potential abuse or fraud? In January, the Wall Street Journal reported the American Medical Association's, AMA, concerns about making Medicare claims data publicly available. The AMA President said that physicians ``should not suffer the consequences of having false or misleading conclusions drawn from complex Medicare data that has significant limitations.'' But I would like to note the value of access to Medicare billing data. Even with limited access, the Wall Street Journal was able to identify suspicious billing patterns and potential abuses of the Medicare system. The Wall Street Journal found cases where Medicare paid millions to a physician, sometimes for several years, before those questionable payments stopped. Volume alone doesn't automatically mean there's fraud, waste, or abuse. More patients may be going to a specific physician for a particular service because that physician is a leader in his or her field. Nonetheless, to alleviate the concerns raised by the American Medical Association, our bill would require a disclaimer that the data in the public database ``does not reflect on the quality of the items of services furnished or of the provider of services or supplier who furnished the items or services.'' I believe transparency in the health care system leads to more accountability and thus less waste and more efficient use of scarce resources. I have often quoted Justice Brandeis, who said, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' That is what Senator Wyden and I are aiming to accomplish with the Medicare DATA Act. When it comes to public programs like Medicare, the Federal Government needs all the help it can get to identify and combat fraud, waste and abuse. Our bill will add to the reforms Congress passed last year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in March, I introduced S. 454, the Strengthening Program Integrity and Accountability in Health Care Act, to enhance the government's ability to combat Medicare and Medicaid fraud. One of the provisions in that bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to make Medicare claims and payment data available to the public similar to other federal spending disclosed on www.USAspending.gov. That website was created by legislation sponsored by then-Senator Obama and Senator Coburn. It lists almost all federal spending, but it doesn't include Medicare payments made to physicians. That means virtually every other government program, including some defense spending, is more transparent than spending by the Medicare program. Medicare is funded by taxpayers, and in 2009, the federal government spent $502 billion on Medicare. Taxpayers should have a right to see how their hard-earned dollars are being spent. Also, if doctors know their billing information is public, it might deter some wasteful practices and overbilling. On the day that I introduced S. 454, I learned that Senator Wyden was also working on legislation to make Medicare payments to physicians available to the public. We decided to work together. Today, Senator Wyden and I are introducing the Medicare Data Access for Transparency and Accountability Act, Medicare DATA Act. This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue regulations to make available a searchable Medicare payment database that the public can access at no cost. Our bill also clarifies that data on Medicare payments to physicians and suppliers do not fall under a Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, exemption. Under a 1979 court decision, Medicare is prohibited from releasing physicians' billing information to the public. But before that injunction, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare--now the Department of Health and Human Services--was in the process of releasing reimbursement data for all Medicare providers. Third parties that have tried to obtain physician specific data through the FOIA process have failed in the past because the courts held that physicians' privacy interests outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. The nonprofit, consumer organization--Consumers' Checkbook--for example, had filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services to compel disclosure of that data. The organization made its FOIA request to determine whether or not Medicare paid physicians who had the qualifications to perform the services for which they sought federal reimbursement, especially those performing a high volume of difficult procedures. In particular, the organization was looking for physicians with insufficient board certifications or histories of disciplinary actions. My question is: why wouldn't we want individuals examining this data to ensure that the government is protecting taxpayer dollars by preventing improper billing to the Medicare program? And why wouldn't we want public interest watchdog groups helping to look out for potential abuse or fraud? In January, the Wall Street Journal reported the American Medical Association's, AMA, concerns about making Medicare claims data publicly available. The AMA President said that physicians ``should not suffer the consequences of having false or misleading conclusions drawn from complex Medicare data that has significant limitations.'' But I would like to note the value of access to Medicare billing data. Even with limited access, the Wall Street Journal was able to identify suspicious billing patterns and potential abuses of the Medicare system. The Wall Street Journal found cases where Medicare paid millions to a physician, sometimes for several years, before those questionable payments stopped. Volume alone doesn't automatically mean there's fraud, waste, or abuse. More patients may be going to a specific physician for a particular service because that physician is a leader in his or her field. Nonetheless, to alleviate the concerns raised by the American Medical Association, our bill would require a disclaimer that the data in the public database ``does not reflect on the quality of the items of services furnished or of the provider of services or supplier who furnished the items or services.'' I believe transparency in the health care system leads to more accountability and thus less waste and more efficient use of scarce resources. I have often quoted Justice Brandeis, who said, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' That is what Senator Wyden and I are aiming to accomplish with the Medicare DATA Act. When it comes to public programs like Medicare, the Federal Government needs all the help it can get to identify and combat fraud, waste and abuse. Our bill will add to the reforms Congress passed last year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to briefly explain my vote in favor of amendment No. 273, offered by Senator Coburn. The amendment seeks to save at least $5 billion by consolidating duplicative and overlapping government programs. I wholeheartedly support efforts to save taxpayer money by eliminating waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency within the Federal Government. A congressional responsibility that I take very seriously is our day to conduct oversight of Federal agencies. I recognize that Senator Coburn's amendment is based on a Government Accountability Office report to Congress which identified programs and initiatives that have duplicative goals or activities. The report included 34 areas where billions of dollars could be saved. It included seven areas within Defense Department programs. It proposes saving millions by consolidating Federal data centers that today are spread across 24 Federal agencies. It identifies duplication in 44 separate employment and training programs, which could save millions of dollars. I also understand that the blender's credit for ethanol was singled out in the report. In voting in favor of the amendment, I want to make clear that I do not consider the ethanol blender's credit to be a duplicative program, nor do I believe it should simply be eliminated. I would also like to make clear that the GAO report suggested a number of policy options that Congress could consider when revising the tax incentive. My colleagues should know that I, along with other Members of the Senate, are currently working to reform and restructure the tax incentives for ethanol production and consumption. Many of the reforms we are exploring are the same options suggested by the GAO report. It is my hope then, that the Senate will consider thoughtful, constructive reforms to the ethanol tax incentive, rather than the proposal put forth by Senator Coburn with amendment No. 220 that would end the incentive immediately.