Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. It certainly does. Even if the process we talked about is not followed, once a hold comes to light in the form of an objection, someone will be required to own up to that hold. It will no longer be possible for a leader or their designee to object but claim it is not their objection. They can say on whose behalf they are objecting and why not. We also require Senators placing a hold to give their permission to object in their name. Still, if a Senator objects and does not name another Senator as having the objection, and another Senator does not promptly come forward claiming the objection, the Senator making the objection will be listed in the relative section of the Senate calendar as having placed that hold. I yield, for a final conclusion, to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree. If something has passed the Senate, then obviously it is not being held. The Notice of Intent to Object calendar should be updated to reflect that development. Some of my colleagues have raised another small wrinkle on this issue with me--what if the matter passes after an objection has been made but before the 2 session days have elapsed? It seems to me that in that case, the clerk does not need to go through the ministerial motion of adding an item to the Notice of Intent to Object calendar, only to immediately remove it. Again, if a matter has passed the Senate, there obviously is no hold.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to support the Wyden-Grassley- McCaskill public hold proposal. I apologize to my two colleagues from Oregon and Missouri that I was not on the floor at the proper time. It is all my fault. I am pleased to see this day come where the Senate will finally have the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on our freestanding Senate resolution to require public disclosure of holds. Senator Wyden and I have been at this for a long time. We have made progress at times, and we have also had many disappointments where things did not quite work out the way we had hoped and what we thought the Senate had spoken on through even rollcall votes. It has also been good to have Senator McCaskill join us in helping push this issue to the forefront easily. She did that--I shouldn't say ``easily'' but recently because it has not been easy. Ending secret holds seems like a simple matter, doesn't it. But that has not proved to be the case because secret holds are an informal process. It is easier said than done to push them out into the open using formal Senate procedures. It is kind of like trying to wrestle down a greased hog. However, after a lot of thought and effort, two committee hearings, and many careful revisions, I think this resolution does a pretty good job of accomplishing our simple goal. That goal is to bring some more transparency into how the Senate does its business and, with transparency, more accountability. This is not the only proposal we are considering today related to Senate procedure, and I do not want there to be any confusion. This proposal is not about altering any balance of power between the majority party and the minority party; neither does our resolution alter the rights of any of the 100 Members of this Senate. Over the time I have been working on this issue, I have occasionally encountered arguments purporting to defend the need for secret holds. However, the arguments invariably focus on the legitimacy of holds, not on the subject of secrecy. I want to be very clear that secrecy is my only target and the only thing this resolution eliminates. I fully support the fundamental right of individual Senators to hold or withhold his or her consent when unanimous consent is requested. Senators are not obligated to give their consent to anything they do not want to, and no Senator is entitled to get any other Senator's consent to their motion. I think the best way to describe what we seek to do with this resolution is to explain historically how holds came into being, as Senators have heard me do before. In the old days, when Senators conducted much of their business in a daily way from their desks on the Senate floor, it was a simple matter to stand up and say ``I object'' when necessary. These days, most Senators spend most of their time off the Senate floor. We are required to spend time in committee hearings, meetings with constituents, and attending to other duties that keep us away from this Chamber. As a result, we rely on our respective party leaders in the Senate to protect our rights and prerogatives as individual Senators by asking them to object on our behalf. Just as any Senator has the right to stand up on the Senate floor and publicly say ``I object,'' it is perfectly legitimate to ask another Senator to object on our behalf if we cannot make it to the floor when consent is requested. By the same token, Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf while keeping their identity secret. If a Senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly. We need have no fear of being held accountable by our constituents if we are acting in their interest as we were elected to do. Transparency is essential for accountability, and accountability is an essential component of our constitutional system. Transparency and accountability are also vital for the public to have faith in their government. As I have said many times, the people's business ought to be done in public. In my view, that principle is at stake. I see my colleague from Oregon. If he will indulge me, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oregon to get his thoughts as well.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Absolutely correct. One of the defects of the watered- down secret holds provision that was included in the ethics reform bill in the 110th Congress was that it allowed for large windows of secrecy before disclosure was required. Our resolution states that the leaders shall recognize holds placed with them only if two conditions are met: if the Senator first submits the notice of intent to object in writing to the appropriate leader and grants in the notice of intent to object permission for the leader or designee to object in the Senator's name and, secondly, not later than 2 session days after submitting the notice of intent to object to the appropriate leader, submits a copy of the notice of intent to object to the Congressional Record and to the legislative clerk for inclusion in the applicable calendar section.

Mr. GRASSLEY. My colleague is correct and that is pretty straightforward. The Notice of Intent to Object calendar should reflect all of the matter necessary to understand holds. If no other Senator has come forth and claimed the objection, then the Senator who actually made the objection should be credited with holding the matter objected to. It is also worth noting that this approach saves a Senator who actually made an open objection on the floor on his or her own behalf the trouble of filing the ``Notice of Intent to Object'' with the clerk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Baucus and I first introduced a bill to ban patents for tax inventions in the 110th Congress. Since then, we have worked with the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, the Patent and Trademark Office, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, industry, and members of the patent bar to perfect the language. I am pleased to introduce this new and improved bill today with Senators Baucus, Levin, Wyden, Bingaman, Conrad, Enzi, and Kerry. There are strong policy reasons to ban tax strategy patents. Tax strategy patents may lead to the marketing of aggressive tax shelters or otherwise mislead taxpayers about expected results. Tax strategy patents encumber the ability of taxpayers and their advisers to use the tax law freely, interfering with the voluntary tax compliance system. If firms or individuals were able