Local Courthouse Safety Act of 2012

Mr. President, we are going to be considering today--and I think the rest of this week, and probably into next week--one of the most significant things we are supposed to be doing here.

I wish to start off by saying--in endorsing and encouraging a highway reauthorization bill--I want people to know this is coming from someone who is a conservative. I think there are a lot of conservative organizations out there that have mistakenly thought of this as being a big spending bill without realizing this has been, since its inception back during the Eisenhower administration, an approach to building roads, highways, infrastructure that is necessary in this country, and to have that as a top priority.

There are some problems that have come up with the highway trust fund, and I want to share that with my colleagues but, first of all, make sure everyone knows, who might be watching--and particularly some of the organizations that are conservative organizations--that these words are coming from me. I have probably been recognized as the most conservative Member of this body as much as anybody else has, maybe more. Yet, I have always said--even though I am a leading conservative--there are two areas where I am a big spender. One is in national defense and one is in our infrastructure.

For that reason, I say to the Presiding Officer, when I was first elected back in 1994, I selected two committees to be on. One was the Armed Services Committee, where I could try to keep a strong national defense. The other was the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am now the second ranking member on the Armed Services Committee and the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Back when the Republicans were a majority, I was actually the chairman of that committee. That is when we did our last bill.

Our last highway reauthorization bill was in 2005. It was one that went through the process and was very successful. Conservatives and liberals alike joined and said this is a major function of America. This is what we are supposed to be doing here.

A strong defense and our infrastructure system are not going to be done by anybody else. It is going to have to be done by us. If we want to make sure we maintain a strong national defense, which this President has not been doing with the cuts he has made--actually, we could have as much as $1 trillion in cuts in our defense budget over the next 10 years, all due, quite frankly, to one person. That is President Obama. So he does not care that much about defending America in putting the resources there. Here is a President who, in his own budget, has proposed a deficit each year, for four budgets, of over $1 trillion each year.

You would think, with these huge deficits, we would not be having a problem in defense spending, as well as in our roads and highways, in coming up with a bill that would be a transportation reauthorization bill. The transportation reauthorization bill for 2005--where I was the sponsor of it because I was chairman of the committee--was a $286.4 billion bill. It was one that even at that time barely maintained what was out there already. Certainly I do not have to tell the occupier of the chair from West Virginia that I have been through his State and there is a lot of room for improvements in the road system, and I know he is a strong supporter of this. This is certainly true

in my State of Oklahoma. It happens that my State of Oklahoma is tied, the last time I checked, with Missouri as being dead last in the quality of our bridges.

We have actually had deaths in Oklahoma. We had a lady not too long ago in Oklahoma City, the mother of three small children, who was driving and a chunk of concrete came off a bridge and killed her. This is serious stuff. This is what we are supposed to be doing here.

So we had this bill back in 2005. Since that time, we have been operating on extensions. We have done eight extensions. It is kind of complicated, but I want to explain how this works. The proceeds of the highway trust fund come from the gas tax. About 18 cents, when you buy gas at the pump, goes to maintenance of the highways and bridges in that program.

The problem has been that in recent years--it started about 10 years ago--we had surpluses in the highway trust fund, and with other people who wanted to get their deal in on the highway trust fund, we have things that have nothing to do with transportation that are there. That is one of the problems we have.

But the other problem we have is that through the efforts to encourage people to use electric cars and get better mileage and all that, we do not have the proceeds we had in years past. I think probably if we had been smart initially, we would have had the highway trust funded by a percentage as opposed to a ``centage.'' If it is 18 cents, it does not make any difference, it is going to be 18 cents. But if the price of fuel goes up, if it had been a percentage, then we would not be faced with the situation we have today. So that is what we have.

I applaud, I thank Senator Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate, for wanting to give it the attention, the priority in getting it on the floor so we can talk about it. In a minute, I will also be very complimentary of Senator Boxer from California.

This is something that is kind of interesting that is unique in transportation only. Here I am ranked always as one of the top three most conservative Members. Senator Boxer from California is a very proud liberal. One thing: I do not mind people being liberals if they are proud liberals and admit it. Well, she does. She is a liberal. She feels the government should have greater control of some of the things we do. Consequently, she is doing essentially the same thing as the current chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee as I would be doing if I had still been chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee; that is, coming up with a highway bill.

