Floor Statements

Madam President, I will be voting for both of these nominees for judges, but I would like to make some comments because I hear rumblings of how Senate Republicans are obstructing judicial nominees. I would just like to remind my colleagues of how well we are proceeding.

Today the Senate will consider two more judicial nominations. These nominations are people, as I just said, I am going to approve. This is the third of this week, and with today's expected action we will have confirmed 4 circuit and 9 district nominees during this Congress, for a total of 13. At this point in 2005, during President Bush's second term, the Senate had confirmed not 13 like now, with us, not 9, not 4, but only 1 judicial nominee. So that would be a record of 13 for this administration and 1 for a counter time during the second Bush administration.

As I stated last week, the quick pace of this year comes on top of a very productive 112th conditioning, in which 111 judges were confirmed. That was more judges confirmed than any other Congress going all the way back 20 years. Overall, with today's actions, we will have confirmed 184 judicial nominees. Divide it this way, 34 circuit judges and now 150 district judges. The Senate has defeated only 2 nominees. That is a record of our passing 184 to 2 that have not been approved. That is a .989 batting average. So I do not know who is shedding tears around here, but they ought to look at the record.

Other nominees are still being considered by the Senate and a few remain in committee. I note we have a hearing scheduled next week for another circuit and district judge, so we are continuing to move forward. But even counting those pending nominations, the President has a confirmation rate that is comparable to that of President George W. Bush, President Clinton, and exceeds that of President George H.W. Bush.

Again, there is no credible basis to say this President is being treated differently from previous Presidents. What is different, though, in the case of this President is the manner in which he has allowed vacancies to accumulate before submitting nominations. It is about time that down at the White House they get down to work, decide who they are going to nominate, and get the nominations up here. His failure to make judicial nominations a priority in his first year when Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate resulted in an increase of vacancies. That was not the fault of Senate Republicans.

Throughout his administration it has been the case that a majority of vacancies have had no nominees. Presently, do you know that three of four vacancies have no nominees up here?

For the 36 vacancies categorized as ``judicial emergencies,'' there are only 8 nominees. So I just want to set the record straight before the vote for these nominees because I get tired of these crocodile tears being shed. Particularly, I am sick of hearing about us not moving on judges when three-fourths of them we don't even have the nominees here yet. So quit crying.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, the Senate will vote today on an amendment that I am offering for myself, Senator Cruz, Senator Graham, and many others, as a substitute.

I believe that the underlying bill infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and it does not provide for adequate measures against criminals who commit gun violence.

My approach is much better than the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

The current background check database, called NICS, is broken. Not enough accurate information on prohibited persons is making its way into the database. This is particularly true for mental health records.

Checking firearms purchasers against an incomplete database will not be effective in stopping prohibited persons from gaining access to guns.

Additionally, we should not further strain the existing, broken system by expanding the use of an incomplete database to more transactions, as Manchin-Toomey would. We should fix the existing system. And that is what my amendment does.

First, we should reauthorize NICS. So the Grassley-Cruz amendment reauthorizes NICS Improvement Act grants to States for providing mental health records.

The amendment codifies one of President Obama's Executive orders that requires the Attorney General to issue guidance to federal agencies about which records they must submit to NICS.

It improves NICS as well by clarifying the definition of ``adjudicated mentally incompetent,'' so that it includes only actual adjudications, not a single psychiatrist's diagnosis.

Manchin-Toomey does not.

Mental health records would also be improved by requiring the Federal courts to make available to NICS information concerning such situations as defendants who plead guilty to a crime by reason of insanity.

This approach is consistent with what Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy writes today. He says:

[T]he national gun-control legislation set for debate in

Congress would rely on a bureaucratic dragnet of ``background

checks'' so extensive that anybody's hands could end up being

the wrong ones. Including mine.

He thinks that gun control supporters are ``bent on harassing [him] into giving'' up his gun.

He also offers a prescription for the actual problems:

Go after the criminal. Take his illegal gun. Leave

everybody else alone.

My amendment reflects that view. It enhances criminal prosecutions of those who use guns.

The real way to fight gun crime is to pursue criminals, not law- abiding citizens.

Under my amendment, Federal gun crime prosecutions are to be increased. This will happen because the very successful Project Exile will be expanded nationally. This initiative requires Federal and State officials to develop agreements on enforcing gun laws. It requires the U.S. Attorney to designate at least one assistant to prosecute firearms cases. Project Exile will be expanded to 18 jurisdictions, including three tribal jurisdictions, with high violent crime rates.

The Grassley-Cruz amendment authorizes $15 million per year for Project Exile, which will cover more Federal prosecutors and ATF agents.

Manchin-Toomey does not.

The amendment also establishes a task force for prosecuting felons and fugitives who fail NICS background checks.

Right now, thousands of people who are prohibited from owning guns fail background checks. Yet, the Justice Department prosecutes less than 1 percent of them. More of these criminals need to be prosecuted.

Manchin-Toomey does not address the issue.

The amendment also increases the maximum sentence from 5 years to 10 for those who lie and buy on the form that needs to be filled out when purchasing a gun from a licensed dealer.

We also need to think hard before the Justice Department asks gun dealers to sell guns to felons and then doesn't track them. That is why Operation Fast and Furious was such a disaster. It led to the death of a brave Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry.

To avoid such an ill-considered operation in the future, the amendment requires the Attorney General, the Deputy, or the head of the Criminal Division to personally approve any programs for selling guns to criminals.