to hold patents for these strategies, some taxpayers could face fees simply for complying with the Tax Code. And, tax patents provide windfalls to lawyers and patent holders by granting them exclusive rights to use tax loopholes, which could provide some businesses with an unfair advantage. Tax strategy patents are unlikely to be novel given the public nature of the Tax Code. Moreover, tax strategy patents may undermine the fairness of the Federal tax system by removing from the public domain particular ways of satisfying a taxpayer's legal obligations. The Equal Access to Tax Planning Act expressly provides that a strategy for reducing, avoiding or deferring tax liability cannot be considered a new or nonobvious idea, and therefore, a patent on a tax strategy cannot be obtained. This ensures that all taxpayers will have equal access to strategies to comply with the Tax Code. I encourage support for this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Baucus and I first introduced a bill to ban patents for tax inventions in the 110th Congress. Since then, we have worked with the leaders of the Judiciary Committee, the Patent and Trademark Office, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, industry, and members of the patent bar to perfect the language. I am pleased to introduce this new and improved bill today with Senators Baucus, Levin, Wyden, Bingaman, Conrad, Enzi, and Kerry. There are strong policy reasons to ban tax strategy patents. Tax strategy patents may lead to the marketing of aggressive tax shelters or otherwise mislead taxpayers about expected results. Tax strategy patents encumber the ability of taxpayers and their advisers to use the tax law freely, interfering with the voluntary tax compliance system. If firms or individuals were able to hold patents for these strategies, some taxpayers could face fees simply for complying with the Tax Code. And, tax patents provide windfalls to lawyers and patent holders by granting them exclusive rights to use tax loopholes, which could provide some businesses with an unfair advantage. Tax strategy patents are unlikely to be novel given the public nature of the Tax Code. Moreover, tax strategy patents may undermine the fairness of the Federal tax system by removing from the public domain particular ways of satisfying a taxpayer's legal obligations. The Equal Access to Tax Planning Act expressly provides that a strategy for reducing, avoiding or deferring tax liability cannot be considered a new or nonobvious idea, and therefore, a patent on a tax strategy cannot be obtained. This ensures that all taxpayers will have equal access to strategies to comply with the Tax Code. I encourage support for this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, my colleagues and any of the public watching the debate today know there is a great partisan divide thus far. Senator Wyden has already referred to the motion he and I are putting before the Senate. Senator Wyden, a Democrat, and I, a Republican, are joined also by Senator McCaskill, who is the Presiding Officer now, as well as Senator Collins, in this effort. It is the only bipartisan issue before the Senate this particular day. I emphasize that because I think the public ought to know that not everything in the Senate is partisan. Senator Wyden and I have been chipping away at the informal, backroom process known as secret holds in the Senate. We have been working on this for well over 10 years. So it should not surprise anybody that we are back again at the start of another Congress, joined, as I said, by Senator McCaskill of Missouri, who was very helpful in our pushing this issue to the forefront at the end of the last Congress, and, as I said, I am pleased that we have Senator Collins onboard again. There has been a lot of talk lately about the possibility of far- reaching reforms to how the Senate does business that have been hastily conceived and could shift the traditional balance between the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority parties. In contrast, our resolution by Senator Wyden and this Senator is neither of those two things. In other words, it does not shift any balance between the majority and the minority. This resolution is well thought out, a bipartisan reform effort that has been the subject of two committee hearings and numerous careful revisions over several years. In no way does it alter the balance of power between the minority and majority parties, nor does it change any rights of any individual Senator. This is simply about transparency, and with transparency you get a great deal of accountability. I wish to be very clear that I fully support the fundamental right of any individual Senator to withhold his consent when unanimous consent is requested. In the old days when Senators conducted much of their daily business from their desks on the Senate floor and were on the Senate floor for most of the day, it was quite a simple matter for any Senator at that time to stand up and say ``I object'' when necessary, if they really objected to a unanimous consent request, and that was it. That stopped it. Now, since most Senators spend most of their time off the Senate floor because of the obligation of committee hearings, the obligation of meeting with constituents, and a lot of other obligations we have, we now tend to rely upon our majority leader in the case of the Democrats or the minority leader in the case of the Republicans to protect our rights, privileges, and prerogatives as individual Senators by asking those leaders or their substitutes to object on our behalf. Just as any Senator has the right to stand on the Senate floor and publicly say ``I object,'' it is perfectly legitimate to ask another Senator to object on our behalf if he cannot make it to the floor when unanimous consent is requested. By the same token, Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf while at the same time keeping their identity secret, thus shielding their legislative actions from the public, because that is not transparency and it is obviously not being accountable. What I object to is not the use of the word ``holds'' or the process of holding up something in the Senate, but I object to what is called secret holds. The adjective ``secret'' is what we are fighting. If a Senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or a nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly. A Senator may object because he does not agree to the substance of a bill and therefore cannot in good conscience grant consent or because the Senator has not had adequate opportunity to review the matter at hand. Regardless, we should have no fear of being held accountable by our constituents if we are acting in their interest, as we are elected to do. I have practiced publicly announcing my holds for many years, and it has not hurt one bit. In fact, some of the Senators who are most conscientious about protecting their prerogatives to review legislation before granting consent to its consideration or passage are also quite public about it. In short, there is no legitimate reason for any Senator, if they place a hold, to have that hold be secret. How does our proposal achieve transparency and the resultant accountability? In our proposed standing order, for the majority or minority leader to recognize a hold, the Senator placing the hold must get a statement in the Record within 1 session day and must give permission to their leader at the time they place the hold to object in their name, not in the name of the leader. Since the leader will automatically have permission to name the Senator on whose behalf they are objecting, there will no longer be any expectation or pressure on the leader to keep the hold secret. Further, if a Senator objects to a unanimous consent request and does not name another Senator as having the objection, then the objecting Senator will be listed as having the hold. This will end entirely, once and for all, the situation where one Senator objects but is able to remain very coy about whether it is their own objection or some unnamed Senator. All objections will have to be owned up to. Again, our proposal protects the rights of individual Senators to withhold their consent while ensuring transparency and public accountability. In Congress, as well as almost anyplace in the Federal Government--except maybe national security issues--the public's business always ought to be public and the people who are involved in the public's business ought to stand behind their actions. As I have repeatedly said, the Senate's business ought to be done more in the public than it is, and most of it is public, but this secret hold puts a mystery about things going on in Washington that hurts the credibility of the institution. This principle of accountability and transparency is a principle that I think the vast majority, if not all, of Senators can get behind. I believe the time has come for this simple, commonsense reform. I yield the floor. Under the UC, if it is permissible to retain the remainder of our time, I do that.