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today our body, the Senate, is going to vote to confirm the 15th judicial nominee for this year. If it seems to my colleagues and to the public that we have been voting on a nominee every week, well, we have been voting on a nominee at least once a week. Both in committee and on the floor, judicial nominees have regularly appeared on the Senate's agenda. We have taken positive action on 34 of the 61 judicial nominees submitted to this Congress by President Obama. We continue to hold hearings every 2 weeks to examine the nominees' records and to receive testimony. The committee meets every week to report nominees to the floor. So far, the committee has reported 27 nominees, which is ahead of the 23 reported by this same time in the 108th Congress. This demonstrates my commitment and the commitment of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to cooperate with the chairman to move forward on consensus nominees. Even as we do so, we continue to thoroughly examine the records and the qualifications of all nominees, which is the responsibility of the Senate. I would note that a number of judicial nominations and at least one executive branch nomination which remain on the Senate's Executive Calendar are controversial in nature--in other words, not the consensus approach which I have spoken about concerning other nominees to the judiciary. I appreciate the efforts of our leadership to move in a timely manner the nominations which are consensus nominees. Today, we will vote on the nomination of Jimmie V. Reyna to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Reyna received his B.A. from the University of Rochester and his juris doctorate from the University of New Mexico School of Law. After graduating from law school, the nominee served as law clerk for a firm and as an associate at an insurance defense firm in New Mexico. It was in 1981 that Mr. Reyna formed his own firm and practiced plaintiff injury, civil rights, and criminal law. He then moved to the Washington, DC, area in 1986 and worked at an international trade firm, eventually making partner of that law firm. Mr. Reyna continues to specialize in international trade matters with the firm of Williams Mullen, where he directs the international trade and customs practice group and the Latin American Task Force. The American Bar Association has rated this nominee unanimously ``well qualified,'' and of course I am pleased to support that nomination. The Federal Circuit is unique among the courts of appeal. It is not geographical-based but has nationwide subject matter jurisdiction in designated areas of the law. 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, which hears whistleblower cases under the Whistleblower Protection Act. If anybody wonders why this Senator said that I have a particular interest in this court and what it does on Federal personnel matters, it is because I have been a longtime advocate for whistleblower protection legislation and have been involved with my colleagues in this body in passing some of that whistleblower protection legislation. I congratulate Mr. Reyna and his family on this important lifetime appointment. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, often I come to the Senate floor to talk about alternative energy. Most of the time it is about biofuels. Sometimes it is about wind, because I am the author of the wind energy tax credit. Sometimes it is to speak about it. Hardly ever do I come to the floor to talk about it in regard to the attempt to amend a certain bill on the floor. I come for that purpose now, and I come to express my strong opposition to amendment No. 220 filed at the desk by Senator Coburn. I don't find any fault with the issue Senator Coburn raises, only when it is raised. I sense from some of his arguments and press releases that it is raised to bring up the issue of energy and what energy should be subsidized or not subsidized, or whether any energy ought to be subsidized, and also maybe to point out some things that are wrong with the Tax Code. I can't find any fault with any of those motives. I only find fault, let's say, in the sense that it is being brought up to show that there are some things wrong with the Tax Code and the Tax Code ought to be reformed. Yes, if anybody said the Tax Code was a perfect piece of work, you might think: Well, you have been in Washington too long or you don't exercise good judgment or you are not in the real world. So I think it is perfectly legitimate to bring up issues about the Tax Code, but in the sense of reform of the Tax Code, not as an isolated amendment to some other bill, for the simple reason that if you do that, with the complexity of our Tax Code--reforming it in that way--every Senator attempting to do that would be growing a long gray beard for the years it would take to do it piecemeal. Hopefully, we can get it done sometime in the context of tax reform and tax simplification, or flat tax or fair tax, and also with the corporation tax. As to the motive for bringing up subsidies for energy, it is a perfectly legitimate subject to bring up, but it ought to be brought up in the context of a national energy policy. I believe Senator Coburn is like me. He feels if you are going to have a growing economy, you have to have a growth in the use of energy, except for possible conservation. If you are going to do more for more people, you are going to have to have an increase in the use of energy. So it is in that vein that I state my opposition to the Coburn amendment. Senator Coburn's amendment would raise the tax on domestic energy production by repealing an incentive for the use of homegrown renewable ethanol. I am astonished, given our current situation, that there are some who would prefer less domestic energy production. With conflicts in the Middle East and crude oil over $100 a barrel, we should be on the same side. I have always considered myself on the same side as Senator Coburn on energy issues. We should all be on the side of more domestically produced energy, and that would be nuclear, it could be alternative energy, and it would be drill here and drill now. The tremendous cost of America's dependence on foreign oil has never been more clear than when you have the conflicts and the revolutions going on in oil-producing regions of the world--now in the Middle East and northern Africa. So we have this threat, and in light of that threat, we should have an energy policy that says ``all of the above.'' You don't pick and choose. I support drilling here and drilling now. I support renewable energy. I support conservation, both what might be mandated by public policy as well as personal conservation. I think people who know me know I have a reputation for conservation for several reasons--maybe energy conservation, but also it leaves more money in your pocket. I also support nuclear energy. So I believe it is very counterproductive for Senators from big oil country to single out energy that comes from American agriculture--renewable energy, homegrown energy, not imported. I didn't pick this fight. I support energy from all sources. I support traditional oil and gas, and more of it, from here. I held 21 meetings in 20 different counties Monday through Thursday during the last recess, and there wasn't a single person at one of them who didn't say: How come we aren't making more use of our own energy? They didn't say: We import $730 million a day of oil, but I told them, and it emphasized their point. Why ship $730 million every day overseas to parts of the world where they use the money to train terrorists to kill us? And, of course, American taxpayers--American taxpayers--with tax incentives have been supporting oil and gas for over 100 years. So the attack on homegrown energy is remarkable, isn't it? We shouldn't be fighting each other over domestic energy sources. We should be fighting OPEC and foreign dictators and oil sheiks who hold our economy hostage. You see it right now, because of the anxiety about what is going on in Libya, and raising the price of gasoline 75 or 80 cents. The author of the amendment has argued that the production of clean homegrown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible. It is important to remember that the incentive exists to help producers of ethanol to compete with the oil industry or, as you so often hear in this town, we have to have a level playing field. Remember that the oil industry has been well supported by the Federal Treasury for more than a century. Oil was discovered in 1859. I don't know how many years later it was that there were tax incentives for the production of oil, but it has been a long time. President Obama, in his budget request for 2012, has advocated repealing a dozen or so subsidies to big oil. He has argued that a century-old industry no longer needs tax breaks. With oil prices at $100 a barrel, and record profits being made, some could certainly question why this industry needs any taxpayer subsidy at all. President Obama's proposal would repeal $44 billion in oil and gas subsidies over a 10-year period of time. I wish to remind my colleagues of a debate we had last summer on an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Sanders. The amendment he offered would have, among other things, repealed about $35 billion of tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. Opponents of the Sanders amendment argued that repealing the oil and gas subsidies would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependence on foreign oil. Well, we don't want to do that, do we? Opponents also argued it would cost U.S. jobs. We also argued it would increase prices at the pump for consumers--something you don't want to do when you are in a recession. I tend to agree with these arguments in regard to the help that the Federal Treasury gives to oil companies. All of my Republican colleagues, and more than one-third of the Democrats, did as well. But a repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a tax increase as well that will surely be passed on to the American consumer--no different for ethanol in your gas tank than gasoline in your gas tank. If you take subsidies off of