The Leahy amendment's similar provision would allow the Director of ATF to make this determination. But the ATF Director did not object during Fast and Furious. So that defeats the whole point of requiring high-level approval.

Oversight work on Fast and Furious showed the need for Federal statutes against straw purchasing and gun trafficking. The amendment contains such offenses, but in a more targeted way than does the Leahy amendment.

And now that there is a trafficking offense, the amendment strikes ATF's unnecessary ability to issue demand letters collecting information on purchasers of certain rifles along the southwest border.

The way to target gun violence is to direct efforts against criminals, not law-abiding citizens. So the amendment increases the maximum penalty from 10 to 15 years for transferring a firearm to a prohibited user, as well as the penalty for illegally possessing a firearm.

It creates a 15-year maximum sentence for transferring a firearm to someone knowing that it will be used for a crime of violence, drug trafficking crime, foreign narcotics kingpin crime, or terrorism.

Contrary to what the majority would have the American people believe, mass shootings are not only about guns and mental illness. They are also about what has happened to us as a society.

So the amendment authorizes a study by the National Institute of Justice and National Academy of Sciences on the causes of mass shootings.

There are other proposals on that subject before us. But they are careful not to look at the entire problem. I don't want to single out any possible cause. But I also don't want to exempt any potential cause.

So some of the mass shooters, for instance, watched and used disturbing video games. The possible influence of violent video games should be part of what is examined.

The amendment also expands the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

It allows interstate firearms sales by permitting out-of-State dealers to sell in a State if they comply with all State laws in which they are selling.

It permits members of the armed services to buy a gun in their State of residence or where they are stationed.

The amendment allows firearms dealers to access NICS to run background checks on their prospective employees. But unlike Manchin- Toomey, the amendment requires that the rights of the prospective employee be respected. The employee would have to be provided notice and have to give their consent before such a check could be run.

Also unlike Manchin-Toomey, the amendment would expand the rights of lawful gun owners to travel through other States without fear of prosecution. Manchin-Toomey, whatever its intent, would make it more likely that law-abiding gun owners would be arrested and prosecuted as they traveled through other States.

Title II of the amendment addresses mental health.

It reauthorizes the bipartisan Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act.

These funds are used for mental health courts, crisis intervention teams, veteran treatment courts, police academy efforts, and prison services.

The amendment allows Byrne grants to be used for mental health programs and operations by law enforcement or corrections.

It allows COPS grants to be used for training law enforcement to deal with mental illness.

To restore the gun owning rights of our veterans, a judicial determination would be necessary to determine that a person is a danger to himself or others to be considered to have been adjudicated mentally defective.

Title III is focused on school safety.

It reauthorizes the Secure our School grants at the prior funding level of $30 million per year for 10 years.

To safeguard taxpayer money, it would require that different offices that award grants at the Justice Department consult with each other before these grants are awarded.

We want to help as many different schools as possible.

Finally, we should understand that Manchin-Toomey would not have stopped Newtown.

People who steal guns do not submit to background checks.

We heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee that background checks will be effective only if they are universal and accompanied by gun registration.

We should not start down the path to gun registration, as history shows where that leads.

Manchin-Toomey creates, not closes, loopholes by requiring background checks for some private sales but not others.

We have heard from gun control groups that were it to pass, they would immediately seek to expand background checks even further.

This would be a running start on a slippery slope.

The way Manchin-Toomey works, if someone takes out an ad for a gun in their church bulletin or farm bureau newsletter, they would have to proceed with a background check.

Manchin-Toomey's exception for family member transfers provides cold comfort.

If the family member transfers the gun to another family member he does not know, but is found later that he had reasonable cause to believe is prohibited, they could face 5 years in jail.

Even worse, for the first time, a violation of Federal law would be based on a violation of State or local law.

A family member may not know the firearms laws in the place where the other family member resides.

Those laws are published.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

A person would have reasonable cause to believe that a family member was in violation of them even if the person did not actually know those State or local laws.

If they transferred the gun to a family member, and they did not know the permitting rules in another state, under Manchin-Toomey, that family member could face up to 5 years in jail.

That is unacceptable.

We cannot have the fate of law-abiding citizens turn on assurances of prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, my amendment, and not Manchin-Toomey, protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners to travel through other States if their guns are unloaded and ammunition is secured.

Manchin-Toomey seems to do this but it does not.

It cuts back on existing protections.

It provides that the criminal immunity does not apply if the transportation does not violate any gun felony.

But some State laws say that not having a State permit for a gun is a felony.

So a law-abiding gun owner who did not have a permit would commit a State felony.

Under Manchin-Toomey, they could be arrested and prosecuted.

Other States that make gun transportation crimes misdemeanors could change those to felonies and eliminate the force of the Gun Owners Protection Act.

My amendment contains commonsense measures to fight gun violence in our communities and protect the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

This is the better way to go.

I strongly oppose this amendment.

Expanded background checks would not have prevented Newtown. Criminals do not submit to background checks now; they will not submit to expanded background checks.

The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice has written background checks will work only if they are universal and are combined with gun registration.

This amendment would start us down the road to registration. It would open, not close, loopholes.

It would require background checks when people advertise a gun for sale in their church bulletins or Farm Bureau newsletter. It subjects people to Federal criminal liability up to 5 years for violations of State or local law, which is unprecedented.

The pro-gun provisions would actually reduce existing protections for law-abiding gun owners.

I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous and misguided approach.

I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose this amendment. This would result in the largest ban of guns in the history of our Republic.