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as we begin the 112th Congress I want to discuss one of my continuing concerns with the Medicare Program. For the last 10 years, I have served most recently as ranking member and previously as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over Medicare. During this time I have led efforts to reform the Medicare payment system and realign incentives in Medicare to promote higher quality and more efficient care. Today, I would like to address one of the flaws in the Medicare payment system: the inaccuracy of the Medicare geographic adjustment factors used for physician practice expense and the adverse impact they have on rural Medicare beneficiaries' access to care. This flaw has for many years resulted in unfairly low payments to high quality areas like my own home State of Iowa and many other rural States. Medicare payment varies from one area to another based on the geographic adjustments known as the geographic practice cost indices or GPCIs. These geographic adjustments are intended to equalize physician payment by reflecting differences in physician's practice costs. But they do not accurately represent those costs in Iowa or other rural States. They have failed to do the job. They penalize rather than equalize Medicare reimbursement in rural States and discourage physicians from practicing in areas like New Mexico, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa because of their unfairly low Medicare rates. Iowa is widely recognized as providing some of the highest quality care in the country yet Iowa physicians receive some of the lowest Medicare reimbursement in the country due to these inequitable geographic disparities. I introduced legislation to correct these unwarranted geographic payment disparities in the 110th Congress, the Medicare Physician Payment Equity Act of 2008. In the 111th Congress, I introduced the Medicare Rural Health Access Improvement Act of 2009. And when the Senate Finance Committee conducted its markup of health reform legislation in the fall of 2009, I offered an amendment to reform the practice expense geographic adjustment, PE GPCI, that has caused unduly low payments in rural areas due to the inaccurate data and methodology that is used. My amendment provided more equity and accuracy in calculating this adjustment, and it provided a national solution to the problem. It was accepted unanimously by the Senate Finance Committee, and it was included in the Senate health reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PPACA, that was enacted last year. The goal of my amendment was to assure that the statutory mandate of the Social Security Act is met and that the most recent and relevant data is used for these geographic adjusters. The language of section 3102(b) is very specific. It requires a transitional 2-year period of limited relief to reduce the impact of the current, inequitable practice expense formula in rural areas while a broader analysis of the methodology and evaluation of the data is conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. The Secretary is mandated to limit the impact of the existing adjustments by reflecting only one-half of the geographic differences in employee wages and rents in the PE GPCI adjustment for 2010 and 2011 and to hold harmless those localities that would otherwise see a reduction as a result of this adjustment. Most importantly, the provision requires that a longer term solution be implemented in 2012, at which time the Secretary must make appropriate adjustments to the formula to ensure accurate geographic practice expense adjustments. This 2-year transition in 2010 and 2011 was provided to allow time for a focused, in-depth study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, on the data and methodology used to support a revised PE GPCI formula that would be implemented by January 1, 2012. However, to date CMS has failed to make any significant changes in the sources of the data or the methodology used in calculation of the practice expense adjustment. Although CMS has acknowledged its obligations for an additional study as called for by section 3102(b), they continue to claim that their ``analysis of the current methods of establishing PE GPCIs and [their] evaluation of data that fairly and reliably establish distinctions in the cost of operating a medical practice in the different fee schedule areas meet the statutory requirements'' of section 3102(b), Federal Register, November 29, 2010, Page 73254. I strongly disagree. When the current Medicare payment system was established, Congress decided that geographic adjustments would be appropriate to equalize physician payment by reflecting differences in physicians' practice costs, and it established the geographic practice cost indices, GPCIs, for physician work, practice expenses, and malpractice premiums. Congress also mandated that HHS use the most recent data available relating to practice expenses in calculating the geographic adjustments for physician practice costs. However, CMS has long relied upon proxy data sources that bear little to no relevance to actual practice costs, such as using Housing and Urban Development, HUD, apartment rental data to calculate physician office rent. This doesn't have any connection with the cost of office space, let alone a physician's office. Also, the current formula only counts employee wages in four occupations: nurses, clerical personnel and medical technicians but it should reflect employee wages more accurately by also taking into account physician assistants, office administrators, and other more highly compensated specialists commonly employed in practices today. The third category, of ``other'' expense, is considered to be a national market and not adjusted. It should include expenses like office furniture and information technology that cost the same, no matter where you live, but it doesn't. And the weights used by CMS in their methodology are outdated and fail to represent physician practice expenses accurately. Unfortunately, the more accurate calculation of practice expense costs that was intended to be achieved by my amendment also has been jeopardized by a special interest provision that was added to PPACA behind the closed doors of the majority leader during the Senate floor consideration of health reform. It addresses geographic disparities in Medicare payment but it helps just 5 States at the expense of the other 45 States. It is what I call the ``Frontier Freeloader'' provision. It improves Medicare reimbursement in these frontier States by establishing floors for the hospital wage index and the physician practice expense GPCI. A frontier State is defined as one with 50 percent or more frontier counties, defined as counties with a population per square mile of less than six. This special