Well, we are looking at it right now. I have to share with my colleagues on the right--the Republicans, the conservatives--what we are looking at. A lot of people do not realize the bill that is coming up is a bill of compromise. We actually passed this out of the committee unanimously. All the Republicans and all the Democrats voted for it. It is a bill where, I have to say, Senator Boxer worked very closely with us. We have reforms in here.

Going back to my comment about extensions, if we do not pass a bill, we have to operate on extending the current legislation, the current bill, the remnants, I might say, of the 2005 transportation reauthorization bill.

Now, if we do that, we do not get any reforms. So one of the things we did in this bill that gained the support of the Republicans on the committee, and most of the Republicans here, was the reforms we had.

For example, in this bill we gave--the bill that is up for consideration now--more flexibility to the States. I have long believed--and I served many years ago in the State legislature--the closer you get to home the more responsible government is. And I can tell you right now, giving the flexibility to the States to make these determinations--who are we to say that we, in our infinite wisdom and knowledge in Washington DC, are smarter than they are at the State level? We are not. Certainly, we do not know the needs like the States know the needs.

So we have the situation in this legislation where we are giving more flexibility to the States. We are reducing the number of programs. This is a big thing. I cannot tell you exactly how many programs there are because I do not have that in my notes. But I do know we have reduced the number by eliminating and consolidating programs that might be duplicative of each other by two-thirds. In other words, we only have one-third of the programs we had before. That is in this bill. That is a major improvement.

Now, looking, also, at the streamlining of project delivery, we have something called NEPA. NEPA looks after the environmental concerns when we are building roads and bridges. This bill expands the number of categorical exclusions available under NEPA and allows for steps within the lengthy NEPA process to be combined so we can get things done.

You have heard the stories--I am sure you have--of problems with everything from endangered species to other environmental concerns that cause these things to drag on and on and on, and the expense is so much greater. Well, we are eliminating a lot of those categorical exclusions. We are increasing the number so that we will be able to get that much more done.

Another thing in this law--this is very complicated--is called enhancements. I opposed it back years ago when they started putting enhancements on the highway bill. I have always said it is a moral issue. When people pay their 18.4 cents a gallon, and it goes into the highway trust fund, they are led to believe that money is going to be going to transportation, for improving the roads and the bridges. That is not quite true because other deals have kind of moved in so that they are involved with it. So they passed this thing called enhancements where 2 percent of the total highway funding would have to go to what they called transportation enhancements.

A lot of people say 10 percent. It is 10 percent of the States' surface transportation funding or 2 percent of the total highway funding. I would like to do away with the enhancement program altogether. Unfortunately, that means we could not get a highway bill.

Working with Senator Boxer and with the Democrats in the committee, we came up with the perfect solution. We do not have to eliminate enhancements because the solution under this bill will allow the States to make the determination as to how they are going to spend that 2 percent of their total highway funding. Instead of using it for museums and other things that have nothing to do with transportation, we are, under the provisions of this bill that we are talking about, able to use that money for any other requirements for unfunded mandates--and there are plenty of them there, such as endangered species mitigation, storm water runoff, wetlands mitigation. They are a part of every project. So we can take that 2 percent, and instead of applying it to enhancements, we can offset the requirements that are there.

So for all practical purposes, like in my State of Oklahoma, we are not going to have any of that 2 percent for enhancements. It is not there. We have solved the problem. But we put that in the hands of States. So there will be amendments that would want to do away with enhancements. I would say we do not have to do that now because we have reformed that process.

It is a little bit complicated because we are merely saying that we have a block of money which constitutes 2 percent of the total highway funding, and instead of that going to things that we hear about that have nothing to do with transportation, we do not have to do that anymore. That will be up to the States. However, some States may feel differently. If they do, that is not their problem; that is not my problem.

So that is the type of thing we are doing in this bill that has not been there before. If we do not do it, we would be cutting highway spending down to the highway trust fund receipts. That calculates into a 34-percent cut to the States' road and bridge funding. Right now--to put this into perspective so that people will, hopefully, understand and listen--we need, and we are in the process of getting, an additional $7.2 billion in order to be able to fund this bill as we passed it--$7.2 billion.