Three studies that the Justice Department sponsored during the previous ban found no evidence it was effective in reducing multiple victim shootings or wounds per victim. It did not stop Columbine. It would not stop Newtown. The ban does not apply to existing weapons such as those used at Newtown, and criminals who would steal such guns would not care the least if they were banned.

We never received an opinion from the Justice Department that such a ban would satisfy the Second Amendment. I surmise they are not able to conclude it is constitutional. A ban on guns based on their looks when more powerful guns are exempt would not satisfy any standard of review. These guns are commonly used, in the words of the Supreme Court, for self-defense. They cannot be constitutionally banned.

This is a slippery slope of compromising the Second Amendment, and if we go down that road, we are going to find it easier to compromise other things in the Bill of Rights.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. In 2004, we had a study by the Department of Justice, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine banned. It found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading.

The report found no evidence more people would be alive if a magazine over 10 rounds was banned.

Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted.

Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement.

I urge its defeat.

Mr. President, at 2:24 a.m. this morning, the Group of 8 finally unveiled their immigration reform bill. Since they began their meetings about 4 months ago, I have complimented them on their commitment to reforming our broken immigration system. I have sought their cooperation to ensure the bill goes through the committee process, and I have argued the bill must be open to amendment during consideration in committee and on the Senate floor. Every Member of the Senate must have an opportunity to read, analyze, and improve the bill.

The bill we received is just under 900 pages, and it tackles some very important issues, including measures on border security, E-Verify and the entry-exit system. It includes the legalization program for people here unlawfully, including DREAM Act eligible students and undocumented workers in the agricultural sector. It attempts to move our system to a merit-based and point system. It revises asylum procedures and the court structure governing immigration appeals. It includes reforms to the highly skilled visa program and seasonal worker guest worker program. It changes the way we implement the visa waiver program, and it includes a brandnew, low-skilled temporary worker program that allows willing workers to enter the country without being sponsored by an employer.

So you can see there is a lot covered in this bill. There are some new concepts. Yet the majority seems to want us to push this bill through the committee process and are intent on getting it to the floor by June. The sponsor of the bill, the senior Senator from New York, said he hopes the bill will be done in 8 weeks.

On Friday, Secretary Napolitano is scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee. It is my intent to dig into the details of the bill with her to understand the mechanics and how the bureaucracy will handle these changes. The Secretary had better have answers, especially since this may be the only time we hear about how the administration will implement the major overhaul.

The committee will then have a hearing on Monday to discuss the bill. However, the topics will be broad and all encompassing, I have been told. We have experts who need to be heard on this bill. Most importantly, because cost is a big factor around here, we need to hear from the Congressional Budget Office. Knowing how much this bill costs taxpayers and whether it will actually be budget neutral is a critically important matter.

Let me reiterate my desire to work on this bill. I think we need changes to our immigration system and to approve legal avenues for people to enter and remain in the United States, but this is not something to be rushed. We have to get this right; otherwise, the goal of the bipartisan group to solve the problem once and for all will not end. We have a long road ahead of us in order to pass this legislation to reform our immigration system. We cannot tolerate anything less than a transparent and deliberative process to improve the bill.

So let me get back to the point I made just a few seconds ago. This is something that cannot be rushed. We have to get it right. Let me say why I emphasize that.

There are only a few of us in the Senate who voted on the 1986 immigration bill. We thought we did it right. We thought by making it illegal, for the first time, for employers to hire undocumented workers--and have a $10,000 fine if they did--would take away the magnet that would bring people across the border so readily. Obviously, they come for a better life for themselves, and who can find fault with people who have good spiritual values, good family values, and good work ethics wanting to improve themselves. That is what America is all about. But entering the country illegally is not something a country based upon the rule of law can tolerate.

Anyway, we made it illegal in 1986, and then added that fine. We didn't anticipate a whole industry of fraudulent documents, so that if someone goes to an employer and says they are here lawfully and shows them a passport that looks like it is the real thing, the employer cannot then be fined $10,000 for hiring them. So we thought we took away that magnet at the time and that we might as well legalize the 3 million people who were here. We did that based on the proposition we were fixing this thing once and for all. But we know what happens when we make it legitimate to violate the rule of law. Instead of 3 million people, there are now 12 million people here in the country undocumented.

So when I read the preamble of the document put out by the Group of 8--and I am not finding fault with this--they make it very clear: We intend to--and I am paraphrasing it--fix this system once and for all so it never has to be revisited.

That is exactly what we thought in 1986. Well, we were wrong. So that is why I come to the floor tonight to plead, as I did, about a 900-page bill that just came out at 2:24 this morning, and presumably the Secretary of Homeland Security is coming before our committee in less than 48 hours to answer our questions. I wonder if she can fully understand it so she can answer our questions.

I think it is a legitimate question when the Group of 8 comes up with a proposition that we are going to fix this thing once and for all. Well, I hope they have a pattern to do that, and I hope they don't make the same mistake we did. But rushing this along has a tendency to be an environment for a screw-up like we had in 1986. We spent weeks and weeks on legislation to get it right, and we didn't get it right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Lotus, Paul Casey, and Stephen Sewell, detailees on my Judiciary Committee staff, have floor privileges during the remainder of the 113th Congress.

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

Mr. President, I am glad we are proceeding on this very important legislation. The American people might be wondering why the Senate has not been voting on any amendments to the pending gun legislation.