deal will ensure that higher payments go to just five rural States in 2011--North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Nevada--at the expense of every other State. But the Frontier Freeloader is even more egregious because Iowa and other States like Arkansas and New Mexico that don't benefit from this provision are paying for it! So, taxpayers in your State and mine all the other 45 States--will kick in to pay for this unfair $2 billion Frontier Freeloader carve-out for five States that ends up harming all the other rural States. And that is just the cost for the next few years. The frontier States deal does not sunset, and it is not time-limited. It will continue to benefit so-called ``frontier States'' forever while taxpayers in your State and mine continue to pay the bills. It's another example of how the lack of transparency and the deals made behind closed doors to garner votes last year led to bad policies. And it became law when the President signed the health care reform bill. I introduced legislation to eliminate the inequitable frontier freeloader provision in the last Congress and to improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to care in all rural States. The Medicare Rural Health Care Equity Act of 2010 would have eliminated this special Medicare reimbursement rate for frontier States and provided additional funds from its repeal to improve reimbursement in all rural States. Iowa provides some of the highest quality care in the country but it does not meet the definition of a frontier State. Certainly Iowa should have been helped since Medicare reimbursement for hospitals and physicians is lower in Iowa than in most of these so-called ``frontier'' States. Medicare also pays much lower rates in other rural States, like Arkansas and New Mexico, but they don't benefit from the Frontier Freeloader because they don't meet the definition of a frontier State. We should improve physician payments for all rural States, not just a select few. And it's unfair to improve hospital payments for just a few States. My legislation would have eliminated those special payments for just five States, and I will be reintroducing that legislation again soon. The Institute of Medicine, IOM, has been asked by HHS to evaluate the accuracy of the existing geographic adjustment factors and whether the current measures and data are representative of the costs. I have prepared a statement for consideration by the IOM committee charged with this review, the Committee on Geographic Adjustment Factors in the Medicare Program. I urge the IOM to address the inaccuracy of the current geographic adjusters used for physician practice expense, the methodology and data used in their calculation, and the adverse effect of the existing practice expense geographic adjustment factor on rural access to care. I also urge IOM to review the frontier States provision and provide HHS and Congress with recommendations on specific factors that could be used to determine physician practice costs in those States in lieu of the inequitable frontier States floor. It is my hope that the IOM will carefully consider these comments as it proceeds with its review and develops recommendations and a report to be submitted to HHS and the Congress later this year. I ask unanimous consent that my statement to the IOM be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I begin my remarks on the New START treaty, I would like to point out to my colleagues that in 2002, I voted in favor of the Moscow Treaty. I was also one of 93 Senators who voted in favor of START I in 1992. I recognize the importance of maintaining a positive and cooperative relationship with Russia. The proponents of the New START treaty argue that this treaty is necessary to continue the goodwill between our countries and the much-touted ``reset'' in our relations. More importantly to me, however, are the merits of the treaty itself. The Senate should not simply ratify this treaty to appease Russia or as a signal of cooperation with them. The treaty should be considered based on its impact on our national security and the security of our allies. A nuclear arms control treaty can be evaluated based on the level of parity it brings to the two parties. In this regard, I believe this treaty falls short. The fact is, while this treaty places new limits on warheads, as well as deployed and nondeployed delivery vehicles, Russia is already below the limit on delivery vehicles. The treaty primarily imposes new limits on the U.S., while requiring modest, if any, reductions on the Russian side. Also alarming is that this treaty is silent on the matter of tactical nuclear weapons. It is believed that Russia has a 10-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of tactical nuclear weapons. The administration has argued that this treaty is necessary to provide strategic stability. However, if we are reducing our strategic weapons without regard to Russia's overwhelming advantage on tactical nuclear weapons, I question whether this reduction isn't weakening strategic stability. It should also be mentioned that some proponents of the New START treaty were critical of the 2002 Moscow Treaty for failing to reduce Russian tactical nuclear weapons. I believe our leverage with the Russians to begin placing meaningful limits on tactical nuclear weapons existed with this treaty. Now, I see no clear path to negotiating reductions in tactical nuclear weapons. Like many of my colleagues, I have serious concerns about the inclusion of references to and limitations on U.S. plans for missile defense. I don't believe there should be a connection between strategic nuclear weapons reductions and our plans for missile defense. I am equally troubled that Russia issued a unilateral statement at the treaty's signing stating that the treaty ``may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative build- up in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America.'' It is positive that the Resolution of Ratification makes a strong statement that the treaty does not limit the deployment of U.S. missile defense systems, other than those contained in article V. It also says that the Russian statement on missile defense does not impose a legal obligation on the United States. While I would have preferred that this treaty not contain any language on missile defense, I appreciate the work of the Foreign Relations chairman and ranking member to include this language in the ratification resolution. But the fact remains, this language is simply our opinion and is nonbinding. This treaty reverses the gains made in the Moscow Treaty which de- linked offensive and defensive capabilities. Although a modified amendment on missile defense to the resolution of ratification was agreed to today, I am disappointed that the Senate could not agree to the amendment offered by Senator McCain which would have stricken the language in the treaty's preamble that arguably gives Russia a say on our future missile defense plans. Finally, I also share the serious concerns related to the issue of verification. It has been the subject of much debate, and deservedly so. I agree with the sentiment that as our deployed strategic nuclear weapons are reduced, it becomes more and more critical that the remaining weapons can be relied upon. As the number of weapons is reduced, it becomes more important that we know that the Russians are abiding by the limits of the treaty. After reviewing the classified material presented by Senator Bond, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have serious reservations about the new verification regime contained in the treaty. Although former Secretary of State James Baker supports ratification of the treaty, he stated that the verification mechanism in the New START treaty ``does not appear as rigorous or extensive as the one that verified the numerous and diverse treaty obligations and prohibitions under START I.'' I do regret that without a treaty in place that there is no verification regime, and no U.S. inspectors monitoring Russia's nuclear arms activities. It's important to point out, however, that the Obama administration had the ability to extend the verification regime for 5 years, as provided for in START I. But the Obama administration failed to act. The administration also insisted there would be a ``bridging agreement'' to continue verification until the entry into force of a successor agreement. This agreement was never completed either. I am deeply disappointed that in these areas of concern, the Senate is simply being asked to be a ``rubberstamp'' rather than fulfill our constitutional obligation to provide our advice on these important matters. Had the advice of the Senate on these important issues been incorporated into the treaty, I believe it would have gained overwhelming bipartisan support. Without addressing these areas in a meaningful way, I am reluctantly unable to support it.