oil, it raises the price of gasoline. If you take the incentives off of ethanol, it raises the price of ethanol. I know that removing incentives for oil and gas will have the same impact as removing incentives for ethanol. We will get less domestically produced ethanol, it will cost U.S. jobs, it will increase our dependence upon foreign oil, and it will increase the price at the pump for the American consumer. We are already dependent upon foreign sources for more than 60 percent of our oil needs. Why do my colleagues at this time want to increase our foreign energy dependence when we can produce it right here at home--clean burning, environmentally good? I wish to ask my colleagues who voted against repealing oil and gas subsidies but who support repealing incentives for renewable fuels why they have this inconsistency? Where are the amendments from fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks to repeal the oil and gas subsidies? The fact is it is intellectually inconsistent to say that increasing taxes on ethanol is justified but that it is irresponsible to do the very same thing on oil and gas production. If tax incentives lead to more domestic energy production and good-paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and gas so important in accomplishing that goal? It is even more ridiculous to claim that the 30-year-old ethanol industry is mature and, thus, no longer needs the support of the taxpayers, while the century-old oil industry still receives $35 billion in taxpayer support. Regardless, I don't believe we should be raising taxes on any type of energy production or on any individual, particularly during a weak economy. The Senator from Oklahoma insists that because renewable fuel is required to be used, then somehow it doesn't need an incentive. But with oil prices at $100 a barrel, oil companies are doing everything they can to extract more oil from the ground. There isn't a mandate to use oil, but it has a 100-year monopoly on our transportation infrastructure, so essentially it is a mandate. When there is little competition to oil, and it is enormously profitable--and we will see those reports next week--wouldn't the sponsor argue that the necessary incentives exist to produce it without additional taxpayer support, if we wanted to be consistent? Oil essentially does have a mandate, as I just said. The economics of oil production are clearly in favor of the producer, not the consumer. Why do they need taxpayer support? It is also important to understand the hidden cost of our dependence upon foreign oil. We had a peer-reviewed paper published in 2010 concluding that--and let me say parenthetically, before I quote, the leeway is somewhere between $27 billion and $130 billion: $27 to $138 billion is spent annually by the U.S. military for protection of Middle Eastern maritime oil transit routes and oil infrastructure, with an average of $84 billion a year. This is $84 billion in American Treasury spent on the defense of shipping lanes to quench our thirst for foreign oil. It is not reflected in the price at the pump. It is a hidden cost and the hidden cost is paid by the very same people who support the military, our Navy, the American taxpayers. Milton Copulos, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a veteran of the Heritage Foundation, testified before Congress in 2006 on this very issue. He testified that the hidden cost of imported oil is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline from the Persian Gulf. There is no hidden U.S. military cost attributed to homegrown ethanol. Do you understand that? You don't have to have the Navy of the United States keeping shipping lanes open for the ethanol that you burn in your car. No subsidy of $8.35 a gallon for ethanol such as there is for oil, according to the Heritage Foundation. Let's have a debate on ethanol, but let's debate it in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. This debate should include the subsidies for all energy production. We do not pick out one versus others. What is unique about the subsidy for ethanol? We also have subsidies for grain and for biodiesel. When is that going to come up? We had a subsidy for wind energy--I know it because I got that legislated 18 years ago--and a subsidy for solar, subsidy for biomass, subsidy for geothermal, subsidy for nuclear energy. Why just ethanol at this point? But I said at the beginning, talking about energy subsidies--oil, alternative energy, nuclear energy, conservation--is legitimate. But don't pick one out. What are we going to do about all the rest of them? Are we going to take a subsidy a day? Take wind tomorrow? Take solar the next day? There is a context in which to do this. We all say we need a national energy policy. These subsidies have to be discussed in the context of a national energy policy. Nearly every type of energy gets some market- distorting subsidy from the Federal Government. We can say that is not right. But do we want alternative energy or don't we want alternative energy? Do we want renewable energy or don't we want renewable energy? Do you think we would have an ethanol industry today if there had not been a tax incentive a long time ago? No. What about all the people who say we should not be using corn or grain, a food product, for fuel, we ought to be eating it? They say we ought to use corn stover, wood chips, switchgrass, other things that have cellulose in them and get our ethanol from that. I agree 100 percent. But how in the heck do we think we would ever get to producing ethanol out of corn stover and wood chips and switchgrass, et cetera, if we had not had 30 years of engineering to make ethanol out of grain--which we did not do very efficiently 30 years ago but now we do much more efficiently today. We have to have the first generation for the second generation. I say an honest energy policy and debate should include ethanol. It should include subsidies for oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass. How do you think we would ever get hydropower in the West if the taxpayers had not paid for the Hoover Dam? It is hypocritical to put our economic and national security at risk by targeting ethanol while disregarding the subsidies for all other energy sources. Do you know the debate about alternative energy is a debate about our national security because, for this country, the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is our national defense and just think how weak our national defense is when we have to depend upon oil coming from the volatile Middle East, where there is revolution going on right now. Wouldn't it be better for it to be domestic crude? Why do you suppose the Defense Department, and even our whole aviation industry right now, is putting some money into research to develop alternative energies, including the stuff we call renewable and even things we do not know much about yet? Ethanol from algae is an example. Because our military leaders know we should not be dependent on it. Just think of the retired generals and admirals out here speaking everyday of why we need alternative energy and speaking very highly of ethanol. I say it is hypocritical because it has something to do with our national security and we do take an oath to uphold that Constitution and the national security is our No. 1 responsibility. We know State governments and local governments cannot protect us from foreign intervention, people who want to kill us. Only the Federal Government is qualified and has the power to do it, the constitutional power--but also to bring the resources together to get the job done. Repealing the ethanol tax incentive will raise taxes on producers, blenders, and ultimately consumers of renewable fuel. This amendment is a gas tax increase of over 5 cents a gallon at the pump. I don't see the logic of arguing for a gas tax increase when we have so many Americans unemployed and underemployed, struggling just to barely make it from day to day. I know we all agree we cannot and should not allow job-killing tax hikes during this time of economic recession and, more important, that recession is going to stay as long as there is some economic uncertainty. Debates such as this--should we be importing more oil--lend themselves to that uncertainty. Unfortunately, those Members who have called for ending the ethanol incentive have directly contradicted this pledge of not having tax hikes because a lapse in the credit will raise taxes, will cost over 100,000 U.S. jobs at a time of near 9 percent unemployment and increase our dependence upon foreign oil. There is a taxpayer watchdog group called Americans for Tax Reform. They consider repeal of this incentive to be a great big tax increase. Americans for Tax Reform states: ``Repealing the ethanol credit is a corporate income tax increase.'' I agree. Now is not the time to impose a gas tax hike on the American people. Now is not the time to send pink slips to ethanol-related jobs. Ethanol currently accounts for 10 percent of our transportation fuel. A study concluded that the ethanol industry contributed $8.4 billion to the Federal Treasury in 2009, $3.4 billion more than the ethanol incentive. Today, the industry supports 400,000 jobs. That is why I support a homegrown renewable fuels industry. I conclude by asking my colleagues: If we allowed the tax incentives to lapse, from where would we import an additional 10 percent of our