The Senate voted on Thursday to proceed to the bill. This followed calls that the Senate should debate the bill, and that is why I said I am glad we are getting to it. There has been very little debate. The President has said various proposals deserve a vote. We, on this side of the aisle, don't intend to stand in the way of proceeding on those votes, particularly on the amendments. So I hope we are able to vote very soon.

Last week Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey unveiled an amendment on background checks. The media hailed the agreement as a way to pass gun control. The majority announced that the Manchin-Toomey amendment would be the first one we vote on. Since we are just starting the debate now, obviously we have not voted on the amendment.

We have not voted because despite claims from the other side, background checks are not and never have been the sweet spot of the gun control debate. We have not voted on it because supporters don't have the votes to pass it--at least at this point that is the way it appears to me--and I think they know it.

They don't have the votes even though published reports indicate that Vice President Biden, the President of the Senate, has been calling Senators and asking them to support the Manchin-Toomey bill. They must not be telling him what he wants to hear. They don't have the votes for background checks even though the Vice President has reportedly stated that the opposition to the proposal comes only from the ``black helicopter'' crowd.

Well, it doesn't come from that point.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment would impose new obligations on law- abiding gun owners. It would do so even though expanding gun background checks would have done nothing to stop Newtown or other mass killings. It would do so even though expanding background checks would do nothing to prevent these killings in the future.

I often quote the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice, who recently wrote that background checks could work only if they were universal and were accompanied by gun registration. Of course, most Members of the Senate oppose gun registration. They know what has happened historically with gun registration. In other countries it has led to gun confiscation, and Members of the Senate-- but more importantly, lots of people appearing at our town meetings-- fear that could happen and don't want to go down that road.

Supporters of the background check amendment claim that it strengthens the rights of gun owners; but, in fact, it does not. The fact is the opposite is true. Opposition to the amendment does not come from the fringe elements of society. In fact, one of the reasons the Senate has not voted on the amendment is the widespread opposition to the amendment from many quarters. If only fringe elements had problems with it, we would be voting on this amendment. So keep watching. If we do not vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment, it means the proponents of that idea know they don't have the votes to pass it. If we turn to assault weapons or magazines, then it is clear to all that the majority knows it is far from the number of votes they need. I think people are going to be waiting while they try to pick up the votes that will probably never be there.

Meanwhile, on this side of the aisle, our caucus hopes to have their amendments considered soon and to vote on those amendments. Our amendments, unlike the Manchin-Toomey amendment, will actually strengthen the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and help thwart gun violence by criminals. In fact, there are reports that the other side of the aisle wants to block one of our amendments which would do exactly that.

So that is the situation. Maybe there are leaders around here who would dispute me, but that is the way I see it. The majority doesn't have the votes to pass their amendment, so we are not voting. The majority wants to block Republican amendments that they fear would pass, so we are not voting on the Republican amendments either.

The Senate voted to proceed to the bill. The Senate voted to have a debate. The Senate was promised an open amendment process which would mean we would conduct votes on the various amendments that will be offered, but so far that has not happened. I hope it will happen soon, so I ask that the audience stay tuned.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier I met with families from Newtown, CT, to discuss the legislation we are currently debating. It was emotional and difficult for all of us. I thank them for sharing their stories of their loved ones and their concerns with me. I hope my colleagues will also consider meeting with these families.

At the meeting, they called for a debate on the legislation, a debate we are having. Nonetheless, we are in the unusual position of being asked to take a leap into the unknown. We are being asked to vote to proceed to an uncertain bill. That bill is not even the bill that we would likely consider if the motion to proceed were successful. The language on background checks would change. We have not seen the actual new background check language. But we are being asked to proceed to the bill anyway. What we do have is a summary of the proposed background check language. That summary raises questions. For instance, the summary states that the background check language applies to sales at gun shows and online. Is a background check required if someone sees a gun at a gun show, then proceeds to purchase the gun outside the gun show, maybe even in a parking lot? What if someone at a gun show trades but does not sell a gun? And it applies beyond gun shows. If a private person advertises a gun, then the transfer would have to go through a licensed dealer, at a price. So if someone takes out an ad to sell their gun in the local Farm Bureau newsletter or in their church bulletin, they would have to find a licensed gun dealer to conduct a background check before sale could go through.

That is quite a limitation on private sales and ownership of guns. And it takes time in many places in this country to find that gun dealer to conduct that background check. The summary is not specific: which private sales would be exempt from the bill's background check requirements? The summary states that background checks are ``required for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens.''

That should cause everyone concern. If the background check language secures ``certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights,'' then what aspects of second amendment rights of law abiding citizens does it not secure?

The summary says that the new language exempts ``temporary transfers.'' What is the difference between a ``temporary'' and a permanent transfer? How would a law-abiding citizen know whether the transfer would be considered to be ``temporary''? What if the person making the transfer thought at the time it was made that the transfer would be temporary but later decides that it should be for a longer time?

And the summary claims that it will close the ``gun show and other looopholes.'' What ``other loopholes''? We should be skeptical about what rights could be infringed based on that claim. It is important to understand that there is no such thing as a ``gun show loophole.'' Under existing law, background checks are required for gun purchases from a federally licensed firearms dealer. This is true whether the purchase is made at a gun show or any other location. Also, under existing law, gun purchases made through someone who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer do not require a background check.