Stop and think about that. If we go back to the $800 billion stimulus bill that President Obama had--I know Senator Boxer agreed with me-- more of that should have gone to highway funding. Only 3 percent of it--3 percent--went to highway funding. So we

are talking about $800 billion which was spent. We are trying to come up with $7.2 billion.

I have to say this and bring it up. We all remember the $700 billion bailout. A lot of Republicans ended up voting for that, and right now we are down to--the cost is probably going to be leveling out at $130 billion. That is the bailout that was passed.

Well, $130 billion, when all we are looking for now is $7.2 billion, we cannot say it is not there. As I said when I opened, this President, in his budget, has had over $1 trillion in deficit each year for 4 years. Again, that is not the Democrats, not the Republicans, it is not the House, it is not the Senate. That is President Obama. That is his budget. That is the way it works.

I have often said when we look at the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars--and yet one of the prime functions we have is roads and highways, and we are just $7.2 billion short. I think they have come up with it. I applaud the Finance Committee which has been working on this and recognized it in terms of priority that we ought to be able to do it.

They have come up with a package now that--again, this is not in my end of it; this is the Finance Committee. A lot of people think the highway bill is all in the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is not. We have the Commerce Committee, the Budget Committee, the Finance Committee, and our committee. But that end of it is in the Finance Committee. They have worked diligently. I appreciate the hard work that has came from the Democrats and the Republicans on that committee.

Now, in the event that we do not do this, we are going to go back--it will be our ninth extension. When we have an extension, none of these reforms I just talked about, none of them will end up being done. It will just be major cuts in programs.

I would only ask this: I would ask any Member of the Senate, before you draw yourself into a box where you are going to be opposed to this, what you need to do is call your State departments of transportation. Talk to them about it. Talk to the chambers. Talk to the labor unions back in your States. See what they think. This is one of the few issues where they are all in agreement--labor, chambers, all of them. They realize we have to have infrastructure in America.

I know my State is not the only State that has road problems. But I am more familiar with them because that is where I live and raise my 20 kids and grandkids. So I would hope that we look at the opportunities that we have in what is called MAP-21. That is the transportation reauthorization bill that we have under consideration at this time, and that we will do the responsible thing.

If we do rely, by the way, on extensions, our highway trust fund will be totally depleted by this next summer. Then we are going to have to do an extension or be forced to bail out the highway trust fund. We do not want that to happen. We can preclude that from happening. All we have to do is be responsible today.

Again, this is one of the few areas where back home organized labor as well as business is all for it. Here we have the extremes, such as Senator Boxer from California and myself. We both agree this is one of the two primary functions of government. This is our opportunity to do it. I hope there will not be people on the outside looking at this and completely disregarding these hundreds of billions of dollars that, in my opinion, have been wasted and not pay attention to one of the prime functions of government; that is, doing the infrastructure for the United States of America.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, Sue Lantto is an advocate of victims of domestic violence. She often visits a local courthouse in suburban Minneapolis to help her clients obtain protective orders. Last month, she wrote an editorial in which she acknowledged that ``[m]ost of us who work at the courthouse have had moments when we were frightened'' because cases sometimes ``become volatile.''

Patricia Buss handles family court matters in Dakota County, MN. She says she ``personally think[s] of the risks every time [she] walk[s] into the courthouses.''

John Baker is an attorney in Maplewood, MN. He is also a retired marine. He concurs with Sue and Patricia. He says:

I am not saying that we need to create fortresses in our

courthouses, but basic security screening and training can go

a long way. That is not being done.

The local courthouse is a workplace for many people, for secretaries, custodians, and clerks who clock in and clock out every day. It is also where justice is administered. It is where we report for jury duty and fight traffic tickets. It is where adoptions are processed, divorces are finalized, and misdemeanors are adjudicated. But as Sue, Patricia and John explained, local courthouses can be dangerous places--stakes are high, tempers flare, victims confront their assailants, defendants confront their accusers, prosecutors argue with defense lawyers. A rash of incidents in late 2011 raised concerns about security at local courthouses, especially in rural and suburban communities.