oil? Because there is a policy in this Congress, don't drill in the United States, import it. The President was in Brazil, last week I believe it was, saying: President of Brazil, you ought to drill off the shore of Brazil because we want to import oil from you. At the very same time we are slow at issuing permits so we can drill our own oil off our own shores, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. Where are we going to go? Are we going to go to the Middle Eastern oil sheiks? Send even more billions of dollars over there to give them money to train terrorists to kill us or do we want to get it from Hugo Chavez, who every day is saying something about how he hates America? He is taking the side of Qadhafi right this very day, against the revolutionaries of that country, the very people we are trying to help bring a better life to and stop genocide. I don't think we want to go to the Middle East for 10 percent more of our energy in our cars or to Hugo Chavez. I prefer, instead, that we support our renewable fuel producers based right here at home, rather than send our workers a pink slip. I would prefer to decrease our dependence on Hugo Chavez, not increase that dependence on him, and I certainly do not support raising the tax on gasoline during this weak economy. Let me say something I said at the beginning and then I am going to yield the floor; that is, there is a context to talk about this. There is nothing illegitimate about anybody bringing up any tax incentive anytime they want to or any law that is on the books because they ought to be reviewed from time to time. But when it comes to energy policy at a time of $4 gas, at a time of anxiety about what is going on in Libya, at a time when we all know that people in this country want a national energy policy, it ought to be talked about in the context of energy legislation. We should talk about subsidy as a generic subject, not just picking out ethanol or any other one, just like some people here would like to pick out the subsidy for oil and end it--such as the President has suggested in his budget. We want to do it in the context of a national energy policy and a subsidy that is a subsidy to oil, to all renewable energies--and there are a dozen of them, I bet--to conservation, and to nuclear energy. Let's emphasize nuclear energy. When we are talking about a subsidy, do we think we would have a single nuclear plant in the United States if 60 years ago the Federal Government, this Congress, hadn't passed the Price-Anderson Act to set up Federal support for it, indirect or direct, whatever it was. It took that to get it going. We had to reinstitute that in 2005 or we still wouldn't be considering any nuclear plants. We do it in the context of a national energy policy. We do it in the context of subsidies on all sorts of energy, not just one of them. If we are doing it for tax reform purposes, then it has to be done in the context of overall tax reform because, as I said, we start on this little tax incentive today and that little tax incentive tomorrow and that little tax incentive the next day and we will be here until as long as Methuselah lived, in order to get it all done. I hope there will be some consideration of this in a generic way, not in the specific way of this amendment. That is why I do not support the amendment at this time, but I want people to know I do not abhor the idea of talking about the ethanol tax credit or any other tax credit, except I want to talk about energy tax credits all together. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on another of President Obama's judicial nominees. Tonight's vote to confirm Ms. Mae D'Agostino will be the 14th judicial nominee confirmed this Congress. It is the 10th judicial emergency filled this year. Even though I gave an update to my colleagues just 11 days ago, when we had our last judicial nomination vote, I will give a short report on the status of judicial nominations. To date, we have taken positive action on 33 of the 60 judicial nominees submitted this Congress, or 55 percent. We continue to have nominations hearings every 2 weeks, and have favorably reported nominees out of committee at every weekly markup session. Furthermore, nominees in committee continue to be processed much faster than those nominated by President Bush. On average, President Obama's district court nominees have only had to wait 66 days from nomination to their hearing. For President Bush's nominees, the wait time was nearly double, at 120 days. President Bush's circuit court nominees waited, on average, 247 days for a hearing. President Obama's nominees are receiving their hearing, on average, within 72 days. Even with our rapid pace, the Federal courts still hold a vacancy rate of almost 11 percent. Yet 54 percent of the vacancies do not have nominees. While we are processing consensus nominees in a fair and thorough manner, we cannot lower the vacancy rate if no nominee exists. The seat to which Ms. D'Agostino has been nominated, vacant since March of 2006, is categorized as a judicial emergency. This vacancy should never have been deemed an emergency. President Bush nominated not one, but two nominees to this vacancy during the 109th and 110th Congresses. First, Mary Donohue, who had served as New York State's Lieutenant Governor, was nominated in June 2006, 3 months after the vacancy occurred. Ms. Donohue's nomination languished in committee without a hearing or a committee vote for 435 days. Her nomination was withdrawn in September 2007. President Bush then nominated Thomas Marcelle to the seat. He waited 155 days in the Judiciary Committee and never received a hearing. The nomination was returned at the end of the 110th Congress. In sum, the seat had a nominee for 590 days, with no action. This is justice delayed. I would note that both candidates had a rating from the ABA of ``Well Qualified.'' It took President Obama over 20 months to finally nominate an individual to this vacancy. While I am disappointed this seat has been needlessly vacant for so long, I am pleased to support the nominee before us today. Mae Avila D'Agostino received her B.A., magna cum laude, from Siena College and her J.D. in 1980 from Syracuse University College of Law. Ms. D'Agostino began her legal career in 1981 as an associate attorney at Maynard, O'Connor & Smith. In 1985, she was made a partner. In 1997, Ms. D'Agostino left Maynard, O'Connor & Smith to start her own firm D'Agostino, Krackeler, Maguire & Cardona, P.C., where she currently practices. Throughout her career, Ms. D'Agostino has primarily practiced in the area of defense litigation with a concentration on medical malpractice. In addition to her legal practice, Ms. D'Agostino has also taught legal courses at the Junior College of Albany and Albany Law School. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Ms. D'Agostino a unanimous ``Well-Qualified'' rating. Her nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee by voice vote just 25 days ago. I congratulate the nominee and wish her well in her public service as a U.S. district judge.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, all too often we learn of new and emerging drug threats to our communities that often have a huge negative impact on our youth. When these drug threats emerge it is crucial that we unite to halt the spread of the problem before it consumes families and communities. Today we are confronted with new and very dangerous substances packaged as innocent products. Specifically, more and more kids are able to go online or to the nearest novelty store at the local shopping mall and purchase incense laced with compounds that seriously alter the mind. These products are commonly referred to as ``K2''or ``Spice'' among other names. Although these products contain a label that states that the product is not for human consumption, kids and drug users are smoking these products in order to obtain a ``legal high.'' It is believed that these products emerged on the scene beginning about 4 or 5 years ago and their use spread quickly throughout Europe. According to a study conducted by the European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, most of the chemical compounds found in ``K2'' are not reported on the label. This study concluded that the compounds are not listed because there is a deliberate marketing strategy to represent this product as a natural substance. However, these products are anything but natural. Most of the chemical compounds the Drug Enforcement Administration has identified within K2 products were invented by Dr. John W. Huffman of Clemson University in the 1990's for research purposes. These compounds were never intended to be used for any other purpose than research. Dr. Huffman developed these compounds to further understand endocannabinoid receptors in the body. They were only tested on mice and never tested on humans. No long term effects of their use are currently known. As more and more people are experimenting with K2 it is becoming completely evident that their use is anything but safe. The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports significant increases in the amount of calls concerning these products. There were only 13 calls related to K2 use reported for 2009, but there were over 1,000 calls concerning K2 use in 2010. Common effects reported by emergency room doctors include: increased agitation, elevated heart rate and