This is true whether the sale is made at a gun show or not. Whether a sale is made at a gun show is therefore irrelevant to whether a background check is required. There is one rule for sales from licensed dealers and another for private sales. But under the new language, not all private sales will be treated the same. Some private sales will require background checks and others will not. That distinction will create, not close, a loophole. No longer would all private sales be treated the same. Some private sales will require background checks and others will not. There will be political pressure then to say that all private sales should be covered--universal background checks, in other words. And we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee, and the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice has written, that universal background checks can be enforced only if gun registration is mandated.

Now it has been said on the floor recently that background check legislation cannot lead to gun registries because Federal law prohibits that. But current Federal law can be changed. And the language currently before us requires recordkeeping, a step toward registration. Although the sponsor of that language said that the bill expressly provided that no registry could be created, the bill contains no such language at present. The sponsor was misinformed about his own bill. He admitted that the current background check language was not yet ready for consideration and needed clarifications that so far have not been forthcoming.

We should have answers to these and other questions before we should proceed to the bill.

And we should be wary of going to a bill when various senators have announced their intention to offer amendments to that bill that in my judgment raise serious constitutional questions under the second amendment.

Mr. President, how can we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains language that even its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration?

Mr. President, for months, Members on both sides of the aisle have been working to find common ground on ways to fix our broken immigration system. This group has been meeting behind closed doors to forge a consensus on a very difficult topic. The group released a framework, or a document of principles, that would guide their negotiations. I cannot stress the importance of the first sentence in their preamble that states: ``We will ensure that this is a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.'' In other words, the group claimed to understand that we need a long-term solution to our immigration problems. That sentence is the most important part of their document, and as we work together on this issue, we must not lose sight of that goal.

In order to achieve that goal, we need to learn from our previous mistakes so that we truly don't have to revisit the problem. There is clear evidence that the 1986 amnesty program didn't solve our immigration problem, despite the intent of the law. Even though, for the first time ever, we made it illegal to knowingly hire or employ someone here illegally, illegal immigration soared because we rewarded the undocumented population. We set penalties to deter the hiring of people here illegally. Yet, an industry of counterfeiting and identity theft flourished and made a mockery of the law.

Unfortunately, the 1986 law didn't adequately provide for securing our borders or provide the tools to enforce the laws, nor did it properly address the need to create or enhance the legal avenues for people to enter the country. The bill focused on legalizing millions of people here rather than creating a system that would work for generations to come.

So, I have made a point of trying to remind my colleagues that we must learn from the mistakes we made. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been adamant about making sure all members have an opportunity to review, analyze, and debate the bill. Along with other members, we have asked for hearings. We have pressed the bipartisan group to work with us and ensure that we have a deliberative and healthy debate.

Unfortunately, this bipartisan group has failed to consult with many members of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration matters. They are working with the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. They are sharing language with K Street and interest groups. They are leaking details of their plans to certain media outlets. Yet, Members of the Senate are forced to learn through these avenues about their negotiations. And, all along, the American people have been in the dark.

When the bill is unveiled, possibly next week, every Member of the Senate will have questions. We will comb through the details and determine if the proposal will truly fix the problems once and for all. So allow me to share some of the questions I have. In an effort to ensure that the bill does what their framework insisted that the problem be fixed once and for all I will ask these questions when the bill is finally revealed to the public.

Is this bill enforcement first or legalization first?

What is the expected cost? How will it be paid for?

Will the bill ensure that undocumented immigrants don't get public benefits?

Will the bill move us closer to a merit-based system?

Will the bill be an avenue for labor unions to push Davis Bacon?

What are the concrete metrics used to measure border security?

Who will determine that these metrics are met? Will it be Congress, a commission or a Secretary who doesn't think that the border matters?

Will the entry/exit system Congress mandated in 1996 finally be implemented? Will it be a part of the trigger?

Will the language be tight enough to prevent criminals--those with DUIs and other aggravated felonies from being eligible for legalization?

Will individuals already apprehended, or people in removal proceedings be eligible or even allowed to apply for the legalization program?

Will the bill ensure that the legalization program is covered by beneficiaries, and not taxpayers?

What will happen to individuals who do not come forward and register or get provisional status?

What will happen if the border is never secured? What will be the consequences, including for those who have already received registered provisional status?

Will the agency in charge of immigration benefits be able to handle the additional workload while also preventing fraud and abuse?

Will the bill encourage cooperation between the Federal Government and State and locals to enforce the laws?

How will the bill ensure that ICE agents are allowed to do their job?

Will E-Verify be mandatory for all businesses? Will there be exceptions to the rule?

Will the bill require all businesses to use E-Verify now or will it drag out the requirement even though it is ready to go nationwide?

Will the bill exempt or preserve State laws that require E-Verify?

What are the concessions to the unions and to the business community?

Will the new temporary worker program, which is a new model encompassing instant portability, truly work? How will employers be held responsible for the visa holders, if at all?

Is the new temporary worker program truly temporary? Will they get a special green card process?

Will the bill exempt certain industries, such as construction, from this new visa program?

Will the 11 million people here illegally get priority in this new temporary worker program? Will they be able to use it?

Will the bill require employers to first recruit and hire Americans?

We have a long road ahead of us to pass legislation to reform our immigration system. We will have many more questions and, hopefully, a transparent and deliberative process to improve the bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and solving the problem once and for all.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who passed away Monday.

In the 1970s, Britain was mired in debt and even had to go to the IMF for a bailout. Britain was known then as ``The Sick Man of Europe''-- how we think of Greece today.

Governments of both political parties had tried to stimulate the economy through Keynesian spending policies and government intervention into the economy was widespread.