In September, a defendant opened fire in the Crawford County Courthouse in Arkansas, shooting a judge's secretary. Authorities reported the gunman entered the courthouse unopposed, wearing tactical gear, armed with semiautomatic weapons. The local newspaper later noted the shooting ``highlighted the vulnerability of the state's many small, rural courthouses where the guards, armed police and metal detectors common in large cities are often too expensive.''

Two days later, there was a shooting in the Adams County Superior Court in Indiana. According to media accounts, that courthouse did not have a metal detector either. A local judge observed that there were ``a lot of security problems here that need to be corrected'' and that the shooting ``really drove home the point that things need to change.''

Then, in December, a defendant retrieved a gun from his car and walked into the Cook County Courthouse in Grand Marais, MN. The courthouse did not have a metal detector and the gunman was not screened. He shot and wounded the prosecuting attorney and a witness. The bailiff also was injured during the encounter. After the shooting, a Minnesota judge wrote to his colleagues expressing concerns about courthouse security. He put the issue very well. He said: ``I'm no longer willing to risk my life, the life of court staff, the life of the public who have no choice about going to court.'' He said he was worried about being ``carried out in a body bag.''

These are not isolated incidents. The Center for Judicial and Executive Security in St. Paul tracks court-targeted acts of violence across the Nation and estimates there were 23 such incidents at local courthouses in 2010 and 2011 or about 1 per month. This is not the first time we have confronted this issue in Minnesota. A few years ago, a man took hostages at the courthouse in Morrison County. After the shooting in Grand Marais, in December, a local sheriff recalled that ``[t]here were a lot of heroes who really averted something much more serious.''

I am grateful for those heroes. Minnesota's sheriffs and law enforcement personnel across our Nation are among them. These brave men and women have many duties, including the daunting task of keeping our local courthouses safe. In fact, the National Sheriffs Association sent me a letter last week. I think it is worth noting, so let me read it.

Sheriffs are typically responsible for the safety and

security of the local courthouses in their counties--along

with performing traditional law enforcement duties and

operating the local jails. Sadly, in recent years, there has

been a spike in violent incidents in courthouses across the

country. This violence places law enforcement, judicial

personnel, and the general public in harm's way. As such, it

is imperative that sheriffs have the resources, particularly

in rural areas where resources are extremely limited, to

ensure courthouses have the appropriate equipment and tools

necessary to improve security, enabling for the protection of

courthouses throughout the United States.

Our sheriffs need support, and we should not wait for the next courthouse shooting before we give it to them. That is why today I am introducing the bipartisan Local Courthouse Safety Act. It does three simple, commonsense things.

First, the bill cuts through bureaucratic redtape, giving local courts direct access to security equipment that Federal agencies no longer are using. This provision is modeled after a Defense Department program that allows the Pentagon to give its excess equipment to local police and firefighters. The Local Courthouse Safety Act would do the same thing for local courts. It would give them direct access to the Federal Government's excess metal detectors, wands, and baggage screening machines.

Second, the Local Courthouse Safety Act gives States the flexibility they need to make investments in courthouse security. It clarifies that States may use their Byrne Justice Assistance grants, the Byrne JAG grants, and State Homeland Security grants to improve safety at local courthouses. The bill does not require any new spending, and it does not impose any new mandates on anyone. It simply says that States can use existing Federal resources for courthouse security upgrades if they so choose.

Finally, the Local Courthouse Safety Act provides statutory authorization for the Justice Department's VALOR Initiative, which provides training and technical assistance to local law enforcement officers teaching them how to anticipate and survive violent encounters.

This is a bipartisan issue, and this should be legislation we can pass even in this divided Congress. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Boozman, my Republican colleague from Arkansas, and a champion for law enforcement personnel in his State and across the country. I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join Senator Boozman and me in advancing this bill. In doing so, they will join a long and growing list of groups who support it, including the National Sheriffs Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the Conference of State Court Administrators.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Sue Lantto is an advocate of victims of domestic violence. She often visits a local courthouse in suburban Minneapolis to help her clients obtain protective orders. Last month, she wrote an editorial in which she acknowledged that ``[m]ost of us who work at the courthouse have had moments when we were frightened'' because cases sometimes ``become volatile.''

