Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we return to the Halligan nomination. I also ask further unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak following the distinguished Senator from Maryland.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, we have before us one of the most activist judicial nominees we have seen in years. Rather than choose a more consensus nominee, President Obama has chosen to again provoke a political confrontation. This is unnecessary, divisive, and not in the best interests of either the judicial selection process or the judiciary. The Constitution gives the power to appoint judges to the President, not to the Senate. I believe, therefore, that the Senate owes the President some deference with respect to nominees who are qualified by both legal experience and, more importantly, judicial philosophy. A nominee whose record shows that she has an activist judicial philosophy is simply not qualified to sit on the Federal bench, and the Senate owes the President no deference under those circumstances. That is the kind of nominee we have before us today. Nothing has changed since a cloture motion failed on this nominee in December 2011. Well, that might not be quite true. One thing that has changed is that the need to fill another vacancy on the D.C. Circuit is even less today than it was then. Year after year, case filings decrease for the D.C. Circuit while they increase for the rest of the judiciary. Year after year, the D.C. Circuit ranks last among the 12 geographical circuits in the number of appeals filed per three-judge panel. The court has even cancelled argument days because of an insufficient docket. And I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the D.C. Circuit's caseload today is lower than when they used this argument to block President Bush's nominees to this court--which they did. Looking at the nominee herself, Caitlin Halligan was a member of the New York City Bar's Committee on Federal Courts and signed its March 2004 report titled ``The Indefinite Detention of `Enemy Combatants': Balancing Due Process and National Security in the Context of the War on Terror.'' Based on policy rather than legal grounds, it makes left-wing arguments that courts and even the Obama administration itself have repudiated. Although she tried to distance herself from the report's left-wing positions at her confirmation hearing, Halligan signed rather than abstained from the report, as four other committee members had done, and never repudiated it before her hearing. If she were a Republican nominee, my friends on the Democratic side would call this a confirmation conversion. Her report argued that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AUMF, does not authorize indefinite detention of enemy combatants. The Supreme Court rejected this in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. The Obama administration has sought, and the D.C. Circuit has adopted, a broad construction of the AUMF. Halligan's report argued that alien terrorists should be tried in Article III courts, with full constitutional protections, rather than in military commissions. On March 7, 2011, President Obama signed an executive order re- establishing military commissions for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. But Halligan's extreme record on these important issues goes beyond that report. She also authored a legal brief in 2009 arguing that the AUMF does not authorize the seizure and long-term military detention of lawful permanent resident aliens. This position again disregarded the Supreme Court's holding in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and appears even to conflict with the Obama administration's justification of assassinating American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. She just won't take no for an answer when pushing such extreme views, not even from the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court itself. That is the classic definition of judicial activism, trying to use the courts to advance a political agenda no matter what the law is. As Solicitor General of New York, Halligan aggressively sought to hold gun manufacturers liable for criminal acts committed with handguns. In one speech, she said that the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ``would nullify lawsuits. . . including one brought by my office. . . that might reduce gun crime or promote greater responsibility among gun dealers.'' The Senate voted overwhelmingly for this legislation in July 2005. Once again, Halligan turned to the courts to push her personal political views, filing a legal brief challenging the law's constitutionality. In New York v. Sturm & Ruger, she argued that gun manufacturers maintain a ``public nuisance'' of illegally possessed handguns. The New York Court of Appeals rejected Halligan's activist approach, concluding that ``the Legislative and Executive branches are better suited to address the societal problems concerning the already heavily regulated commercial activity at issue.'' Attempting to address social problems in the judicial rather than the legislative branch is a hallmark of judicial activism. Finally, other legal briefs she has filed similarly demonstrate extreme views that the Supreme Court has rejected. In Scheidler v. NOW, Halligan argued that pro-life protesters should be prosecuted under the Federal racketeering statute because they somehow engage in extortion. The Supreme Court voted 8-1 to reject that position. And in Hoffman Plastics Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, the Supreme Court rejected Halligan's position that the NLRB can grant backpay to illegal aliens. As I said, the Senate owes the President some deference with regard to his nominees who are qualified by their legal experience and, more importantly, their judicial philosophy. Republicans have consistently cooperated with the President and will continue to do so. But when a nominee's record clearly shows that she has a politicized view of the courts, I for one have to say no. The political ends do not justify the judicial means. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, as we debate proposals for avoiding the so-called sequester, we find ourselves in a uniquely awkward position. Not only is there general disagreement about what brought us here, who is responsible, who is to blame, et cetera, but we also disagree about where ``here'' is to begin with. President Obama has been touring the country giving speeches describing just how bad the sequester will be and why Republicans are to blame for it. This is, of course, par for the course for this President, whose motto seems to be: Why solve a problem when you can campaign on it? You would think, after having won the election, the President would be the first to acknowledge the election is over. But nearly 4 months after election day, the President's campaign road show continues. The problem with the President's sequestration campaign is that, once again, his claims are at odds with the facts. Everyone in Washington knows that, despite the President's efforts to put the blame on Republicans, the sequester was his idea to begin with. The record is clear and it is not in dispute. The idea for the sequester was pitched by the President's then-OMB Director Jack Lew as a negotiating tactic to get Republicans to vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling. Not only did the idea originate in the White House, the President threatened to veto House-passed legislation designed to replace the sequester. Moreover, in these final weeks leading up to the March 1 deadline, the President spent more time on his national sequestration campaign than he has in sitting down with Republicans to reach an agreement on a replacement package. So if the sequester goes into effect--and at this point it appears it will--the American people should not blame Republicans in Congress, who have been working in earnest to replace it. No, the blame should fall squarely on President Obama, who proposed the idea in the first place and has refused to work on a passable solution. So that is how we got here. The bigger, more complicated problem is determining where ``here'' actually is. The President and his allies have spent a lot of time misleading the American people on that as well. If you describe the sequester using the worst possible numbers, it is an $85 billion reduction from $3.5 trillion of yearly Federal outlays-- yes, that is $85 billion out of $3.500 trillion. When all is said and done, it is a reduction of less than 2.5 percent from overall Federal spending. And, as the Congressional Budget Office has made clear, not all of the $85 billion in reduction will even take the form of reduced spending this year. Even if it did, keep in mind that $85 billion would represent less than 9 days of Federal spending, based on the rate of spending last year. Once again, that is if you describe it in the worst possible terms. For a moment, let's go with those numbers. The President would have the American people believe that a 2.4- percent reduction in Federal spending out of $3.6 trillion will cripple our government and irreparably damage our economy, even an economy that the President must have felt was strong enough to absorb a $600 billion tax hike back on New Year's Day. The ramifications of the 2.4-percent spending reduction are so great, according to the President and his allies here in Congress, that the only alternative is to raise taxes yet again. I will be the first to admit there are better, more responsible ways to reduce the deficit than the President's indiscriminate sequester. But these scare tactics don't even pass the laugh test. Does the President really expect the American people to believe our government is so fragile it cannot absorb a 2.4-percent spending cut--less than 9 days' worth of Federal spending--without inflicting massive damage on the American people and our economy? Apparently so. Once again, I am describing the sequester in the worst possible terms just to demonstrate the outlandish nature of the President's arguments. However, when you look at whether the sequester even represents a reduction in spending, you find the claims are even more absurd. In fact, when you look at whether we are cutting spending at all relative to past periods, you can easily see we are not, even with the