Britain faced massive strikes in the winter of 1978-1979, known as the Winter of Discontent. There was talk that Britain had become ungovernable.

Then Margaret Thatcher came on the scene. Her policies of fiscal responsibility and promotion of ``free enterprise'' completely reversed Britain's economic decline. Her foreign policy achievements were no less impressive. This was the era of detente.

Most people accepted that the Soviet Union was strong and successful and was here to stay so we had to learn to live with it. It was fashionable for political leaders to talk as though the Soviet system was just different, but no better or worse than our own.

Margaret Thatcher had no hesitation in pointing out the truth that the Soviet Union and its satellites held their citizens in bondage and she encouraged dissidents who sought freedom. In fact, it was a speech in 1976 when she was still just leader of the opposition in which she warned about the Soviet military buildup that caused a Soviet army newspaper to coin her nickname the ``Iron Lady.''

Together with President Reagan, she sought every opportunity to undermine the Soviet system until it collapsed. If this doesn't sound like a bold position today, it is only because Reagan and Thatcher were proven so profoundly right that everyone now claims to have always agreed.

I should also note that there is a temptation for many people remembering Mrs. Thatcher's legacy to note that she was the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom. While this is a significant historical fact, to mention it as though it was one of her most important accomplishments comes off as patronizing.

Margaret Thatcher rejected the identity politics that is so popular today. She said:

I've always believed that what matters in politics, as in

the rest of life, isn't who you are or where you come from,

but what you believe and what you want to do with your life.

What matters are your convictions.

Because of her convictions and because she acted on those convictions, she restored Britain's economy, national spirit, and international reputation. Millions of people around the world now live in peace and freedom thanks in large part to her efforts. As a result, Margaret Thatcher is unquestionably one of the most significant leaders of the 20th century.

Mrs. Thatcher's legacy shouldn't simply be relegated to history though. We have a lot to learn from her today. As the President submits his overdue budget this week, I would ask my colleagues to ponder this quote by Margaret Thatcher:

If spending money like water was the answer to our

country's problems, we would have no problems now. If ever a

nation has spent, spent, spent and spent again, ours has.

Today that dream is over. All of that money has got us

nowhere but it still has to come from somewhere.

Those who urge us to relax the squeeze, to spend yet more

money indiscriminately in the belief that it will help the

unemployed and the small businessman, are not being kind--or

compassionate--or caring. They are not the friends of the

unemployed or the small business. They are asking us to do

again the very thing that caused the problems in the first

place.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the 10th judicial nomination this year. With today's expected action, we will have confirmed four circuit and six district nominees. At this point in 2005--and that was the beginning of President Bush's second term, comparable to what we are talking about for President Obama--the Senate had confirmed zero judicial nominees. Let me repeat that. At this point in 2005, the Senate had confirmed not 10, not 4, not even 1 judicial nominee, so that comes out to be zero.

The quick pace of this year comes on top of a very productive 112th Congress in which 111 judges were confirmed. In the last Congress, we confirmed more judges than any other Congress--going back 20 years to the 103rd Congress.

Despite this progress and our continued cooperation with the President and Senate Democrats, we continue to hear unfounded criticism.

For example, last week the White House spokesperson criticized the Senate for what he characterized as arbitrary and unique delays in getting nominees confirmed. In a previous post on its website, the White House complained about unprecedented delays in the Senate confirmation process.

While acknowledging the Senate had confirmed nine judicial nominees this year, the White House noted that ``these nine judges waited 144 days for a floor vote, compared to President Bush's nominees who waited an average of 34 days for a vote at this point in President Bush's presidency.''

As I stated, at the same point in 2005, none of President Bush's nominees had been confirmed--not one.

The purported statistic of the ``average of 34 days'' is without foundation. It took until June for President Bush to reach 10 judicial confirmations. President Bush wouldn't have another lower court nomination until October of that year.

But that delay in confirmations wasn't because there weren't nominees. By the beginning of April 2005, 21 judicial nominations had been submitted to the Senate.

President Bush's first four confirmations came in April 2005. The first two of those nominees were nominated in September 2004 and confirmed about 6 months later.

The other two nominees waited much longer. Robert Conrad was first nominated April 28, 2003 to the Western District of North Carolina.

He was confirmed a full 2 years later on April 28, 2005--not 34 days, as the White House implies.

His colleague, James C. Dever III, nominated for the Eastern District of North Carolina, waited even longer. He was first nominated in May 2002 and waited nearly 3 years before being confirmed on April 28, 2005.

So this notion of unprecedented, unique and arbitrary delays simply ignores the facts and, in the process, distorts history.

In addition to the White House, we hear Senate Democrats grumbling about nominations and calls for changing the rules of the Senate. Of course, the majority would have to break the rules to change the rules.

Such intemperate comments utterly fail to recognize the work the Senate has already accomplished in approving judges.

The purported justification is the number of judges on the calendar--

presently at 15. Where was their similar concern in April 2004, when the number of nominees on the Executive Calendar was nearly double what it is today?

A second prong of this debate concerns the vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary. Blaming judicial vacancies on the Senate confirmation process is unfounded and a distortion of the process. The vacancy rate is due to the failure in the White House to send nominations to the Senate.

Presently, 62 of the 87 vacancies--71 percent--have no nominee. For the 35 vacancies categorized as ``judicial emergencies,'' only 9 have a nominee--74 percent have no nominee.

I would like to say a few words about today's nominee. I do have concerns about this nomination which have not been satisfied.