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is with great sadness and concern that I report that more and more kids are turning to drugs. Recently released annual studies that track drug use trends among youth and adults are indicating rapid increases in drug use among all age groups. The most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicates drug use among people aged 12 and older increased by 9 percent since 2008. According to this survey, over 7 million people in the past year are estimated to have used drugs. Among these numbers, it is estimated that over 4 million people have abused marijuana, which is well over half of all drug abusers in this survey. Even more disturbing are the rapid increases in drug use among America's youth. New figures from the Monitoring the Future Study, which is conducted by the University of Michigan and surveys school age kids' drug use from 8th grade to 12th grade, have shot up significantly. The rapid increases are due to higher use rates of marijuana among all age groups. Among the youngest surveyed, marijuana use jumped to 16 percent from 14.5 percent in the past year. Marijuana use has increased so much among high school seniors that more are now smoking marijuana than tobacco in the past 30 days. According to this survey, more than one in three high school seniors have smoked marijuana in the past year. Also troubling are the increases in the use of ecstasy, heroin, and the ongoing high abuse rates of prescription and over-the-counter medicines. On top of all this, the survey also determined that accompanying the increased drug use was a decreased perception that drugs are harmful. In my home State of Iowa, the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy reports in their 2011 Drug Control Strategy that marijuana continues to be the most abused illegal drug in Iowa. According to this report, nearly two-thirds of all children in substance abuse treatment are there for marijuana use. It is reported that these are the highest rates of marijuana-using treatment clients in recent Iowa history. The 2008 Iowa youth survey also shows that over one in four Iowa 11th graders have used marijuana in the past year. It is easy to read these numbers but not fully grasp the magnitude of what is happening in this country. Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, states that the earlier teenagers start using marijuana the greater the risk they will have down the road. Dr. Volkow states, ``Not only does marijuana affect learning, judgment, and motor skills, but research tells us that about 1 in 6 people who start using it as adolescents become addicted.'' The more we have young people turning to drugs the more they are putting their health and futures on the line. Not only do these numbers suggest more young people are putting themselves at risk, but they also show that the future of the country is at risk. These numbers are completely unacceptable and they illustrate that we are failing our kids. How did we get to this point? The National Survey on Drug Use and Health stated that while their findings are disappointing, they were not unexpected. The survey reported that data from the past two years have shown that young people's attitudes about drugs and their risks have been ``softening.'' This means that kids are more and more coming to the conclusion that drug use really isn't as bad as it is made out to be. The Monitoring the Future Survey also indicates that young people's perceptions on drug use, especially the harms associated with marijuana use, are rapidly moving in a negative direction. The survey states, ``Increases in youth drug use . . . are disappointing, and mixed messages about drug legalization--particularly of marijuana--may be contributing to the trend. Such messages only hinder the efforts of parents who are trying to prevent their kids from using drugs.'' Dr. Volkow also agrees that the debate over legalizing marijuana is contributing to the rising youth drug abuse rates. Dr. Volkow states, ``We should examine the extent to which the debate over medical marijuana and marijuana legalization for adults is affecting teens' perceptions of risk.'' The Obama administration also appears to agree with the above conclusions. The national drug czar, Gil Kerlikowski, who is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy states, ``The increases in youth drug use . . . are disappointing. And mixed messages about drug legalization, particularly marijuana legalization, may be to blame. Such messages certainly don't help parents who are trying to prevent young people from using drugs.'' I could not agree more with this statement. However, I can't help but feel that this administration is contributing to the problem and not the solution. In October 2009, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum to all U.S. attorneys regarding the prosecution of individuals who use or sell marijuana for medical purposes in states that allow it. This new policy states that U.S. attorneys should not expend resources to prosecute individuals who are complying with State laws regarding selling, possession, and use of marijuana for medical purposes. These State laws are in direct conflict with long existing Federal laws. The memorandum also states that this new policy will not alter the Department's authority to enforce Federal law. This confusing policy attempts to have it both ways. The DOJ is telling U.S. attorneys that they should not prosecute people in States that allow medical marijuana, but the policy does not prevent them from doing so. This policy is a departure from the longstanding DOJ position to prosecute individuals who violate Federal law notwithstanding State law. This policy is ill advised, misguided, and internally inconsistent. It also sends the wrong message that this administration is deciding which laws it would prefer to enforce rather than upholding and aggressively enforcing all existing laws. Unfortunately, the mixed messages don't stop there. Just a few weeks ago, the Judiciary Committee took up the nomination of Michelle Leonhart to be Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Following her hearing, I asked a pretty straight forward question, did she support efforts to decriminalize or legalize the use, production, or distribution of marijuana, for medical purposes or otherwise. I was disappointed when I received her response that simply stated, ``I support the Administration in its clear and steadfast opposition to the legalization of marijuana.'' While I agree that the administration should be ``clear and steadfast'' in opposing the legalization of marijuana, her answers did not address the issue of decriminalization. In fact, it took a follow-up letter from me to Ms. Leonhart to clarify this response where she finally stated she was ``concerned with any actions that would lead to increased use of abuse and therefore, do[es] not support decriminalizing the