blood pressure, hallucinations, and seizures. Effects from the highs from these synthetic drugs are reported to last as few as several hours and as long as one week. Dr. Huffman stated that since so little research has been conducted on these compounds that using any one of them would be like, ``playing Russian roulette.'' In fact, Dr. Anthony Scalzo, a professor of emergency medicine at St. Louis University, reports that the compounds are significantly more potent than the active ingredients of marijuana. Dr. Scalzo states that what is troubling is the fact that the amount of compounds varies from product to product so no one can be sure exactly the amount of the drug they are putting in their body. Dr. Scalzo states that this can lead to significant problems such as altering of mind, addiction, injury, and even death. According to various news articles across the nation, K2 can cause serious erratic and criminal behavior. In Mooresville, Indiana police arrested a group of teens after they were connected to a string of burglaries while high on K2. Another case in Honolulu, Hawaii shows police arrested a 23-year-old man after he tried to throw his girlfriend off an 11th floor balcony after smoking K2. A 14-year-old boy in Missouri nearly threw himself out of a 5th story window after smoking K2. Once the teen got over his high he denied having any suicidal intentions. Doctors believe he was hallucinating at the time of this incident. K2 use is also causing serious health problems and increased visits to the emergency room. A Louisiana teen said he became very ill after trying K2. The teen said he experienced numbness starting at his feet and traveling to his head. He was nauseous, light-headed and was having hallucinations. This teen stated that K2 is being passed around at school and that many people were trying it without fear, assuming it was safe because it was legal. A 21-year-old man, from Greenfield, Indiana repeatedly stabbed himself in the neck while hallucinating on K2. Regrettably, K2 use also has deadly consequences. On June 6, 2010, David Rozga, a recent 18-year-old Indianola, Iowa high school graduate smoked a package of K2 along with his friends before going to a concert thinking it was harmless fun. According to his parents, David and his friends purchased this product at a mall in Des Moines after hearing about it from some college students who were home for the summer. After smoking this product, David's friends reported that David became highly agitated and terrified. When he got home, he found a family shotgun and committed suicide approximately 90 minutes after smoking K2. The Indianola police believe David was under the influence of K2 at the time of his death. David's parents and many in the community who knew David were completely shocked and saddened by this event. David was looking forward to starting his college career at the University of Northern Iowa in the fall. As a result, the Iowa Pharmacy Board placed an emergency ban on K2 products in Iowa beginning on July 21, 2010. A permanent ban is currently being considered in the legislature. David's tragic death may have been the first case in the United States of synthetic drug use leading to someone's death, but sadly it was only the beginning. A month after David's tragic death, police report that a 28-year-old Middletown, Indiana mother of two passed away after smoking a lethal dose of K2. This woman's godson reported that anyone could get K2 easily because it can be sold to anybody at any price at any time. This last August, a recent 19-year-old Lake Highlands High School graduate in Dallas, TX, passed away after smoking K2. The medical examiner confirmed that this boy had K2 in his system at the time of his death. Even more disturbing is the involvement of synthetic drugs in a recent school shooting that occurred in Omaha, Nebraska in January of 2011. Robert Butler, Jr. shot and killed himself and Dr. Vicki Kaspar, the assistant principal at the school. Doctors have confirmed that Robert Butler had K2 in his system at the time of the shooting. These incidents throughout the country give me great concern that synthetic drug use, especially K2 use, is a dangerous and growing problem. Many states, including Iowa, have acted to ban the sale and possession of the chemical compounds found in these products. Many more states, counties and communities throughout the country have proposed bans or are in the process of banning these products. The DEA has administratively scheduled five chemicals found in K2. However, this ban will only last for one year with an option to extend the ban for an additional 6 months. There is no guarantee that the chemicals will be permanently banned in the timeframe allowed. It is time to stop the use and trafficking of these products before more tragedies occur. This is why I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Feinstein, is joining me in introducing the David Mitchell Rozga Act. Although David Rozga is one victim of many from these terrible drugs, his tragic death highlights the damaging nature of these substances and the great loss that they incur to our society. This legislation will take the chemicals the DEA has identified within K2 products and places them as Schedule I narcotics with other deadly drugs like meth and cocaine. The legislation will also amend the Controlled Substances Act, doubling the timeframe the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services have to emergency schedule substances from 18 months to 36 months. This will allow for dangerous substances to be quickly removed from the market while being studied for permanent scheduling. I am grateful that the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, a group that represents more than 5,000 local community anti-drug coalitions throughout the nation, is endorsing this legislation to ban these dangerous synthetic drugs from our society. It is clear that the sale and use of synthetic drugs is a growing problem. People believe, like David Rozga believed, these products are safe because they can buy them online or at the nearest shopping mall. We need to do a better job at educating the public and our communities about the dangers these products present and nip this problem in the bud before it grows and leads to more tragedy. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President; toady we vote on our 13th judicial nominee in just 29 legislative days. In this session of the Senate, we have confirmed more judicial nominees than in the same time period for any of the previous four Presidents. I like to keep my colleagues up-to-date with our cooperation and progress on judicial nominees. We continue to process nominees at a fast pace in committee. We held our fourth nominations hearing yesterday and have heard from 17 judicial nominees this year. The Judiciary Committee met this morning and reported an additional district court nominee. We have now reported 23 nominees, nearly 40 percent of the 58 judicial nominations made by President Obama this year. The committee has taken some step forward on 55 percent of the judicial nominees. We have delivered on our promise to move consensus nominees. Even with our fast pace, the current vacancy rate remains high. But with 94 vacancies in the Federal courts, the President has only put forward 44 nominees for those vacancies. That is 50 vacancies without a nominee. For seats designated judicial emergencies, 57 percent of those vacancies have no nominee. As I have said in the past, the burden is on the President to nominate consensus individuals for current vacancies. Yet, for the second time, President Obama has sent up a nomination to a seat which is not vacant. I think we can all agree the Senate's time and resources are valuable. My priority continues to be carefully reviewing nominations for vacancies which require our immediate attention. Today we vote on Amy Berman Jackson, nominated to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia. Ms. Jackson is not the first nominee to be considered for this vacancy. Michael O'Neill, who served as chief counsel and staff director to then-Chairman Specter, was nominated by President Bush to fill this seat in June of 2008. He waited for more than 18 months for a hearing and a vote--neither of which he received. His nomination was returned to the President in January 2009. I am disappointed the Senate did not give Mr. O'Neill the courtesy Ms. Jackson is receiving today. Ms. Jackson received her A.B., cum laude, from Harvard College and her J.D. from Harvard Law School, cum laude. Upon graduation from law school, she served as a law clerk to the Honorable Harrison L. Winter of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ms. Jackson served as an assistant U.S. attorney before moving into private practice. She has focused on white-collar crime, plaintiffs' work involving multidistrict litigation and civil matters. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated her as ``well qualified.'' I congratulate the nominee and wish her well in her public service as a U.S. district judge.