Unfortunately, I am unable to support the nomination, although I expect Judge Shwartz will be approved as a United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit. I congratulate her on her confirmation and hope that she performs her duties in a skilled manner, demonstrating judicial temperament, with respect for the law and Constitution.

This nomination started out troubled. Not because of Republican opposition, but because of concerns expressed by her home State Democratic Senator.

Originally, Judge Shwartz's home State Senator questioned her intellectual fitness for the court stating she ``did not adequately demonstrate the breadth of knowledge of constitutional law and pivotal Supreme Court decisions.''

Concerns were also expressed that she ``misapplied the application of strict scrutiny versus rational basis review'' and ``did not express substantive knowledge as to the scope of the rights of corporations under the Constitution or jurisprudence on the constitutional limits of Executive Branch powers.'' According to press reports, she specifically misapplied the law after speaking about Citizens United.

These are pretty serious issues. So, Judge Shwartz was asked about them during her hearing, specifically the discussion on Citizens United. But she denied it happened, testifying instead that she did not discuss any specific cases, only general principles.

However, in follow-up written questions for the record, Judge Shwartz changed her story and said that she and her home State Senator had discussed two specific cases: Citizens United and Roe v. Wade.

I find this after-the-fact disclosure troubling. Not only was it inconsistent with her hearing testimony, but it prevented me and other Senators from following up regarding what discussions she apparently had regarding Citizens United and Roe v. Wade.

Because of the ambiguity surrounding these interviews and Judge Shwartz's inconsistent testimony, questions remain as to what understandings were reached or what assurances Judge Shwartz may have given to gain support from her home State Senators.

Unfortunately, her Committee hearing failed to remove the doubts that were initially raised. Again, these were raised by her home State Senator.

Furthermore, because of her lack of candor at her hearing, I was unable to come to a determination that she is prepared to be a Circuit Judge. I share the doubts raised regarding her limited knowledge of constitutional law; misapplication of standards of review; and inadequate understanding of substantive areas of laws.

Accordingly, I cannot support this nomination. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record her biographical information.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back my time.

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

Madam President, earlier today I met with families from Newtown, CT, to discuss the legislation we are currently debating. It is obviously very emotional and not an easy meeting to have, but it is a very necessary meeting to have. When there are parents of children who were murdered, or from the families of teachers who were murdered, it is difficult for everybody.

I wish to thank them for sharing their stories of loved ones and their concerns with me. I hope many of my colleagues would consider meeting with these families as well. We are debating legislation they are supporting.

In my State of Iowa, there is a great difference of opinion on the particular legislation we might be considering. I think it is something very worthwhile to sense firsthand the emotion of these discussions. At the meeting, they called for debate on the legislation. Currently we are in the process of debate.

We most likely will move forward on this legislation. Under new procedures available under Senate Resolution 15, the majority leader may move to proceed on a measure and to vote on some amendments.

A vote against the motion to proceed does not cut off debate or votes on amendments under the new procedures in the United States Senate.

Nonetheless, we are in the unusual position of being asked to take a leap into the unknown.

We are being asked to vote to proceed to an uncertain bill.

That bill is not even the bill that we would likely consider if the motion to proceed were successful. The language on background checks would change. Remarkably, if the language changed, it would be replaced with language that does not now exist.

The world's greatest deliberative body should not operate in this fashion.

In the Judiciary Committee, four bills were considered separately. There was no consensus. Three of them have now been combined. But they are not ready for consideration. At the time, the sponsor of the background check bill said it was not ready. There are numerous problems with that bill.

Movement of firearms from one law-abiding citizen to another would be legal or illegal based on arbitrary distinctions that citizens could not be expected to know. This is true even though when this language was the subject of a hearing in a previous Congress, a witness pointed out the problems. But no changes have been made to address those issues.

Even an official with the ACLU says that criminal laws should give more guidance to citizens.

The bill operates in a way that would make gun safety efforts more difficult. That does not make any sense.

The bill requires recordkeeping for private sales. That is a step toward gun registration. Indeed, we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee that ``universal'' background checks cannot be effective without gun registration. And the ACLU official is right to be concerned about the threat to privacy that the background check language presents. He notes that the government would possess information concerning gun owners that it would not be required to destroy within 24 hours, as it must for current background checks.

He also points out that the bill contains none of the restrictions in current law that prevent other parts of the government from using the database for purposes beyond why the information was supposedly obtained.

The background check provision is also not ready for consideration because of the new Federal felony that it creates.

If a law-abiding gun owner's gun is lost or stolen, he or she would be required to report that to both the attorney general and appropriate local officials within 24 hours.

At the markup, I asked a number of questions of the bill's sponsor about how the offense would work. For instance, who would pay for the additional law enforcement personnel who would take those calls? What would a citizen's legal obligation be if the gun were misplaced rather than lost? What would determine when the loss occurred that started the 24-hour period?

The sponsor said that these issues would be clarified. So far, however, they have not been. So law-abiding citizens will not know whether they are acting in compliance with the law or face a 5-year jail sentence.

The issues have not been clarified, but we are being asked to proceed to the bill anyway.

This new offense criminalizes inaction. That is a grave threat to freedom.

Except for filing tax returns or registering for the draft, we punish bad actions. We do not punish inaction. This new crime punishes failure to act. And it only applies to those who lawfully own their guns. A criminal whose gun is stolen is not required to report that fact. With this offense, law-abiding citizens can be turned into felons, but felons cannot commit a crime.