cultivation, distribution, and use of marijuana for any purpose other than legitimate research.'' While I appreciate this more detailed response, it raises questions as to why this more comprehensive answer wasn't part of her initial response to my question. It is this sort of inconsistent response to simple questions on drug use that is sending mixed messages to minors across the county regarding the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana. We should not be getting mixed messages on marijuana use. The Obama administration should send a strong, unequivocal message to kids that marijuana use is harmful, rather than issuing inconsistent statements and new policies that endorse State efforts to legalize marijuana use in certain instances. I have long supported a unified, and consistent antidrug message combined with grassroots community efforts to combat drug abuse in all forms. Kids need to constantly hear the message that drug use is harmful and not safe. They need to hear it from all sectors of the community whether it comes from home, school, or anywhere else. That is why I continually support local community antidrug coalitions. These coalitions are on the front lines in communities and are probably our best weapon in the fight against drug abuse. The people who comprise these coalitions care deeply about their communities and they should be supported in their efforts. If the Obama administration truly believes that the rise in youth drug use is blamed in part on sending mixed messages about marijuana then they need to reconsider their own actions. We need to recognize the importance of sending strong and united messages about marijuana and drug use at large. We can start by being consistent with our own words and actions. Perhaps then we may be able to start to reverse the rising trends in youth drug use that have occurred since President Obama took office.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and a trusted adviser, Wythe Willey, who lost a 2-year battle with cancer on Saturday. Wythe Willey was a person who left a mark. If you ever met him, you would be hard pressed to forget him. He was an Iowa farm boy through and through. Whether he was living in Des Moines or Cedar Rapids, he valued his friendships and he valued everybody he met along his life's journey. Wythe had a passion for agriculture, and particularly for the cattle business, but also for politics. He had one of the most astute political minds I have ever come across. To sit and talk politics with Wythe was an invigorating endeavor. His political sense and understanding of the issues at the State and Federal level never failed to bring additional insight to anybody who would listen.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 7 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I rise to thank a longtime member of my staff who is retiring from the Senate. Mary Day began working in my Cedar Rapids office in 1987 as a constituent services specialist, and in 1996 rose to become the regional director based in the same office. You would be hard pressed to find somebody in the region who doesn't know Mary. It is no wonder. She is a tireless worker for the 14-county area in eastern Iowa, and her infectious sense of humor, genuine demeanor, and kindness was sought by those she came across in her daily travels around the region. There isn't anybody who knows the pulse of the community like Mary. She has been through the good, the bad, and the ugly. She has seen historic floods and business downturns. Through it all, Mary has remained a good-hearted, conscientious and effective staff member. We spent many hours over the years traveling from county to county in her region. Mary wasn't always the most spirited or active person in the early hours of the day, but she was forever reliable and dependable no matter what hour of the day. Not only has Mary been dedicated to the people of Iowa, but she also served as a mentor, confidant, and friend to others on my staff. Her colleagues say that Mary was their ``go-to'' person. She knew the bureaucracy inside and out and had sound advice on how to handle just about any situation. The people of Iowa have been fortunate to have somebody like Mary Day working on their behalf for the last 23 years. I have been privileged to have her represent me in such a well-respected and honest manner. Thank you, Mary, for everything you have done for me and the people of Iowa.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss my vote today against ending debate on the Dream Act, a bill that would provide legal status to millions of people in this country who are illegally present. Before I discuss the substance of the bill, I want to express my frustration on the process of how this bill was brought to the floor for a vote. This bill has been around for nearly 10 years. In 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered and debated the bill, and voted to send it to the full Senate for consideration. It didn't pass at that time, and since then, not one hearing has taken place on the legislation. The bill we considered today was the sixth version of the Dream Act that we have seen in the last 2 months. Five of the six versions were introduced and immediately put on the calendar, bypassing the committee process. The Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, didn't have the opportunity to debate it or make it better. Instead, the full Senate was asked to consider the bill as written, without the ability to amend it. You see, the majority leader used his ability to block all amendments through a process known as ``filling the tree.'' This procedure means that no amendments could be in order. No improvements could have been made. The democratic process was effectively blocked. Now, allow me to express some concerns that I have had about this version of the bill. The Dream Act would legalize an unlimited number of people who are here illegally, including the relatives of the alien that applies. It would put millions of individuals not just young people on a path to citizenship. The bill also leaves the door open to more fraud and abuse of our immigration system. It leaves a lot of discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security, including authority to waive bars of inadmissibility. This latest version of this legislation provides very few assurances that criminal aliens would be barred from applying. The Dream Act, according to the Congressional Budget Office has a $5 billion price tag, and could require hard- working Americans to foot the bill for this amnesty program. The bill fails to require individuals to graduate from college or to complete their military service, even though proponents claim that this is the sole mission of the bill. Finally, one of the most alarming provisions of the bill allows aliens who apply, no matter how frivolous their claim, to be granted safe harbor from enforcement officials by prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing an alien who has a pending application. I agree that we should take a hard look at protecting the youth who are forced to come here illegally, unaware of the consequences. However, we also need to be conscious of those people standing in line, all around the world, who follow the law and wait their turn to come here legally. This bill just wouldn't be fair to those people. Congress and this administration must come to terms with the immigration problems we have. We need true reform of our immigration laws, starting with border security and enforcement of the laws already on the books. We need to consider changes to our legal immigration system, including expanding or improving visa programs, to make sure people are incentivized to come in legally rather than illegally. These reforms will make the system better for future generations because a short term amnesty program as proposed by the Dream Act--doesn't solve the underlying problem. I voted against ending debate today because I believe this bill required serious deliberation. I thought we deserved to have amendments considered. It is unfortunate that the majority attempted to push this bill through at the final hour, circumventing the democratic process that allows for amendments and serious debate on an issue that would dramatically undermine our rule of law.