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, all too often we learn of new and emerging drug threats to our communities that often have a huge negative impact on our youth. When these drug threats emerge it is crucial that we unite to halt the spread of the problem before it consumes families and communities. Today we are confronted with new and very dangerous substances packaged as innocent products. Specifically, more and more kids are able to go online or to the nearest novelty store at the local shopping mall and purchase incense laced with compounds that seriously alter the mind. These products are commonly referred to as ``K2''or ``Spice'' among other names. Although these products contain a label that states that the product is not for human consumption, kids and drug users are smoking these products in order to obtain a ``legal high.'' It is believed that these products emerged on the scene beginning about 4 or 5 years ago and their use spread quickly throughout Europe. According to a study conducted by the European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, most of the chemical compounds found in ``K2'' are not reported on the label. This study concluded that the compounds are not listed because there is a deliberate marketing strategy to represent this product as a natural substance. However, these products are anything but natural. Most of the chemical compounds the Drug Enforcement Administration has identified within K2 products were invented by Dr. John W. Huffman of Clemson University in the 1990's for research purposes. These compounds were never intended to be used for any other purpose than research. Dr. Huffman developed these compounds to further understand endocannabinoid receptors in the body. They were only tested on mice and never tested on humans. No long term effects of their use are currently known. As more and more people are experimenting with K2 it is becoming completely evident that their use is anything but safe. The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports significant increases in the amount of calls concerning these products. There were only 13 calls related to K2 use reported for 2009, but there were over 1,000 calls concerning K2 use in 2010. Common effects reported by emergency room doctors include: increased agitation, elevated heart rate and blood pressure, hallucinations, and seizures. Effects from the highs from these synthetic drugs are reported to last as few as several hours and as long as one week. Dr. Huffman stated that since so little research has been conducted on these compounds that using any one of them would be like, ``playing Russian roulette.'' In fact, Dr. Anthony Scalzo, a professor of emergency medicine at St. Louis University, reports that the compounds are significantly more potent than the active ingredients of marijuana. Dr. Scalzo states that what is troubling is the fact that the amount of compounds varies from product to product so no one can be sure exactly the amount of the drug they are putting in their body. Dr. Scalzo states that this can lead to significant problems such as altering of mind, addiction, injury, and even death. According to various news articles across the nation, K2 can cause serious erratic and criminal behavior. In Mooresville, Indiana police arrested a group of teens after they were connected to a string of burglaries while high on K2. Another case in Honolulu, Hawaii shows police arrested a 23-year-old man after he tried to throw his girlfriend off an 11th floor balcony after smoking K2. A 14-year-old boy in Missouri nearly threw himself out of a 5th story window after smoking K2. Once the teen got over his high he denied having any suicidal intentions. Doctors believe he was hallucinating at the time of this incident. K2 use is also causing serious health problems and increased visits to the emergency room. A Louisiana teen said he became very ill after trying K2. The teen said he experienced numbness starting at his feet and traveling to his head. He was nauseous, light-headed and was having hallucinations. This teen stated that K2 is being passed around at school and that many people were trying it without fear, assuming it was safe because it was legal. A 21-year-old man, from Greenfield, Indiana repeatedly stabbed himself in the neck while hallucinating on K2. Regrettably, K2 use also has deadly consequences. On June 6, 2010, David Rozga, a recent 18-year-old Indianola, Iowa high school graduate smoked a package of K2 along with his friends before going to a concert thinking it was harmless fun. According to his parents, David and his friends purchased this product at a mall in Des Moines after hearing about it from some college students who were home for the summer. After smoking this product, David's friends reported that David became highly agitated and terrified. When he got home, he found a family shotgun and committed suicide approximately 90 minutes after smoking K2. The Indianola police believe David was under the influence of K2 at the time of his death. David's parents and many in the community who knew David were completely shocked and saddened by this event. David was looking forward to starting his college career at the University of Northern Iowa in the fall. As a result, the Iowa Pharmacy Board placed an emergency ban on K2 products in Iowa beginning on July 21, 2010. A permanent ban is currently being considered in the legislature. David's tragic death may have been the first case in the United States of synthetic drug use leading to someone's death, but sadly it was only the beginning. A month after David's tragic death, police report that a 28-year-old Middletown, Indiana mother of two passed away after smoking a lethal dose of K2. This woman's godson reported that anyone could get K2 easily because it can be sold to anybody at any price at any time. This last August, a recent 19-year-old Lake Highlands High School graduate in Dallas, TX, passed away after smoking K2. The medical examiner confirmed that this boy had K2 in his system at the time of his death. Even more disturbing is the involvement of synthetic drugs in a recent school shooting that occurred in Omaha, Nebraska in January of 2011. Robert Butler, Jr. shot and killed himself and Dr. Vicki Kaspar, the assistant principal at the school. Doctors have confirmed that Robert Butler had K2 in his system at the time of the shooting. These incidents throughout the country give me great concern that synthetic drug use, especially K2 use, is a dangerous and growing problem. Many states, including Iowa, have acted to ban the sale and possession of the chemical compounds found in these products. Many more states, counties and communities throughout the country have proposed bans or are in the process of banning these products. The DEA has administratively scheduled five chemicals found in K2. However, this ban will only last for one year with an option to extend the ban for an additional 6 months. There is no guarantee that the chemicals will be permanently banned in the timeframe allowed. It is time to stop the use and trafficking of these products before more tragedies occur. This is why I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Feinstein, is joining me in introducing the David Mitchell Rozga Act. Although David Rozga is one victim of many from these terrible drugs, his tragic death highlights the damaging nature of these substances and the great loss that they incur to our society. This legislation will take the chemicals the DEA has identified within K2 products and places them as Schedule I narcotics with other deadly drugs like meth and cocaine. The legislation will also amend the Controlled Substances Act, doubling the timeframe the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services have to emergency schedule substances from 18 months to 36 months. This will allow for dangerous substances to be quickly removed from the market while being studied for permanent scheduling. I am grateful that the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, a group that represents more than 5,000 local community anti-drug coalitions throughout the nation, is endorsing this legislation to ban these dangerous synthetic drugs from our society. It is clear that the sale and use of synthetic drugs is a growing problem. People believe, like David Rozga believed, these products are safe because they can buy them online or at the nearest shopping mall. We need to do a better job at educating the public and our communities about the dangers these products present and nip this problem in the bud before it grows and leads to more tragedy. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. He uses the acronym REINS, but it is called the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. Basically, what it does--and I applaud Senator Paul for his amendment, and I will surely vote for it--and that is, when we delegate authority to agencies in the executive branch of government to write regulations, and if those regulations are considered ``major rules,'' then they would have to be submitted to the Congress for our approval before they can go into effect and then would also have to be signed by the President before they would go into effect. It seems to me that is a natural extension of Congress's authority under the Constitution to legislate and to be the only branch of government that can legislate. It seems to me to be a very adequate check on out-of-control bureaucracy, that they can only do those things Congress intended they do in the legislation they pass. I would extend my remarks on something a little bit unrelated to the McConnell amendment but still to the overreach of the Environmental Protection Agency; this is, in regard to some of their regulations on agriculture. When it comes to their regulation of agriculture, instead of EPA standing for Environmental Protection Agency, I think it stands for ``End Production Agriculture.'' That is not their intent. But in this city of Washington--and I describe it sometimes as an island surrounded by reality--it is evidence of not enough common sense being put into the thought process of issuing regulations. I could give several examples, but I may just give a few. Before I give those examples, I wish to compliment EPA on one thing. A year or two ago, when one of their subdivision heads testified before Congress--and the issue was agriculture, and she said she had never been on a family farm, in the 20-some years they had been working in the EPA and yet dealing with agriculture issues--I invited her to a family farm and she came and showed a great deal of interest. We had a very thorough tour of some facilities in research, agriculture, and biofuels industries within our State. They were very thankful we did it. I believe it has helped their consideration of the impact that maybe some of their regulation writing has on agriculture. But, still, I am not totally convinced. So I would use one or two examples of regulation that is out of control. One of them would deal with what I call the fugitive dust issue. ``Fugitive dust'' is a term EPA uses to regulate what they call particulate matter. The theory behind fugitive dust rules is that if you are making dust that is harmful, then you have to keep it within your property line. So let's see the reality of that. You are farming. The wind is blowing, and you have to work in the fields. The wind is blowing so hard that you cannot keep the dust, when you are tilling the fields, within your property line. Well, are you supposed to not farm? Are you supposed to not raise food? Are you supposed to not be concerned about the production of food that is so necessary to our national defense and the social cohesion of our society? Because we are only nine meals away from a revolution. If you go nine meals without eating, and you do not have prospects of it, are we going to have revolts such as they have in other countries because they do not have enough food? No, we have a stable supply of food in this country, so we do not have to worry about it. But suppose we did have to worry about it. Well, there is more to farming than just the prosperity of rural America. There is the national defense and social cohesion, and all those issues. But the point is, they are thinking about issuing a rule--in fact, they started a process, 2 or 3 years ago, of issuing a rule maybe a year or two from now--hopefully, they will decide not to--that says you have to keep the dust within your property line. I wonder, when I talk about the common sense that is lacking in this big city--not only in EPA, but in a lot of agencies--do they realize only God determines when the wind blows? Do they realize only God determines when soybeans have 13 percent moisture in September or October, and at 13 percent moisture you have to harvest them and you only have about 2 or 3 days of ideal weather to harvest them? When you combine soybeans, dust happens; and if dust happens and you can't keep it within your property lines, you are going to violate the EPA regulation. What are you supposed to do, shut down and let a whole year's supply of food stay in the field? No. Good business practices would say when beans get to 13 percent moisture, whether the wind is blowing or not, you are going to take your combine out into the field and not worry about the dust. Does somebody at EPA think John Deere and Caterpillar and New Holland and all of those companies are thinking about: Well, we have this problem with EPA; we have to do something about the dust and we have to control it coming out of our combines? Or, when our tillage equipment goes across the field we have to consider the dust that comes up from tilling the field? Well, we have asked these manufacturers. They don't have any solutions to these problems. I think they probably think it is ridiculous, after 6,000 years of agriculture throughout our society, that it is an issue. But there are people down at EPA who think it is an issue. So I use fugitive dust as one example as to whether they realize what they are doing to production agriculture. Another one would be spilled milk. Milk has fat in it. So now they are saying if dairy farmers have above-the-ground tanks to store their milk, they are the same as above-the-ground oil tanks and they are going to have the same regulation applied to them as applied to petroleum. The compliance requirements on this have been delayed pending action on an exemption, so maybe this won't go through. But think how ridiculous it is that people at the Environmental Protection Agency are saying if you are a dairy farmer and you happen to spill a little milk, you have to follow the same environmental requirements as an oil company if they spill oil with respect to the cleanup. But that is where we are on these sorts of rules. I have other examples such as Atrazine, and the potential application of Chesapeake Bay requirements to the rest of the country. But I hope we will take a look at this McConnell amendment that speaks to carbon dioxide plus the examples I have given of the harm EPA regulations will do to family farming and stop to think about it. We have to find ways to stop EPA from doing things that don't make common sense. I think a start would be to vote for the McConnell amendment, and I am going to vote for it. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I believe there is a pending amendment, which hopefully we will vote on, called the McConnell amendment. It basically takes away from the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. The Environmental Protection Agency gets this power from a Supreme Court decision that said they had the authority to do so. That decision was about 2 or 3 years ago. It came about 16 or 17 years after the 1990 Clean Air Act was passed. Those of us who were around here and debated and worked on the Clean Air Act of 1990 don't remember any discussion about EPA under that legislation having the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, but obviously the Supreme Court read the law differently than we intended. The Environmental Protection Agency was told it could regulate greenhouse gases. The Environmental Protection Agency did not have to do that, but I suppose they are like regulators, generally. Some ask: Why do cows moo? Why do pigs squeal? And why do regulators regulate? Because regulators know how to regulate, and that is all they know how to do. So they are going to issue a regulation if they think they have the authority. The situation is this: If we don't take away the authority--and in a sense overturn the Supreme Court case--EPA is going to put us in a position of being economically uncompetitive with the rest of the world, particularly in manufacturing. When you increase the cost of energy by anywhere from $1,800, under one study, to $3,000, under another study, per household, you are very dramatically increasing the cost of manufacturing. If we are worried about too many manufacturing jobs going overseas--and we if would let the EPA follow through with what they want to do, increasing the cost of energy--we will lose all our manufacturing overseas. I have not checked the record, but my guess is a lot of my colleagues who are fighting the McConnell amendment and think it is not the right thing to do are the very same people who are very chagrined because jobs are going overseas and are blaming American industry. Well, if we are going to pass a law that increases the cost of energy in this country, we are not going to have a level playing field with our competitors overseas. That is why I have always said, if we want to regulate CO2, we need to do it by international agreement. Because if China is not on the same level playing field as we are, then we are going to lose our manufacturing to China and other countries. It happens that China puts more CO2 in the air than we do. Take China and Brazil and India and Indonesia, and they put a lot more CO2 into the air than the United States does. Yet somehow EPA is of the view that the United States acting alone can solve the global warming problem? Well, even the EPA Director has testified before committees of Congress that if the rest of the world does not do it, we are not going to make a dent in CO2 just by the United States doing it. But the argument goes that the United States ought to show political leadership in this global economy we have, and if the United States would do something about CO2, the rest of the world would follow along. But China has already said they are not going to follow along. Even Japan, which signed on to the Kyoto treaty, said they would not be involved in extending the Kyoto treaty beyond 2012. If the United States did it by itself, under the guise of being a world leader and setting an example, and the rest of the world did not do it, Uncle Sam would soon become ``Uncle Sucker,'' and we would find our manufacturing fleeing the United States to places where they do not have regulation on CO2, where energy expenses are not as high, and we would lose the jobs accordingly. In a sense, then, those people who have complained for decades about American manufacturing