sequester. The so-called spending cuts in the sequester are measured against 2010 spending levels. We should all remember that in fiscal year 2010, spending levels were highly elevated as a result of the President's stimulus and other ``temporary'' spending measures passed in response to the financial crisis and recession. So, in other words, the sequester reduces spending only if you are measuring against an extremely high baseline that was, at that time, supposed to be temporary. Whether something is an increase or decrease depends on what you are measuring against. If you measure relative to a big number--such as the Democrat-fueled spending of 2010--then proposed spending looks like a cut. But if you look at spending levels relative to more reasonable spending baselines, you will find that future spending will actually be up even with the sequester in place. For example, you will see what post-sequestration spending looks like relative to a more reasonable baseline. According to the Congressional Budget Office, baseline estimates for post-sequester discretionary budget authority total $978 billion for fiscal year 2013. The average during the Bush years, in inflation- adjusted fiscal year 2013 dollars, was $957 billion. Neither of these figures includes spending on wars or emergencies, so this is an apples- to-apples comparison. In adjusted current dollar terms, post-sequester spending this year will be more than $20 billion higher than the average during the Bush years. Someone may have to refresh my memory, but I don't believe the government ceased to function during the Bush years. I certainly don't remember hearing anyone express concern about the elimination of basic governmental services. In fact, I don't think anyone remembers the Bush years as being a time of spending restraint here in Washington. Indeed, we have all heard President Obama claim it was the extravagant spending of the Bush administration that, in part, caused our current budget woes. Yet now the President is telling the American people that a return to those spending levels will devastate our country, leaving children hungry and our border unprotected. Not surprisingly, the President and the Democratic leadership's solution to this problem is more tax hikes, which makes these claims about the impact of sequestration all the more transparent. Indeed, it appears that the President's current campaign on the sequester is less about reaching an agreement to replace the sequester than it is about satisfying his drive to once again raise Americans' taxes while also serving his desire to vilify Republicans, no matter what the costs to the American people. I don't want to minimize the negative impact the sequester may have in some areas. I think there are very few of us who would not like to see the President's indiscriminate sequester replaced with more responsible spending reduction alternatives. There are alternatives to the approach we are debating today. But whatever we do, we should do it through regular order. Today we are yet again debating a bill that has bypassed the relevant committees of jurisdiction. Regular order has become the exception rather than the rule around here, which is extremely frustrating I think to both sides. There are consequences to skipping the established committee process. If legislation does not go through the relevant committee, it is not studied and vetted. It simply shows up out of the majority leader's office before anyone has a chance to even look it over. Bypassing regular order is simply shortsighted. Yes, short- circuiting the committee process prevents Members from having to take tough votes in committee. But taking tough votes to enact legislation is part of being in the Senate--or at least it used to be. These days, no one in the majority has to take a difficult vote. The majority leader has made sure of that. I have a chart that has the title ``Honest Leadership and Open Government.'' You can see the large letters at the top and the small letters right against the podium Senator Reid is at. My friends on the other side of the aisle won the Senate majority in the 2006 elections by campaigning on this theme. Unfortunately, in the 6 years since they have been running things here in the Senate, things have gone exactly the other way. Backroom deals are the rule, regular order is the exception, open government is the casualty, and committees are ignored with aplomb. I have and will continue to urge my colleagues to support the restoration of regular order here in the Senate because, in the end, it yields better legislative results, and it is a much more fair way to legislate and involves everybody, not just a few people in one office. Despite the fact that the President and congressional Democrats just got over $600 billion in tax increases out of the fiscal cliff deal, the Democratic leadership's bill that we are debating today contains even more tax increases. The Congressional Budget Office wrote earlier this month that over the next 10 years, revenues as a percent of GDP will average 18.9 percent. Over the last 40 years, according to CBO, revenues have averaged 17.9 percent of GDP. So over the next 10 years, Federal revenues are set to exceed the historical average. At the same time, government spending, which is projected by CBO to reach about 23 percent of GDP in 2023--an historical average--will be on an upward trajectory and will remain far in excess of the 40-year average of 21 percent. So the problem is not that the American people are undertaxed, it is that Washington is overspending. Given this basic point, I have filed a motion to commit the Democratic leadership's bill to the Finance Committee to strike all the revenue increases and replace them with spending cuts. And to help further the process, I have prepared a menu of spending cut options to select from. These proposals come from Dr. Tom Coburn's book, ``Back in Black: A Deficit Reduction Plan.'' During the 2008 campaign, the President promised to find spending cuts by going through the budget, line by line. Dr. Coburn has done what the President promised but failed to do. Today, I am drawing from a small body of Dr. Coburn's hard work. For instance, instead of the latest incarnation of the Buffett tax, we could, according to ``Back in Black,'' save $71 billion over 10 years by instituting a 5-year freeze on locality pay adjustments for Federal workers or we could reduce travel budgets of Federal agencies. That would save just over $43 billion over 10 years. Another revenue increase in the majority leader's bill that could be replaced with a spending cut is the elimination of what some Democrats have described as a tax break for shipping jobs overseas. Indeed, we have seen this proposal pop up several times over the last few years. However, as some may recall, the Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation wrote a letter to Senator Stabenow and Representative Pascrell, the authors of a bill to close this so-called loophole, that stated, Under present law, there are no specific tax credits or disallowances of deductions solely for locating jobs in the United States or overseas. I previously challenged my colleagues to come and point out to me if they thought that was incorrect. To date, no one has tried to meet that challenge. Yet efforts continue to raise a tax under the guise of closing a loophole where no loophole exists. One spending cut from Dr. Coburn's book that could be used as a substitute for closing the Democrats' phantom loophole is to reduce the Federal limousine fleet back to the level it was in 2008. According to Dr. Coburn's book, the government owned 238 limousines in 2008. By 2010, that number had grown to 412. What changed in government between 2008 and 2010 that required an increase of over 73 percent in the number of limousines needed to shuttle bureaucrats? If anyone knows, please let the American people know. Going back to the 2008 level of Federal limousines would save the government $115.5 million over 10 years. There are numerous other places where we can cut spending immediately. Instead of pursuing the Democrats' tax hike strategy or the President's indiscriminate sequester, we should instead sensibly restrain spending through proposals such as these. I anticipate that some of my friends on the other side will argue we should pursue these spending cuts in addition to passing more tax hikes. My response is that we should be saving all of these revenue raisers for future tax reform efforts. There is a growing bipartisan consensus here in Congress in favor of comprehensive tax reform. The leaders in both the tax-writing committees are committed to this effort, and I believe we have a real opportunity to accomplish something on tax reform this year. However, if we start closing loopholes and eliminating preferences now in order to raise revenue to avoid the sequester, they won't be there to help us lower marginal tax rates later on when we are working on tax reform, which will make an already difficult process that much harder. Ultimately, if we follow the path my Democratic colleagues want us to take, we will be raising taxes on the American people while at the same time hampering future tax reform efforts. This is simply not the way to go, particularly when there are perfectly reasonable spending cuts available to replace the President's sequester. As I said, whatever we do, we ought to do it through regular order. That is why I have filed this motion to commit and why I hope my colleagues will support it. While I am waiting for someone to represent the majority, because I am going to have a unanimous consent request that I understand will be objected to and I want to protect the majority's right to do that, as much as I don't agree with it. I know there is an agreement in place for consideration of the sequestration bill and I don't want to stand in the way. But at some point we need to have a real bipartisan conversation about a return to regular order. For too long we have been avoiding the committee process here in the Senate and I think the results speak for themselves. I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find a way to restore the deliberative traditions of the Senate by allowing the committees to do its work. If we can return to regular order, the words ``honest leadership and open government'' will be more than a campaign slogan. The American people should expect nothing else. I understand my unanimous consent will be objected to, and so I ask unanimous consent that I be immediately recognized to make this unanimous consent as soon as the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee arrives.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. I appreciate it. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the two cloture votes today, it be in order for me to make a motion to commit S. 388 to the Finance Committee, the text of which is at the desk, and the Senate proceed immediately to vote on the motion without intervening action or debate.