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on November 3, 1918, an American hero-- Robert William Andrew Feller--was born in Dallas County, IA, near the town of Van Meter. Sadly, this same hero died on December 15, 2010. Van Meter is nestled between the steady and rolling Raccoon River on the north side of town, and the lush and sweeping prairie hills on the south side of town. In most ways, it is your typical rural Iowa town. There is a post office, a few churches, a bank, a car wash and gas station, and a bar and grill. There are just under a thousand residents living in Van Meter. And so the Van Meter Bulldogs--from kindergarten through the twelfth grade-- still all go to school together in the same building. But unlike every other small town in Iowa, or America for that matter, there rests in Van Meter on Mill Street a museum paying tribute to the town's hero and favorite son--Bob Feller. Bob Feller was born and grew up on a farm just outside of Van Meter. Early on his father, who was a farmer, and his mother, who was a nurse and teacher, realized that their young Robert had a talent. That talent was playing baseball. Specifically, hurling curve balls and sliders and fastballs at whoever dared to step up to the plate against young Bob Feller. Bob Feller was so focused on baseball and so in love with the sport that his father built a regulation baseball diamond on their Dallas County farm naming it ``Oak View Park.'' Bob and his family recruited other players and formed a team appropriately called ``The Oakviews.'' Bob Feller said his farm work and chores were what helped to develop his throwing speed and arm strength. His throwing speed and arm strength are what earned him the nicknames of ``Rapid Robert'' and ``Bullet Bob'' and ``The Heater from Van Meter.'' Leveraged with a high left-leg kick and whip-like arm, Bob Feller delivered some of the fastest stuff ever to come down from a pitcher's mound. Batters trembled facing him at home plate. Umpires needed to pay close attention. The crowds were always in awe. And Feller's pitches were blurs. It wasn't too long before word spread about this baseball wonder. Soon--and still in his teens and not even having graduated high school yet-- Feller was pitching to some of his boyhood heroes in front of crowds of tens of thousands of people all across America. He dazzled all who saw him play. Barely old enough to shave, he found himself playing Major League Baseball for the Cleveland Indians in 1936. He faced the greatest baseball stars of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Hank Greenberg, Mickey Mantle, Nellie Fox. Frequent opponent and purist hitter Joe DiMaggio said in 1941 about Feller, ``I don't think anyone is ever going to throw a ball faster than he does.'' A sports reporter said of Feller's pitching, ``And his curveball isn't human.'' We have all read about Bob Feller's amazing baseball career spent entirely with the Cleveland Indians where he was the winningest pitcher in club history with 266 wins. He was an eight-time All Star. He captured a World Series ring in 1948. He pitched three no-hitters, including the only Opening Day no- hitter. He retired with 2,581 career strikeouts. He is enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. These are impressive statistics from arguably the best pitcher to ever take the mound. But these stats and this ``farm to fame'' story is not what made Bob Feller a patriot or hero. On December 7, 1941, the United States suffered a horrific attack by the Japanese when they bombed us at Pearl Harbor, HI. Just 2 days later after that horrific attack, Bob Feller did something selfless--he signed up to serve in the U.S. Navy to fight in World War II. This caused him to miss playing in the Major Leagues for a solid chunk of his career. He walked away from further baseball glory and records and achievements. Pure selflessness. He served voluntarily as a chief petty officer on the USS Alabama between 1941 and 1945. Although most will remember him for his curveball, Bob Feller most wanted to be recognized for his service in World War II defending the United States from totalitarian powers and promoting liberty and freedom around the world. Bob Feller's military service and love of country is what he ultimately wanted people to remember. Across the plains there are everyday heroes serving us now, promoting security for Americans and freedom and liberty abroad. While they may not have sacrificed a professional sports career, they are still heroes and patriots nonetheless. Bob Feller would certainly agree with that assessment. In Iowa, we grow more than just crops on the farm. We grow heroes, too--heroes like Bob Feller, everyday heroes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from Arizona.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time is on our side?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this bill is about stopping the biggest tax increase in the history of the country that will happen if we do not pass something between now and the end of the year. That happens because the 2001 tax law, the present tax policy, was only good for 10 years, and it sunsets. So you go back to the big tax policy we had, the high tax policy we had in the year 2000. We are passing this now because of a simple rule of economics: you should not increase taxes during an economic recession. With nearly 10 percent unemployment, we are still, obviously, in a recession. Some on the other side supported the President's earlier proposal when he wanted to maintain the existing tax policy just for those below a $200,000-a-year income. The Senate did not support that proposal, and it is clear that proposal could not pass. I know that can be a difficult thing. Over the years I have seen proposals I thought were good and just and that I cared passionately about defeated in the Senate. But you just move on, so that is what our President has done. He has moved on in a pragmatic spirit. He has put forward another proposal to prevent the biggest tax increase in the history of the country from happening. He doesn't view it as ideal, and few on my side of the aisle do as well. For all of us, it is a balancing act. We want to stay true to our ideals. We also want to deliver practical results to our constituents. I submit this bill does not increase taxes, it does not cut anybody's taxes, and that happens to be the right balance for the vast majority of us. But it also happens to be what is right for the economy now that we are in a recession. Just 10 days ago, the unemployment rate ticked up to 9.8 percent. In July it was at 9.5 percent. The trend is in the wrong direction. We are in a fragile situation. The economy is clearly telling Congress: handle with extreme care. The majority of the economists surveyed by CNN Money says preventing the 2011 tax hikes is the No. 1 thing that Congress can do right now to help the economy. The survey results are on a chart, showing that 60 percent of the economists said preventing tax hikes on every American was the best course of action to take at this particular time; that the economy is in a fragile situation. We have the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office saying GDP growth will be far less if we let the biggest tax increase in the history of the country happen without Congress intervening. If the tax relief doesn't maintain at the present level, the economy would grow .3 percent less than if we do it the way the President originally wanted to do it, just for those people under $200,000 a year income. In other words, the economy