Patricia Buss handles family court matters in Dakota County, MN. She says she ``personally think[s] of the risks every time [she] walk[s] into the courthouses.''

John Baker is an attorney in Maplewood, MN. He is also a retired marine. He concurs with Sue and Patricia. He says:

I am not saying that we need to create fortresses in our

courthouses, but basic security screening and training can go

a long way. That is not being done.

The local courthouse is a workplace for many people, for secretaries, custodians, and clerks who clock in and clock out every day. It is also where justice is administered. It is where we report for jury duty and fight traffic tickets. It is where adoptions are processed, divorces are finalized, and misdemeanors are adjudicated. But as Sue, Patricia and John explained, local courthouses can be dangerous places--stakes are high, tempers flare, victims confront their assailants, defendants confront their accusers, prosecutors argue with defense lawyers. A rash of incidents in late 2011 raised concerns about security at local courthouses, especially in rural and suburban communities.

In September, a defendant opened fire in the Crawford County Courthouse in Arkansas, shooting a judge's secretary. Authorities reported the gunman entered the courthouse unopposed, wearing tactical gear, armed with semiautomatic weapons. The local newspaper later noted the shooting ``highlighted the vulnerability of the state's many small, rural courthouses where the guards, armed police and metal detectors common in large cities are often too expensive.''

Two days later, there was a shooting in the Adams County Superior Court in Indiana. According to media accounts, that courthouse did not have a metal detector either. A local judge observed that there were ``a lot of security problems here that need to be corrected'' and that the shooting ``really drove home the point that things need to change.''

Then, in December, a defendant retrieved a gun from his car and walked into the Cook County Courthouse in Grand Marais, MN. The courthouse did not have a metal detector and the gunman was not screened. He shot and wounded the prosecuting attorney and a witness. The bailiff also was injured during the encounter. After the shooting, a Minnesota judge wrote to his colleagues expressing concerns about courthouse security. He put the issue very well. He said: ``I'm no longer willing to risk my life, the life of court staff, the life of the public who have no choice about going to court.'' He said he was worried about being ``carried out in a body bag.''

These are not isolated incidents. The Center for Judicial and Executive Security in St. Paul tracks court-targeted acts of violence across the Nation and estimates there were 23 such incidents at local courthouses in 2010 and 2011 or about 1 per month. This is not the first time we have confronted this issue in Minnesota. A few years ago, a man took hostages at the courthouse in Morrison County. After the shooting in Grand Marais, in December, a local sheriff recalled that ``[t]here were a lot of heroes who really averted something much more serious.''

I am grateful for those heroes. Minnesota's sheriffs and law enforcement personnel across our Nation are among them. These brave men and women have many duties, including the daunting task of keeping our local courthouses safe. In fact, the National Sheriffs Association sent me a letter last week. I think it is worth noting, so let me read it.

Sheriffs are typically responsible for the safety and

security of the local courthouses in their counties--along

with performing traditional law enforcement duties and

operating the local jails. Sadly, in recent years, there has

been a spike in violent incidents in courthouses across the

country. This violence places law enforcement, judicial

personnel, and the general public in harm's way. As such, it

is imperative that sheriffs have the resources, particularly

in rural areas where resources are extremely limited, to

ensure courthouses have the appropriate equipment and tools

necessary to improve security, enabling for the protection of

courthouses throughout the United States.

Our sheriffs need support, and we should not wait for the next courthouse shooting before we give it to them. That is why today I am introducing the bipartisan Local Courthouse Safety Act. It does three simple, commonsense things.

First, the bill cuts through bureaucratic redtape, giving local courts direct access to security equipment that Federal agencies no longer are using. This provision is modeled after a Defense Department program that allows the Pentagon to give its excess equipment to local police and firefighters. The Local Courthouse Safety Act would do the same thing for local courts. It would give them direct access to the Federal Government's excess metal detectors, wands, and baggage screening machines.

Second, the Local Courthouse Safety Act gives States the flexibility they need to make investments in courthouse security. It clarifies that States may use their Byrne Justice Assistance grants, the Byrne JAG grants, and State Homeland Security grants to improve safety at local courthouses. The bill does not require any new spending, and it does not impose any new mandates on anyone. It simply says that States can use existing Federal resources for courthouse security upgrades if they so choose.