Mr. HATCH. It is the motion to recommit.

Mr. HATCH. Look, this place is not being run on regular order. The committees are being ignored. The committees are established to be able to intentionally look at these matters and hear both sides and hear the top experts in the country. I feel very badly that this simple motion has to be objected to. I feel badly because I know neither of the amendments that will be filed, that will be heard or voted on, are going to pass. One reason they will not is because we have not followed the regular order.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Mr. Jacob Lew to be Secretary of the Treasury. This is an important nomination. With our still-struggling economy and our growing fiscal problems, the next Treasury Secretary is going to have a lot on his plate. That being the case, we have worked on the Finance Committee to vet Mr. Lew, to examine his background credentials, and provide a complete picture of his qualifications for this post. I wish to offer a few comments about our review process, what we have learned, and the reservations about the nominee that remain with me now that this process is complete. Let me begin by saying a few words about the process itself. For well over a decade, the Finance Committee has followed a specified procedure when considering executive branch nominations. Sadly, that procedure was not followed in the case of Mr. Lew. After publicly announcing Mr. Lew's nomination, the White House waited 16 days before submitting any of his paperwork. That was an atypically long delay and, in addition to slowing the vetting process, it ensured Mr. Lew would not be confirmed in time to prevent a vacancy at the Treasury Department. A nomination hearing was scheduled to be held only 12 calendar days after the paperwork was received, even though the nominee had not answered all of the questions submitted to him. That is simply not the way our process has worked in the past, and the undue haste seriously hampered our ability to thoroughly examine Mr. Lew's background and his qualifications. Once the hearing was completed, as is customary, members of the Finance Committee submitted written questions for the record. Since that time, anonymous administration sources have decried the very notion that members of the Finance Committee had the audacity to ask hundreds of questions of Mr. Lew as part of their constitutional advice-and-consent responsibilities. Let me be clear. I will vigorously defend the right of any Member of Congress, regardless of party, to ask questions of nominees until they are satisfied they have obtained all the relevant information, and especially in the case of the Treasury Secretary, which is one of the most important assignments in our government today and always has been. If we go all the way back to the time of Alexander Hamilton, we know what he meant to this country by establishing the financial system of this country as the Secretary of the Treasury. In the case of Mr. Lew, there were several reasons why he ended up being asked numerous questions. First, the nomination process, as I mentioned, was abbreviated due to the haste of the administration. That meant the questions which through the course of ordinary business could have been resolved through discussion had to be asked in written form. Second, due to the general unresponsiveness of the administration to requests for information over the last few years, there is a pent-up demand for information and any semblance of responsiveness from the executive branch. Third, Mr. Lew's responses to many questions have been opaque. He has dissembled often. That being the case, it seemed the only way to get answers to straightforward questions was to continue to ask for clarifications in an attempt to break through the wall of obfuscation Mr. Lew had constructed. I have no doubt he could have answered most of these questions in much less numerical form than he did. Even after extensive questioning, there remain several serious concerns with Mr. Lew's background, his lack of responsiveness, and the evasive manner in which he answered many questions which were posed to him. Unfortunately, many of these concerns will go unaddressed, as Mr. Lew seems to be following the standard stonewalling strategy used by so many officials in the Obama administration. For years now administration officials have gone out of their way to be unresponsive to information requests from Congress, and that is simply unacceptable. Far too often, legitimate inquiries submitted to the executive branch go unanswered for months at a time. Requested deadlines are discarded. Indeed, in some instances information requests are ignored entirely. When responses are given, substantive and direct questions are given meaningless political answers. This has gone on far too long and it needs to stop. Mr. Lew, for his part, has promised me that he would be responsive to inquiries submitted by Members of Congress. While his answers to questions throughout the confirmation process give me reason to doubt his commitment to being responsive, I intend to hold him to that process moving forward. I believe he is an honorable man and I believe he will try to do this. I wish to take a few minutes to address some additional substantive concerns I have about Mr. Lew, his background, and his qualifications for this post. Let's consider Mr. Lew's Citigroup years. At Citigroup Mr. Lew was managing director and chief operating officer of two units, Global Wealth Management and Citigroup Alternative Investments. Mr. Lew claimed repeatedly while managing, directing, and operating those Citigroup units he essentially undertook back-room operations such as firing people, moving office space, integrating computer systems, eliminating redundancies, and things of that nature. Mr. Lew has also repeatedly stated he did not design financial products at Citigroup, make portfolio decisions or, in his words, opine on investments. In fact, when asked about investment products which were marketed and sold by the Citigroup units he oversaw, he could not remember any specific details. It needs to be noted some of those investments ended up generating enormous losses for investors. For example, funds called MAT, ASTA and Falcon, which were marketed, sold, and managed by the Citigroup units Mr. Lew oversaw ended up being the subject of lawsuits and successful arbitration claims, where success was based on investors convincing arbitrators the funds were misrepresented and mismanaged by Citigroup. The losses to investors from these funds numbered in the billions. In fact, some financial advisers at Citigroup protested internally the misrepresented securities caused enormous damage to Citi's reputation. One of Mr. Lew's bosses at Citigroup argued on behalf of the investors and against Citi's stock price and bottom line by saying the investors had been wronged and should be made whole. She was subsequently fired. From all information I have seen, Mr. Lew did not similarly stand up for wronged investors while on Wall Street. Perhaps it is because he did not know what was going on in the firm or at his firm. We don't really know. Despite the fact the funds in question led to probably the largest losses in the history of the units Mr. Lew oversaw, Mr. Lew claims that he cannot recall anything about them. If you ask anyone familiar with the funds and controversies surrounding them, they will say you would need to have been away on a desert island to not have heard about the problems that these funds faced. Yet, once again, Mr. Lew continues to deny having any memory of them. At the same time Mr. Lew claims while he was at Citigroup he learned a lot about financial markets and the dangers of risk. Indeed, he cited his experience at Citi as a qualification to be Treasury Secretary, even though he appears to have little recollection about any of the actual details of his work at that time, or at least his financial details. The question remains: How could Mr. Lew operate, manage, direct units and also be in charge of staffing decisions without having any knowledge of the financial products that were marketed, sold, and managed by these very same units? It remains unclear. Had there been a traditional vetting process, perhaps we could have gotten to the bottom of this mystery. As it is we are only left to speculate, as you can see. In addition to Mr. Lew's lack of knowledge about some of the high- profile failures of the units he was overseeing, there are legitimate concerns relating to his compensation while at Citigroup. On January 29, 2009, President Obama made remarks about Wall Street, saying that institutions were ``teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them.'' The President also remarked on Wall Street bonuses at the time, saying: That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful. About Wall Street executives, he said: There will be a time for them to get bonuses. . . . Now is not the time. Elsewhere he referred to Wall Street bonuses as ``obscene.'' In late 2008 and early 2009, American taxpayers provided over $45 billion--that is with a ``B''--in direct assistance to Citigroup and backed hundreds of billions of Citigroup assets. At the same time, in January 2009, Mr. Lew reportedly received over $940,000 in compensation, most of which was a bonus for work performed in 2008 when Citi was on the verge of collapse. The bonus came a day before Citi received yet another infusion of billions of dollars of taxpayer money to prop up the company. That was the day before Citigroup received the infusion of billions of dollars that he got that bonus. There is, at the very least, a contradiction between the President's rhetoric with regard to Wall Street and his decision to appoint Mr. Lew to be