will grow at 1.4 percent if we leave the tax policy of the last 10 years in place as opposed to taxing people who make over $200,000 a year at a higher level. Then the economy would only grow at 1.1 percent. Given the recession, given the high unemployment rate, given business's reluctance to invest and grow, we need to be especially sensitive to GDP growth. If it were just a matter of either the government got the money or the private sector, that would be one thing, as the government does have a deficit problem. But in this case it is a matter of money simply not being there because of the hit to the gross domestic product. We are talking about dead-weight loss. For those who think taxing people more will bring in more revenue, I would put up a chart that expresses tax policy and the result of it over the last 50 years. We can see the red line that says there is an average of about 18.2 percent of all the wealth. We can see the red line shows for a 50-year average, about 18.2 percent of the gross national product has come to the Congress to spend, regardless of what the high marginal tax rates were--going back to 1993 and the Eisenhower administration, going down to 70 in the Kennedy administration, going down to 50 in the Reagan administration, going down to 26 in the Reagan administration, back up 40--almost 40 percent in H.W. Bush's administration, and then down to 35 percent where they are now. They could go back up to 40 percent if we do not intervene right now. What this ought to tell everybody is, marginal tax rates do not make a difference, a big difference, in how much money comes into the Federal Treasury. The people of this country decided about how much they are going to give to us in Congress to spend out of the entire national income. It is about 18.2 percent regardless of where the marginal tax rates are. It tells me that people, if they do not want to work, if they do not want to earn or if they want to hire people to legally avoid taxes, are going to do it, and we are only going to get so much. Here is what the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says about this: We anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased marginal rate by utilizing tax-planning and tax-avoidance strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to taxation. That chart proves exactly what the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxes has said. We have known about these looming tax hikes for a decade now. We should have acted many years ago. Now we have only 19 days to go before the tax hikes take effect. We are down to the wire, and we need to act. We need to act because it is what it takes to turn this economy around. The time to dither is over. The National Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small business, had this to say recently. Because of no action on expiring tax rates there is a ``cloud of uncertainty, larger and darker. In response, consumer sentiment fell and owner optimism remained anchored solidly in recession territory. Thus, spending stayed in `maintenance mode,' deterioration of jobs continues, and capital spending remains at historically low rates. Owners won't make spending commitments when sales prospects remain weak and important decisions such as tax rates and labor costs remain so uncertain.'' That is the end of the quote from small business. Uncertainty is the issue we have to deal with here. Passing this bill so the biggest tax hike in the history of the country will not happen is one thing that will bring some certainty, and maybe more certainty than anything else, to our economy. The bottom line, as evidenced by this chart, is stop the tax hikes. It is time to leave the tax policy of the last 10 years in place so at least for the next 2 years people know they can hire and expand this economy and expand theirs. I reserve the remainder of my time. How many minutes do I have?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think, Mr. President, I am going to take 2\1/2\ minutes to address what the Senator from Arizona said about some of the provisions in this bill. We keep having ethanol referred to as a subsidy. Let me tell you about some of the subsidies that are in this bill because you might think that ethanol is the only one. Think in terms of the research and development tax credit. That is subsidy for big business that has been around for 30 years. Think about the Indian employment tax credit, the subsidy for new market tax credits, the subsidy for railroad track maintenance credit, mine rescue team training credit, the subsidy for employer wage credit for employees who are on Active Duty in the uniformed services, the subsidy for 15-year straight line cost recovery for qualified leaseholder improvements, the subsidy for the 7-year recovery period for motor sports entertainment complexes. I don't quite understand, when there are 72 provisions in this bill that expired on December 31, 2009, and they are just being continued as some of them have been for 30 years, how somebody today is going to say that is bad tax policy and they did not say it over the last 30 years, particularly when it comes to a time when we know we need a balanced alternative energy program--balanced for whatever can be alternative energy because God only made so much fossil fuel. Obviously, we ought to be using petroleum. But should we import more petroleum from the 10 percent of the fuel used in motor vehicles coming from ethanol? Do you believe we ought to have a good national security program that is less based upon the requirements of imported oil? I think we ought to look at this balanced program as being one of fossil fuel, one of alternative energy, and one of conservation and ethanol and biodiesel and wind and solar and all that is part of a balanced program, and they all have tax incentives. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to congratulate the students from Iowa City West High School who will participate in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution national finals in Washington, DC. More than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The We the People program run by the Center for Civic Education, with the help of Federal funding, provides an outstanding curriculum that promotes civic competence and responsibility among elementary and secondary students. I am proud to announce that the students from Iowa City West High School, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won the State competition and thus were given the distinction of representing Iowa in the national finals. While in Washington, the students will participate in a three-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. In the end, students take away a solid understanding of the origin of American constitutional democracy as well as the contemporary relevance of our founding documents and ideals. In short, it produces better citizens. I would like to personally recognize the Iowa City West students who are on the team that will represent Iowa in the national finals, Guo Chen, Jinny Guo, Yelena Shabelnik, John Alatalo, Cole Anderson, Bennett Mueller, Rebecca Wen, Elizabeth Wang, Evan Davis, Eleanor Marshall, Margaret Shultz, Katherine Yang, Trevor Clinkenbeard, Mark Mellecker, Brad Ockenfels, Ray Ockenfels, Nik Hlebotwitsh, Sara McAndrew, Jessica Sheldon, Asya Bergal, Joe Henderson, Hilah Kohen, Jacob Larson, Elizabeth Vandenberg, and teacher Gary Neuzil. I wish these students the best of luck at the We the People national finals and applaud their outstanding achievement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, S. 372, will strengthen and modernize protections for Federal whistleblowers. May I ask the Senator from Hawaii to clarify the intent of the provision providing relief for the consequences of retaliatory investigations? Am I correct that this provision does not in any way reduce or eliminate current protections against retaliatory investigations?