Finally, the Local Courthouse Safety Act provides statutory authorization for the Justice Department's VALOR Initiative, which provides training and technical assistance to local law enforcement officers teaching them how to anticipate and survive violent encounters.

This is a bipartisan issue, and this should be legislation we can pass even in this divided Congress. I am proud to introduce this legislation with Senator Boozman, my Republican colleague from Arkansas, and a champion for law enforcement personnel in his State and across the country. I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join Senator Boozman and me in advancing this bill. In doing so, they will join a long and growing list of groups who support it, including the National Sheriffs Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, and the Conference of State Court Administrators.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, along with Senator Conrad and others, I am introducing S. 2075, the Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes Act, or CUT Loopholes Act. This legislation will help us meet three important goals: Reducing the budget deficit, protecting important priorities, and restoring some of the fairness to our tax system.

Our legislation would reduce the deficit by $155 billion. It would do so by closing tax loopholes that favor wealthy individuals and corporations while raising the tax burden that American families must carry. It would provide more than enough revenue to pay for a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut now in place, or put a significant dent in the deficit reduction we need to avoid draconian automatic cuts through sequestration.

It is clear to almost everyone that revenue must be a part of our deficit reduction strategy. Presidents from Reagan to Bush, Sr. to Clinton have used balanced strategies that included revenue as well as spending cuts.

I will continue to fight for a number of other revenue measures such as a surtax on millionaires and billionaires; eliminating tax subsidies for oil and gas companies; ending the Bush-era tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000; and ending the carried interest loophole. We need to make those changes. But so far, they have run into an ideological brick wall, as many here in Congress refuse to consider reasonable revenue measures. But even that rigid ideological stance should allow for ending the kinds of egregious loopholes we are discussing today.

First is offshore tax haven abuse. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has spent years shedding light on how these abuses aid the wealthy and corporations. Based in part on S. 1346, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, our bill would, in part: Give Treasury the authority to combat tax haven banks and jurisdictions that help U.S. clients hide assets and dodge U.S. taxes; crack down on offshore corporations that are managed from the U.S. from claiming foreign status to dodge taxes; eliminate tax incentives for moving U.S. jobs overseas or for transferring intellectual property offshore; and establish the presumption that, unless a taxpayer proves otherwise, a corporation formed by, receiving assets from, or benefiting a U.S. taxpayer is considered under that taxpayer's control for tax purposes.

These provisions and others would reduce the deficit by at least $130 billion over 10 years.

Our bill's second focus is on a tax loophole that subsidizes corporations giving stock options to corporate executives. Today, corporations can take massive tax deductions for stock options, but usually show much lower expense on their books. Our subcommittee found that from 2005-2009, this loophole allowed excess tax deductions ranging from $12 billion to as high as $61 billion in a single year.

The CUT Loopholes Act would prevent corporate income tax deductions for stock options that exceed the expense shown on company books. It would preserve current tax treatment for individuals receiving options and

for incentive stock options used by start-up companies.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these measures would reduce the deficit by $25 billion over 10 years.

The time for these measures is now.

First, the math is inescapable. We can't reduce the deficit and do other important things--protect our country, care for our seniors, educate our young--if tax revenue remains at its lowest level in decades, and if the effective corporate tax rate is at historic lows, thanks in part to these and other tax loopholes.

Second, there is a growing recognition among Americans that loopholes like these and many others leave the deck stacked against them and their families. Overwhelmingly Americans tell us: Close those loopholes down.

Third, this is not just a realization by Democrats. Strong majorities of Independents and Republicans say that we need balanced deficit reduction, and that closing loopholes is one way to do that. Just this week, a national poll showed that 90 percent of small business owners-- a majority of them Republicans--believe big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small businesses still have to pay.

Reducing the deficit and protecting important programs is hard. We face many tough decisions and difficult fights in the months ahead.

But this decision should be easy. We should close these loopholes and make a bipartisan statement that we can reduce the deficit, serve important priorities, and restore fairness to the tax code.

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction on S. 2076 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')