Treasury Secretary. However, rather than acknowledging any such contradiction, Mr. Lew has simply repeatedly told us all that his compensation was in line with what other similarly situated executives received. As I have said before, that justification seems a bit like saying: Gee, Dad, everyone was doing it. Unfortunately, that type of reasoning is exactly what led to the financial crisis. In addition, an employment agreement Mr. Lew had with Citigroup had a clause stating that his guaranteed incentive and retention award would not be paid upon his exit from Citigroup. However, there was an exception indicating that he would receive that compensation ``as a result of his acceptance of a full-time high-level position with the United States government or regulatory body.'' It remains unclear how this exception is consistent with President Obama's efforts to, in his own words, ``close the revolving door that carries special interest influence in and out of the government.'' Of course, as has been widely reported during the course of our vetting process, we found that while he was at Citigroup, Mr. Lew actively chose to invest in a hedge fund that served as a venture capital-like fund that invested primarily overseas. The fund Mr. Lew invested in was based in the Cayman Islands at the infamous Ugland House that so many Democrats have viciously decried as a tax haven. In fact, in 2008, while campaigning for President, then-Senator Obama said that the Ugland House was ``either the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax scam in the world.'' Throughout the 2012 campaign, President Obama repeatedly attacked Mitt Romney for having funds invested in the Caymans. If I recall it correctly, Mitt Romney's funds were in a trust he had no control over. In making such investments, Governor Romney was, in the words of the Obama campaign, betting against America. One can only wonder whether while serving as White House Chief of Staff for President Obama, Mr. Lew supported this line of attack. Once again, Mr. Lew has repeatedly refused to acknowledge any contradiction or hypocrisy between the President's rhetoric and his own actions, defending himself only by saying that this investment was done legally and transparently. I think the same probably could have been said about Governor Romney's investments as well, which were in a blind trust. The contrast between the President's past vilification of certain financial activities and individuals and Mr. Lew's very participation in those activities is striking. Yet we are now essentially being told that people should do as administration officials say, not as they did. In addition to concerns about Mr. Lew's record, I have serious disagreements with him when it comes to policy. For example, in response to written questions, Mr. Lew backtracked from the administration's previous positions on the need for entitlement reform. At one time, commonsense reforms, such as raising the Medicare eligibility age, were on the table for the Obama administration. Such ideas have apparently been discarded by the President, and Mr. Lew has made it clear he shares that discarding position. As a Social Security and Medicare trustee, the Treasury Secretary cannot simply wish away the problems with our entitlement programs. If he is confirmed, and I believe he will be, Mr. Lew will be tasked with addressing these problems. Sadly, it appears he will be just another voice in the Obama administration against taking meaningful action on entitlements and in favor of higher taxes--a repetitive theme at least all of us Republicans are getting very sick of. The use of the word ``balance''--my gosh, what a perversion. I think I have made my concerns about the Lew nomination very soundly and very clear. That being said, I have always believed that whoever is President, including our current President, whom I like--any President, regardless of party--is owed a certain degree of deference when choosing people to work in his administration. Therefore, though I personally would have chosen a different person for this position, I intend to vote in favor of Mr. Lew's confirmation. Obviously, my vote in favor of Mr. Lew comes with no small amount of reservation, and I don't fault any of my colleagues for choosing to vote against him. Indeed, I share many of their same concerns. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Lew has promised to be responsive to Members of Congress and their requests for information. I expect him to be responsive to the Senate Finance Committee and to the Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee as well as the Democrats. He has also promised to work in a bipartisan manner to address the problems facing our Nation. I believe Mr. Lew can, and hopefully will, do that. My hope is he does not view these promises as merely boxes checked off on the way to confirmation. If confirmed, Mr. Lew will be the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and not the Secretary of the ``Obama treasury,'' although indirectly he will be. His first job is to the United States of America, and he might have to argue strenuously against some of the White House positions on financial matters and Treasury matters. He has to work for all the American people and not simply one political party. If he does those things, I will be willing to work with him all the way, and I have to say I expect him to. I expect him to be the honorable man he has told me he is and that I believe him to be; otherwise, I couldn't vote for him, especially under these circumstances. However, I have to say, if he fails to live up to the promises he has made, if he becomes just another Obama acolyte using his high-powered position in the administration to attack political opponents, I will personally be sorely disappointed and hurt by it. If that ends up being the case, he will have no greater adversary in the Senate. I don't want to be an adversary. I want to help him turn this country around. I want to be an asset to him up here, and I want him to be an asset to our country down there--and up here when he comes. Given my many reservations and concerns about Mr. Lew, I hope he and the President take note that I am bending over backward to display deference to the President's choice of Treasury Secretary. This gesture, I hope, will not be in vain. I can contrast Mr. Lew's positions when he worked in the Clinton administration. Many Republicans felt he was a straight-up guy, and I was one of them. I have suggested to him that we would like to see that type of person manage our Treasury rather than the partisan person we have seen in the last couple years. True, the position he had at the White House was a partisan position, and I make a great allowance for that. I personally like this man. I personally believe he is a good man. But I also believe sometimes we can get so caught up in politics that we don't do what we know we should do. I am hoping he will. I believe he will. If he does, he is going to have a lot of support from me. I wish to thank my chairman of the committee. He has always been very honorable and very straightforward. I understand a lot of the pressures he has had throughout this process, having been chairman a number of times myself in the Senate and experienced that stress. I want everybody to know this is an important position, this is an important human being, and I hope he lives up to all he has the capacity to live up to. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the GAO opinion letter dated September 4, 2012, and the TANF Information Memorandum dated July 12, 2012.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my friend from Florida, Senator Rubio, as he introduces an important piece of legislation, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill, which is being introduced in the House by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is based on the belief that children should not make profound life-changing decisions by themselves and that parents are generally in the best and most responsible position to help them. One of the many disturbing ironies in the abortion debate is that parental consent is needed for such things as tattoos or school fieldtrips but not always for abortions that will end one life and change another forever. Abortion advocates say that abortion should be treated as any other surgical procedure many of them oppose doing so when it comes to parental consent. What is worse, there are individuals and organizations out there who appear to care more about money than about kids. They are willing to help young girls get abortions by any means necessary, including taking them to other States without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Mind you, those same parents will be responsible for the aftermath, for the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of the abortion. If parents are to be responsible at the end, they have the right to be there at the beginning. If it were possible, just for a moment, to take the abortion politics out of the picture, every parent knows that kids have to develop over time the judgment and maturity to make decisions. No one is more committed to them, no one has more love for them, no one has more responsibility for them than their parents. This bill has two parts. First, it prohibits taking a minor across state lines for an abortion if doing so evades the parental involvement law in her home State. In the 109th Congress, this portion of our bill passed the Senate with 65 bipartisan votes. More than 80 percent of our fellow Americans support it. Second, this bill requires abortionists to notify parents of an out-of-state minor before performing an abortion. Without this common sense requirement, abortion providers and advocates actually advertise how minors in states that require parental involvement can get abortions elsewhere. This perverse practice undermines parents and puts young girls at greater risk. Fifty-seven Senators of both parties, including 23 still serving in this body today, voted for cloture on this combined bill in 2006. I urge my colleagues to read the bill. It does not apply when an abortion is necessary to save a girl's life or if the girl is a victim of abuse or neglect. Again, please read the bill. It is carefully drafted with the appropriate exceptions and safeguards in order to focus on what unites the vast majority of Americans, that parents should be involved before their child has an abortion. The majority of states have laws requiring parental involvement and, with its interstate component, this bill is a legitimate and constitutional way for Congress to help protect children and support parents.