moving overseas would destine the United States to lose more of it. I do not understand how people who are concerned about losing jobs overseas could be fighting the McConnell amendment. Because if we want to preserve jobs in America, our industry has to be competitive with the rest of the world. So I hope the McConnell amendment will be adopted, and I hope there will be some consistency in the reasoning of people who are concerned about the movement of jobs overseas, that it is intellectually dishonest to support EPA adopting regulations that are going to make America uncompetitive. There is nothing wrong with seeking a solution to the CO2 problem. There is nothing wrong with working on the issue of global warming. But it ought to be a level playing field for American industry so we can be competitive with the rest of the world and not lose our industry, not lose our manufacturing overseas, and not lose the jobs that are connected with it. But it often is the case that when either the courts or the Congress delegates broad powers to the executive branch agencies, it seems like we give them an inch and they take a mile. There are plenty of other examples as well--and I will go into some of them in just a moment--of EPA having some authority and moving very dramatically beyond what Congress intended in a way that does not meet the commonsense test. The work of EPA on CO2 is a perfect example of this kind of overreach. First of all, they did not have to do it just because the Supreme Court said they could do it. But like regulators, they want to regulate, and they are moving ahead. I suppose they are moving ahead also because, in 2009, the House of Representatives passed a bill regulating CO2--a bill that would have made the United States very uncompetitive, as I have stated the EPA will--but the Senate declined to take it up. I think this administration is intent upon getting the job done, and so they go to EPA to issue a rule because Congress will not pass the legislation it wants. It is so typical of so many things this administration is doing; that because Congress will not pass a law they want, they see what they can do by regulation. So they are setting out to accomplish a lot of change in public policy that Congress declines to endorse, but they are going to act anyway. If they claim the authority to do it, they will probably get away with it and avoid the will of the people, the will of the people expressed through the Congress of the United States. So if Congress decides to not do something, can the administration ignore the will of the people? Yes, they can, if they want to, but they should not, in my judgment. It brings me to not only the McConnell amendment but a lot of other things we should be doing around here to prevent this outrageous overreach by not only the Environmental Protection Agency but by a lot of other agencies as well. Because when the EPA and other agencies promulgate rules that go beyond the intent of Congress--and never could have passed Congress--it undermines our system of checks and balances. The American people can hold their member of Congress accountable for passing laws they do not like. However, when unelected bureaucrats implement policies with the force of law that they would not have been able to get through the Congress--and that is without direct accountability when a regulator acts instead of Congress acting--something is very wrong, and it is against the will of the people. I think it is time for Congress to reassert its constitutional role. We try to do this from time to time in a process called the Congressional Review Act. I recall last June the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, proposed doing that on these very rules affecting CO2. We did not get a majority vote, so it did not happen. Maybe in the new Congress such an attempt would get a majority vote. We cannot apply that Congressional Review Act again to those same rules, so that brings about the McConnell amendment I am speaking about--to take away the authority of EPA to do it. But perhaps we can use the congressional Review Act on a lot of other issues yet that regulators are regulating maybe against the will of the people, and I hope we will. But there is one measure Senator Paul has suggested and I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to amendment No. 231.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will keep the Federal Government accountable. Whistleblowers are the key to unlocking the secrets of wrongdoing because they have access to information about how the frauds were perpetrated and can help lead authorities in the right direction to uncover the frauds. However, for their brave efforts, they are often the victims of retaliation and are removed from their jobs by supervisors who don't want the wrongdoing uncovered. I have often said whistleblowers are as welcome as skunks at a Sunday picnic, despite the fact that all they do is bring forward the truth. This is wrong and that is why I have supported strong whistleblower protection laws during my time in Congress. The landmark whistleblower law, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, WPA, provided rights and remedies to Executive Branch whistleblowers that are the victims of retaliation. I proudly cosponsored the WPA, but like many laws that are 20 years old, it needs to be updated. So, I cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Akaka in the previous Congress to do just that. We are currently working to introduce similar legislation in this Congress. Despite this effort, there is still a critical gap in whistleblower protections for government employees, namely the lack of whistleblower protections for employees of the Legislative and Judicial branches of the Federal Government. I am here today to start that discussion and introduce legislation that will provide the same whistleblower protection rights currently extended to Executive Branch employees to the Legislative Branch. I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCaskill in introducing the Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011. This important legislation simply adds whistleblower protections to the Legislative Branch by incorporating the WPA into the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, a law I authored to bring Congress in line with many labor laws and workplace protections. I have long believed Congress should practice what it preaches, and this legislation will do just that. A theme that has dominated this new Congress, as well as the elections this past November, is accountability and responsibility in Washington. In most instances, the only reason we discover waste or fraud is because employees are brave enough to stand up to the wrongdoers and expose their offenses. Without these whistleblowers, the American taxpayer would continue to foot the bill. This bill is long overdue. I have previously introduced similar legislation but, unfortunately, those bills were never brought up in Committee. I hope that the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will examine this legislation closely and expeditiously report it to the full Senate so we can ensure employees of the Legislative Branch that they are protected from any reprisals related to protected whistleblowing. Now, it's been a number of years since the Congressional Accountability Act was signed into law by President Clinton, so I would like to remind my colleagues why we passed this law. It was a time very similar to today, the American people were demanding more from their elected officials in Washington and wanted accountability and transparency in all branches of Government. I believed then, as I do now, that Congress needs to put its money where its mouth is and apply the various labor and employment laws that we enforce on other branches of government and businesses all across the country to ourselves. The Congressional Accountability Act did just that. It applied a number of important laws to Congress, including, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Rehabilitation Act, as well as some provisions of title 5 related to Federal service labor- management relations. It also created the Office of Compliance in the Legislative Branch that oversees application of these important laws to the Legislative Branch and ensures that employee's rights under these laws are protected. While the Congressional Accountability Act was a good start, the Office of Compliance has recommended additional laws be applied to the Legislative Branch, including the Whistleblower Protection Act. We have already taken the steps to protect whistleblowers in the Executive Branch. It doesn't make sense not to extend these same protections to whistleblowers in our own backyard. This bill will, very simply, give congressional employees the same protections that workers in the other branches of government already possess. It does this by simply adding the Whistleblower Protection Act to the preexisting list of statutes that are applied to the Legislative Branch by the Congressional Accountability Act. This is a straightforward and simple solution to ensure that employees of the Legislative Branch are not without vital whistleblower protections. I hope my colleagues will join me and Senator McCaskill in supporting this bill to ensure that those who help us in the fight to hold government accountable are not punished for their efforts.