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to stand with my friend from Florida, Senator Rubio, as he introduces an important piece of legislation, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill, which is being introduced in the House by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is based on the belief that children should not make profound life-changing decisions by themselves and that parents are generally in the best and most responsible position to help them. One of the many disturbing ironies in the abortion debate is that parental consent is needed for such things as tattoos or school fieldtrips but not always for abortions that will end one life and change another forever. Abortion advocates say that abortion should be treated as any other surgical procedure many of them oppose doing so when it comes to parental consent. What is worse, there are individuals and organizations out there who appear to care more about money than about kids. They are willing to help young girls get abortions by any means necessary, including taking them to other States without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Mind you, those same parents will be responsible for the aftermath, for the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of the abortion. If parents are to be responsible at the end, they have the right to be there at the beginning. If it were possible, just for a moment, to take the abortion politics out of the picture, every parent knows that kids have to develop over time the judgment and maturity to make decisions. No one is more committed to them, no one has more love for them, no one has more responsibility for them than their parents. This bill has two parts. First, it prohibits taking a minor across state lines for an abortion if doing so evades the parental involvement law in her home State. In the 109th Congress, this portion of our bill passed the Senate with 65 bipartisan votes. More than 80 percent of our fellow Americans support it. Second, this bill requires abortionists to notify parents of an out-of-state minor before performing an abortion. Without this common sense requirement, abortion providers and advocates actually advertise how minors in states that require parental involvement can get abortions elsewhere. This perverse practice undermines parents and puts young girls at greater risk. Fifty-seven Senators of both parties, including 23 still serving in this body today, voted for cloture on this combined bill in 2006. I urge my colleagues to read the bill. It does not apply when an abortion is necessary to save a girl's life or if the girl is a victim of abuse or neglect. Again, please read the bill. It is carefully drafted with the appropriate exceptions and safeguards in order to focus on what unites the vast majority of Americans, that parents should be involved before their child has an abortion. The majority of states have laws requiring parental involvement and, with its interstate component, this bill is a legitimate and constitutional way for Congress to help protect children and support parents.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today the Senate should have been able overwhelmingly to support reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, but the majority made that impossible. In fact, S. 47 is not really a reauthorization bill but a bill to use the Violence Against Women Act to venture into new ideological territory. For that reason, I cannot support S. 47 but am a cosponsor of the true VAWA reauthorization bill introduced by my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley. Two decades ago during the 103rd Congress, as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I worked with Chairman Joe Biden to develop legislation to combat domestic violence and sexual assault against women. That first passage of the Violence Against Women Act had bipartisan support, although it was by no means without controversy. I took more than my share of criticism from the right, but it was the right thing to do, and I worked to promote a genuine bipartisan consensus behind this legislation. In 2000, I again cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act which was included in the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, and the Senate voted 95-to-0 for the conference report. I cosponsored the VAWA reauthorization bill again in 2005, and this time the Senate passed it by unanimous consent without even a roll call vote. Clearly, the trend has been toward broader support. Unfortunately, the majority today has deliberately stopped that trend. The majority has insisted on injecting into this legislation highly controversial and divisive provisions that were guaranteed to fracture the growing support that VAWA has enjoyed in the past. Many of us asked them not to do it this way but to address these issues separately so that there could be hearings and proper debate. Instead, the majority chose to use VAWA as cover for sidestepping the legislative process on these issues. Let me give just one example. One of those divisive issues concerns the jurisdiction of courts on Native American reservations. Section 904 of S. 47 would give tribal courts jurisdiction over nontribal individuals in domestic violence cases. This presents numerous constitutional problems. Native American reservations are sovereign nations, and key provisions of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights have been interpreted not to apply there. This legislation lists certain rights to be afforded nontribal defendants but not only stops short of guaranteeing all constitutional rights but also does not provide for direct review of convictions in U.S. courts. I simply cannot support depriving American citizens of constitutional rights and judicial protection. I want to applaud my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, who has been trying mightily to correct this grave constitutional defect in S. 47. He has negotiated in good faith in a principled and fair way. Like me, he wants to support reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. But like him, I will do so only on the appropriate constitutional and policy grounds. I have cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act three times. I voted last year to reauthorize it and will do so again today. But while I support reauthorizing VAWA, I cannot support using VAWA as a vehicle to enact divisive and controversial new measures that have not been properly evaluated on their own terms. Had the majority taken the same approach as we did in 2000 and 2005, this legislation would have been passed and signed into law months ago. Instead, the majority has destroyed the bipartisan consensus in favor of unconstitutional and divisive efforts to favor special interests. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the debt limit alone, under the current administration, had been increased by over $5 trillion. That is simply unsustainable. Not to worry, I have recently been told. We have made massive progress toward promising deficit reduction. I hear this even though we have not seen any significant actual reduction. I have been hearing bold claims by my friends on the other side of the aisle about having attained trillions in budget ``savings'' and deficit reduction in just the past couple of years alone. They have gone so far as to say that we have had $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction legislated in the past 2 years. Of course, the deficit reduction has not been realized. It represents promises and plans that even Democrats seek to undo. It is amazing to me that they make these claims. I have heard bold claims that we have somehow legislated deficit reduction totaling as much as $3.6 trillion from my friends on the other side. I have heard that deficit reduction that has been promised can be broken down to an 80-to-20 ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes. While I often applaud creativity, I have to say these deficit reduction claims and the ratio of spending reductions to tax hikes is more than creative. It is more like Enron accounting, and if you were running a company in the private sector and made such claims, you would probably end up in jail. Let me make a few brief comments on the Democrats' Enron accounting of deficit reduction. First, the so-called spending cuts they identify have not yet been realized, and even they are working hard to undo some of them, if not all of them. Second, the so-called spending cuts are only cuts if you are selective in the starting point you use to measure whether spending is being cut. Relative to what spending levels would be, had we not had a Democrat spending spree, spending has increased even if you include plans put forward in the Budget Control Act, which have not yet been realized. Third, the spending-cut-to-tax-hike number thrown around by my friends on the other side of the aisle counts only one discrete tax hike--the one associated with the fiscal cliff bill. Why do Democrats want to entirely ignore the massive tax hikes associated with ObamaCare that have already gone into effect, with more to come? Fourth, spending cuts that my friends on the other side of the aisle are banking on when they devise their Enron accounting have not yet been set in place. Until fiscal year 2013 comes to a close, those spending reductions have not actually occurred, and Congress has a long history of promising cuts without delivering. It is ironic to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle fight tooth and nail against any true reductions in the outsized spending of the current administration. Then when budget realities force consideration of reductions, and legislation is passed promising reductions, Democrats boast of having cut spending to reduce deficits. Finally, when it comes to actually implement any spending cuts, Democrats want to undo them and replace them with yet more taxes. That is what we are hearing from the other side with regard to the sequestration. I believe our country faces a large spending problem and that our debt is too big and grows too fast. I believe presenting a picture of our finances that would pass muster only in the Enron accounting department is a disservice to the American people. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want more tax hikes to pay for more spending, then they should just say so. And some of them do, by the way, and I compliment them for doing that, even though I think it is crazy. Cloaking their desires in manufactured claims that we have somehow cut spending 4 to 1 relative to tax hikes is simply dishonest. And I do not think I have been wrong in calling it Enron accounting. Frankly, I am getting a little sick of it because they throw these figures around as though they are really tax cuts, and they are not tax cuts, and they never will be according to my friends on the other side in what their actions show. So it is important that we get rid of the fuzz and get rid of the buzz and get rid of the phony stuff and the Enron accounting and start realizing that we need to have some real tax reductions. Frankly, we need to have some real spending reductions. Even if we cannot get tax reductions, we ought to all be working on spending reductions. We ought to be looking at every aspect of this economy, every aspect of our budget, every aspect of our legislation, and we ought to be looking for as many spending reductions as we can find. Spending is out of control. Even today, you know they are going to be spending well over 22 percent of GDP, according to the best of estimates. The economic results of yesterday that were in the paper of this slow growth ought to be waking up everybody on both sides of the aisle that we are not doing our job. The reason we are not doing our job is because we phony up these numbers that are not really spending reductions, and then we act like everything is hunky-dory, when, in fact, things are not hunky-dory. We are in real trouble in this country, and it is inexcusable to let the greatest country in the world have to go through this type of charade because we are unwilling to face the music that every individual family in this country has to face on balancing their budgets and on balancing ours. I think it is time to cut the charade and quit talking about spending reductions that do not materialize and amount to nothing but Enron accounting. Mr. President, I ask that both sides be charged equally for the time we are in a quorum call.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, right now the Federal deficit stands at roughly $16.4 trillion. I don't know how anyone can hear that number and not be appalled, nor do I believe there will be, over 10 years, $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. In fact, I don't see any deficit reduction except, perhaps, bringing our soldiers back, but that is not particularly deficit reduction since it looks as though we are going to have difficulty maintaining the military with the strength it has had in the past. Think about it, $16.4 trillion. It is incredible. The Federal Government is currently operating with just $25 million of so-called headroom underneath a statutory debt limit which, to be more precise, is $16.394 trillion. We are told that we reached the debt ceiling at the beginning of the year, and in order for the government to pay for obligations without further borrowing, Treasury has been using so- called ``extraordinary measures,'' such as changing the finances of certain Federal savings plans. Sadly, the use of such measures has become the norm under this administration and under this Senate majority, where budget and debt decisions are continually made through last-minute, closed-door deals. I don't think the American people can stomach another cliff scenario. I don't think they want to turn on the news and see another clock counting down to the latest in a string of perfectly avoidable crises. There is a better way to legislate. I am not talking about some novel or unheard of approach. I am talking about doing things through the regular order. Anyone watching the Senate operate over the last few years probably doesn't know what I am talking about. There is a process that has been established to facilitate compromise and move even controversial pieces of legislation over the finish line. Under this process bills are assigned to committees where they are debated and discussed in hearings and markups. Committees are able to consider and process proposals before legislation is brought to the Senate floor. While this system isn't perfect, moving a bill through the committee greatly improves its prospect for passage in a divided Senate. This isn't meant to be a civic lesson. I know my colleagues understand how the committee process works. As we debate yet another major piece of legislation that hasn't gone through a committee, I don't think a reminder is out of order. We need to return the Senate to regular order, which includes processing budgets through the Senate Budget Committee and processing the debt limit through the Senate Finance Committee. We are told if we pass this legislation, the administration will be able to borrow to be able to pay off incoming obligations until May 19. Then, presumably, we will be back to the use of ``extraordinary measures,'' which as I understand it will get the government through the end of July before we are once again talking about a possible default. That is not the way to run a government. Prospects of more debt limit impasses and threats of future defaults serve only to elevate uncertainty among the American people about whether the Federal Government will honor its financial obligations. Unfortunately, this administration has continued to play on this uncertainty for political purposes. Rather than working with Congress to resolve our fiscal mess, the President throws out suggestions that Social Security recipients would not receive their benefits or that our troops would not get paid. Indeed, it seems that the President is more interested in engaging in political fights and manufacturing straw men than he is in eliminating threats to the fiscal security of our Nation's seniors and our troops. At the same time, we wait for the first Senate budget in 4 years. I was heartened when I heard the news that the Democratic leadership plans to move forward with a budget this year. However, I am disappointed by indications that no effort will be made in the budget to rein in our unsustainable entitlement programs. I hope that is not true because, to borrow a phrase from the President, ``We can't wait.'' Entitlement reform can't wait. Even the trustees of Social Security and Medicare have stated that the entitlements are unsustainable, and they urge quick action. Those trustees include senior officials in the Obama administration who could hardly be viewed as deficit hawks. These are the problems our Nation faces. Our fiscal and economic well-being literally hang in the balance of these debates. If the Senate is going to be up to the challenge of fixing these problems, we are going to have to start doing things differently. We shouldn't wait until the Nation's finances reach yet another cliff sometime this summer before we start talking again and addressing our unsustainable fiscal situation. That is not what the American people want to see, and that is not the direction in which we should be going. I believe my colleague from Montana feels the same way; that we can start the talks now in committees and do the things we should in committee and report bills to the floor. Even if we can't support them, at least they will be done the right way. A return to regular order would provide a potential solution, but it wouldn't require that we begin work immediately; that we don't just wait until the last minute and have these decisions made in the office of the majority leader. Even if we were to pass the stop-gap debt limit suspension measure before us, there is precious little time for us to act. I have suggested and will continue to suggest that the Senate Finance Committee begin to engage now on a longer term debt limit solution. The bill before us would only eliminate the prospect of Federal default until sometime in the summer. That means if we go through regular order, we have only a few months at best to debate, have hearings, process proposals, and make decisions. I am not under any illusions this process will be easy. If we want to avoid another cliff scenario in late July, this is the best way to go forward. It is the best path forward. We don't need any more last-minute deals to avoid going over cliffs. We certainly don't need any more countdowns or threats of default and downgrades to our Nation's credit rating. Of course, we don't need to wait in the hopes that President Obama will finally break his string of failures to arrive at a so-called grand bargain. We have the tools at our disposal to address these problems, but, as I said, we need to start now, immediately. As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on the committee--those on both sides of the aisle--to reach a long-term solution on the debt limit. I believe this process can put us on a path to tax and entitlement reform, which is the key to righting our Nation's fiscal course and putting us on a better economic footing. The measure before us is not a long-term solution to the debt ceiling or our fiscal predicament, nor is it intended to be. I am convinced that if we want a long-term solution, and if we want to avoid facing yet another cliff, we need to restore regular order in the Senate. I think anything short of that is not going to work. We have good people on both sides of the floor, people who love this country, people who really can work together if they will. We have committees set up to take care of these problems, but they are being bypassed. We must find ways of working through the committees. We have a number of people on both sides who need to deal with the uncertainties, the problems and the difficulties in these fiscal matters. I have confidence in our chairman and in his leadership, and I know this is not his fault. I think he would prefer regular order, as would I. It puts a lot more burden on us as committee members, but that is where it ought to be. We ought to be able to face these problems. We have excellent people on both sides on the Finance Committee. I would like to see the Finance Committee do its work and have the confidence that we should and get this done in a proper manner, in the right way, before we go off the fiscal cliff again or before we need to be faced with the fiscal cliff. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and that the time in quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Immigration Innovation--or I-Squared--Act of 2013. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Marco Rubio, and Senator Chris Coons, without whom this bill would not have materialized. All four of us worked very closely together, and each one of us deserves total credit for this bill. Together, we have crafted one of the first bipartisan immigration bills in this Congress, one that is designed to address the shortage of high-skilled labor we face in this country. This shortage has reached a crisis level. For too long, our country has been unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for workers trained in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM--fields. As a result, some of our Nation's top technology markets, such as Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, New York, and Salt Lake City, are in desperate need for qualified STEM workers. It is critical that we not only recognize this shortage of high- skilled workers but also understand why it exists. Increasingly, enrollment in U.S. universities in the STEM fields comes from foreign students, and despite our urgent need for workers in these fields, we continue to send these foreign students--potential high-skilled workers trained at American universities--back to their home countries after graduation. Recently I was in a meeting with several leaders in the technology industry where it was mentioned that between 2010 and 2020, the American economy will annually create more than 120,000 additional computer science jobs that will require at least a bachelor's degree, and that is just mentioning one aspect of this. This is great news for many of our computer science students. Unfortunately, that is the end of the good news. Each year only about 40,000 American students received bachelor's degrees in computer science. In other words, there are approximately 80,000 new computer science positions every year in the United States that cannot be filled by the available American workforce. I might add that these are positions which need to be filled so that our technology industry can continue to thrive. Simply put, U.S.-based companies have a great need for those trained in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics field, but at least right now, there are not enough Americans trained and ready to fill these jobs. We cannot continue to simply hope American companies do not move operations to countries where they have greater access to individuals trained in these STEM fields. We cannot continue to ignore this problem; it is that simple. Continued inaction causes us to miss out on an important opportunity, especially since, as the American Enterprise Institute has confirmed, 100 foreign-born workers with STEM degrees create an average of 262 additional jobs for native-born workers. Those countries would love to have their American-educated Ph.D.s and other highly educated individuals return and boost their economy--not only from their acquired skills but also by creating these new jobs as well. An updated, high-skilled immigration system is directly tied to creating jobs and spurring growth across all sectors of our economy. We cannot afford any further inaction on this issue. The I-Squared Act of 2013 addresses the immediate short-term need to provide American employers with greater access to high-skilled workers while also addressing the long-term need to invest in America's STEM education. I am confident that this two-step approach will enable our country to thrive and help us compete in today's global economy. I mentioned my three prime cosponsors on this bill, each one of whom deserves credit for this bill, each one of whom has been a pleasure to work with, each one of whom adds a great deal to getting this bill passed. I personally thank the Senators for working with me on this issue and allowing me the privilege of working with them on this issue. Let me turn some time over to Senator Klobuchar, who, along with Senators Coons and Rubio, has been a prime mover on this piece of legislation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Coons, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Rubio. As my colleagues can see, it is a real pleasure to work with these three partners and others as well. I particularly wish to thank each of my colleagues for the helpful overview they have given on this bill. It has been a real pleasure for me to work with these three very innovative leaders in the Senate. As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, by eliminating per- country limits for employment-based green cards, recapturing lost employment- based immigrant visas, exempting certain classes of immigrants from the annual green card limit, and creating a new and sustainable funding stream to enhance the U.S. STEM education pipeline, we will help America's innovative industries recruit and retain high-skilled talent to more effectively compete in today's global marketplace, and it will make us more competitive. We have heard from many industry stakeholders that support the I- Squared Act of 2013. To date, we have received letters of support from the following organizations that support this bill: Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard Company, Facebook, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, BSA The Software Alliance, Compete America, the Semiconductor Industry Association, TechNet, the Technology Association of America, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Software and Information Industry Association, the Internet Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, TechServe Alliance, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Telecommunications Industry Association, CTIA--The Wireless Association, Sabre Holdings, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and just to mention one other, Immigration Voice. Mr. President, working with Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, and Coons, I have to say is a real privilege for me. These are three very fine additions to the Senate. In the case of Senator Klobuchar and Senator Coons, they are two respected members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Rubio, in my view, is one of the most knowledgeable Senators we have on immigration policy and, as we can see, a terrific leader in so many other ways. We send a strong message that both sides of the aisle can come together to craft bipartisan legislation to address one of our country's most urgent economic needs. Yesterday, eight of our colleagues unveiled a framework to overhaul our Nation's immigration system. I am proud of them. I commend them for their willingness to work in a bipartisan way to reform our immigration laws. It is very much needed. One of the leaders is, of course, our own Senator Rubio, as well as Senator Schumer and Senator McCain, and others as well whom I hate to not mention, but I think my colleagues get the point. Similarly, the work of Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, Coons, and I have done in crafting the I-Squared Act of 2013 was no easy task and represents hours of negotiations with interested stakeholders and has garnered, as my colleagues can see, widespread industry support. The I-Squared Act makes sense. I hope our language to reform the high-skilled immigration system is considered by this body in the immediate future. I would surely like to hear a little bit more from Senator Klobuchar, if she would care to make some additional points. I don't mean to take all the time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to particularly thank my colleagues--Senator Coons and Senator Rubio and Senator Klobuchar--for their work on this bill. It is obvious from their statements here today they have a great deal of commitment to these important issues. I-squared is a commonsense approach to ensuring that those who have come to be educated in our American universities have the ability to stay with their families and contribute to our economy and our society. This bill is good for workers, it is good for businesses trying to grow, and it is good for our economy. I am pleased with the momentum we already have seen on this bill through industry support and within the Senate itself. I am pleased to announce that Senators Flake, Shaheen, Heller, Blumenthal, Hoeven, Nelson, and Warner have agreed to be original cosponsors of the I-Squared Act, and I encourage many more of my colleagues to support and help pass this bill. It is long overdue. It is well thought out. We have run it by the top people in this country. Frankly, it has a lot of support so far. We have not even gone out and tried to get cosponsors, and they are starting to come naturally. I hope we can get the Senate to call up this bill. Of course, I think we are all interested in going beyond this bill too, in doing true immigration reform that will help our country to continue to maintain itself as the greatest country in the world. I wish to thank my colleagues. This has been a real privilege to serve with them on the floor today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Coons, Senator Klobuchar, and Senator Rubio. As my colleagues can see, it is a real pleasure to work with these three partners and others as well. I particularly wish to thank each of my colleagues for the helpful overview they have given on this bill. It has been a real pleasure for me to work with these three very innovative leaders in the Senate. As a number of my colleagues have mentioned, by eliminating per- country limits for employment-based green cards, recapturing lost employment- based immigrant visas, exempting certain classes of immigrants from the annual green card limit, and creating a new and sustainable funding stream to enhance the U.S. STEM education pipeline, we will help America's innovative industries recruit and retain high-skilled talent to more effectively compete in today's global marketplace, and it will make us more competitive. We have heard from many industry stakeholders that support the I- Squared Act of 2013. To date, we have received letters of support from the following organizations that support this bill: Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, IBM, Hewlett-Packard Company, Facebook, Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, BSA The Software Alliance, Compete America, the Semiconductor Industry Association, TechNet, the Technology Association of America, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Software and Information Industry Association, the Internet Association, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Information Technology Industry Council, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, TechServe Alliance, the Association for Competitive Technology, the Telecommunications Industry Association, CTIA--The Wireless Association, Sabre Holdings, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and just to mention one other, Immigration Voice. Mr. President, working with Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, and Coons, I have to say is a real privilege for me. These are three very fine additions to the Senate. In the case of Senator Klobuchar and Senator Coons, they are two respected members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Rubio, in my view, is one of the most knowledgeable Senators we have on immigration policy and, as we can see, a terrific leader in so many other ways. We send a strong message that both sides of the aisle can come together to craft bipartisan legislation to address one of our country's most urgent economic needs. Yesterday, eight of our colleagues unveiled a framework to overhaul our Nation's immigration system. I am proud of them. I commend them for their willingness to work in a bipartisan way to reform our immigration laws. It is very much needed. One of the leaders is, of course, our own Senator Rubio, as well as Senator Schumer and Senator McCain, and others as well whom I hate to not mention, but I think my colleagues get the point. Similarly, the work of Senators Klobuchar, Rubio, Coons, and I have done in crafting the I-Squared Act of 2013 was no easy task and represents hours of negotiations with interested stakeholders and has garnered, as my colleagues can see, widespread industry support. The I-Squared Act makes sense. I hope our language to reform the high-skilled immigration system is considered by this body in the immediate future. I would surely like to hear a little bit more from Senator Klobuchar, if she would care to make some additional points. I don't mean to take all the time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Immigration Innovation--or I-Squared--Act of 2013. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Marco Rubio, and Senator Chris Coons, without whom this bill would not have materialized. All four of us worked very closely together, and each one of us deserves total credit for this bill. Together, we have crafted one of the first bipartisan immigration bills in this Congress, one that is designed to address the shortage of high-skilled labor we face in this country. This shortage has reached a crisis level. For too long, our country has been unable to meet the ever-increasing demand for workers trained in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--or STEM--fields. As a result, some of our Nation's top technology markets, such as Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, New York, and Salt Lake City, are in desperate need for qualified STEM workers. It is critical that we not only recognize this shortage of high- skilled workers but also understand why it exists. Increasingly, enrollment in U.S. universities in the STEM fields comes from foreign students, and despite our urgent need for workers in these fields, we continue to send these foreign students--potential high-skilled workers trained at American universities--back to their home countries after graduation. Recently I was in a meeting with several leaders in the technology industry where it was mentioned that between 2010 and 2020, the American economy will annually create more than 120,000 additional computer science jobs that will require at least a bachelor's degree, and that is just mentioning one aspect of this. This is great news for many of our computer science students. Unfortunately, that is the end of the good news. Each year only about 40,000 American students received bachelor's degrees in computer science. In other words, there are approximately 80,000 new computer science positions every year in the United States that cannot be filled by the available American workforce. I might add that these are positions which need to be filled so that our technology industry can continue to thrive. Simply put, U.S.-based companies have a great need for those trained in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics field, but at least right now, there are not enough Americans trained and ready to fill these jobs. We cannot continue to simply hope American companies do not move operations to countries where they have greater access to individuals trained in these STEM fields. We cannot continue to ignore this problem; it is that simple. Continued inaction causes us to miss out on an important opportunity, especially since, as the American Enterprise Institute has confirmed, 100 foreign-born workers with STEM degrees create an average of 262 additional jobs for native-born workers. Those countries would love to have their American-educated Ph.D.s and other highly educated individuals return and boost their economy--not only from their acquired skills but also by creating these new jobs as well. An updated, high-skilled immigration system is directly tied to creating jobs and spurring growth across all sectors of our economy. We cannot afford any further inaction on this issue. The I-Squared Act of 2013 addresses the immediate short-term need to provide American employers with greater access to high-skilled workers while also addressing the long-term need to invest in America's STEM education. I am confident that this two-step approach will enable our country to thrive and help us compete in today's global economy. I mentioned my three prime cosponsors on this bill, each one of whom deserves credit for this bill, each one of whom has been a pleasure to work with, each one of whom adds a great deal to getting this bill passed. I personally thank the Senators for working with me on this issue and allowing me the privilege of working with them on this issue. Let me turn some time over to Senator Klobuchar, who, along with Senators Coons and Rubio, has been a prime mover on this piece of legislation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to particularly thank my colleagues--Senator Coons and Senator Rubio and Senator Klobuchar--for their work on this bill. It is obvious from their statements here today they have a great deal of commitment to these important issues. I-squared is a commonsense approach to ensuring that those who have come to be educated in our American universities have the ability to stay with their families and contribute to our economy and our society. This bill is good for workers, it is good for businesses trying to grow, and it is good for our economy. I am pleased with the momentum we already have seen on this bill through industry support and within the Senate itself. I am pleased to announce that Senators Flake, Shaheen, Heller, Blumenthal, Hoeven, Nelson, and Warner have agreed to be original cosponsors of the I-Squared Act, and I encourage many more of my colleagues to support and help pass this bill. It is long overdue. It is well thought out. We have run it by the top people in this country. Frankly, it has a lot of support so far. We have not even gone out and tried to get cosponsors, and they are starting to come naturally. I hope we can get the Senate to call up this bill. Of course, I think we are all interested in going beyond this bill too, in doing true immigration reform that will help our country to continue to maintain itself as the greatest country in the world. I wish to thank my colleagues. This has been a real privilege to serve with them on the floor today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I join with Senator Baucus in commending Mr. Goldberg for his service. As Principal Deputy Inspector General, and throughout his career with OIG, Mr. Goldberg's efforts have directly benefited the American people by protecting Federal health care, public health, and social programs from waste, fraud, and abuse, and recommending to HHS actions to improve program effectiveness. Mr. Goldberg has led OIG to achieve unprecedented results in combating health care fraud and abuse. He has marshaled OIG's resources to counter this epidemic through a sophisticated, multifaceted, and innovative strategy. For example, Mr. Goldberg has spearheaded OIG's efforts to join with the Justice Department to establish Medicare Fraud ``Strike Force'' operations--elite teams of investigators and prosecutors, supported by advanced data analysis--in 9 key locations. These Strike Forces have charged more than 1,400 defendants, who collectively have billed Medicare for more than $4 billion. Simultaneously, OIG has pursued more traditional civil, administrative, and criminal cases. Under Mr. Goldberg's leadership, OIG has generated record-breaking returns for the Medicare Trust Fund and taxpayers--including court-ordered recoveries, fines, restitution, and settlements totaling more than $6 billion in 2012. But not all of his results can be measured in dollars. During Mr. Goldberg's tenure, OIG produced a landmark measurement of adverse events from hospital stays; reported and testified on overutilization of antipsychotic drugs for nursing home patients; and recommended actions to protect the safety of the Nation's food supply. Mr. Goldberg has also championed fraud prevention by taking the message directly to the health care industry. He has built coalitions with industry to promote a culture of compliance and transparent practices to safeguard Federal health care programs, and he pioneered a series of guidances that set the standards for how to meet Federal health care program requirements. We wish Mr. Goldberg the very best in his retirement and thank him for his exemplary record of service to the government and the American people in protecting Federal programs from fraud, waste, and abuse and in promoting the health, well-being, and civil rights of all Americans.