Under this new offense, law-abiding citizens might be looking at 5 years in jail for doing nothing. And all that is necessary for the gun to be subject to the reporting requirement is that the gun once moved in interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court has outlined three categories of situations in which Congress can rely on the Commerce Clause. This is not one of them. If Congress can do this, it can make people take all sorts of action simply because they owned a product that once moved in interstate commerce--Like bread or soap.

And they can face jail time if they do not do what Congress demands that they do. Even the individual mandate from Obamacare only established a penalty, not a prison sentence. I do not think 90% of Americans would support this universal background check bill if they read it.

The motion to proceed also goes to a bill that contains language on straw purchasing and gun trafficking. I voted to report that bill to the Senate floor.

Many changes were made to that bill at my behest. An amendment of mine was adopted. At the time I expressed concerns. I spoke of my desire to have those concerns worked out before the bill went to the floor. I said I would not necessarily support that bill on the floor if those concerns were not responded to. They have not been addressed so far. And those provisions were tied to the ever-changing background check provisions.

The whole process makes me wonder whether the efforts to pass a bill on this subject really are serious. It seems that if a half-baked bill is brought up, the majority can be sure that they can force Republicans not to agree to proceed to it. It seems like that may be

just what they want to happen. If so, that is a very cynical way to treat a very serious issue.

How can we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains language that even its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration?

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, it is said that information is the most valuable commodity. In politics you probably know that information is power. The bigger government gets, the more valuable government information becomes to financial markets. This is especially true of information from agencies such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is that agency that my remarks are about.

CMS controls $748 billion in government spending per year. That is billions with a B. Today, there are questions surrounding CMS's ability to safeguard nonpublic information. This is not about secrecy in government, it is about government secrets having an impact on the stock market.

This is not the first time I have raised similar questions with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. In 2011 I received information from a whistleblower that CMS employees were spending large amounts of time in meetings with Wall Street executives. I wrote to CMS with these concerns. The response I received was very troubling. CMS could not tell us how many meetings were taking place with these Wall Street executives. CMS could not tell us who from Wall Street was in these meetings. CMS could not tell us how much time they spent with these executives.

In fact, the only thing CMS could tell us was that it did not track any of this information. Private businesses have stiff controls over access to nonpublic information, the same sort of stiff controls the Federal Government ought to employ for things that would impact the market and give somebody an extraordinary opportunity the average citizen does not have.

The only specific step that CMS took was issuing a two-page memo to its employees. This goes back to that period of time I was asking the questions in 2011. The memo limited the release of market-moving information before the close of the stock markets. Now, that is the right thing to do.

That memo presumably was not followed by somebody. Who, we do not know because on April 1, that requirement appears to have been violated. According to the Wall Street Journal, at 3:42 p.m., Height Securities, a political intelligence broker, issued an advisory note to its employees. This note said--it is right here in the chart: ``We now believe that a deal has been hatched to protect Medicare Advantage rates'' from the minus 2.3 rate update issued in the advanced notice mid-February.

This note goes on to suggest that clients purchase related stocks such as Humana. Between 3:42 p.m. and the market close, and that was just 18 minutes later, volumes for affected companies spiked--look here--spiked in the last 18 minutes to more than $\1/2\ billion.

In fact, the combined volume of shares traded for those companies for those 18 minutes was higher than the rest of the entire trading day. Not only did large numbers of shares change hands, but also buyers who got the information first likely made a heck of a lot of money. For example, Humana stock rose 8.6 percent in a matter of minutes.

Of course, this looks like political intelligence at work--political intelligence meaning the industry of political intelligence at work. A political intelligence broker gets ahold of nonpublic government information before it is widely released, and a select few paying clients end up reaping the rewards.

We just had a study out by the Government Accountability Office studying the political intelligence community. The Government Accountability Office reports that the world of political intelligence is murky. In other words, people are using government. They are profiting from it. But nobody knows who they are.

The public and Congress have little insight into how government information is collected. Collecting is one thing, but it is sold. People who collect it make money, and in the instances you see here, when that gets out people in the know make money.

So who pays for that information? We all know since 1946 lobbyists have had to register, and in more recent legislation have had to disclose their clients, what they lobby on, and how much they get paid. Even campaign donors have to report what they give to various campaigns.

Political intelligence brokers are exempt from any transparency. Yet you see they are around gathering information that should not be out to the public until after the market closes. They are benefiting from it and a lot of other people benefit from it.

Now, because there is no transparency about the political intelligence community, we have to find out what caused this to happen. Did the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services employees leak this information? Was there a leak from another government source? Either way we need answers to these questions.

Tomorrow is Acting Administrator Tavenner's confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee. This acting director is a very qualified person. I think she will be able to answer our questions--at least I hope so. So I want her to know, and the Senate to know, that I plan on asking Ms. Tavenner several questions: How did this information get from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to a political intelligence broker? What steps will CMS take to ensure this does not happen again? And was the memo they sent violated?

I hope she recognizes the importance of these questions. I hope she comes prepared to take responsibility. I hope she comes prepared to explain how she plans to hold someone accountable because in this town, if heads do not roll, nothing changes. She has been a good Acting Administrator of this agency. She wants the Senate to confirm her to the job. This is her opportunity to show us that she is worthy of that confirmation.

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

I think I can yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 156. I am offering this amendment to the majority budget to ensure that tax reform is revenue neutral and the money available to do tax reform is not used for spending, as the underlying resolution proposes. I am pleased to be joined in offering this amendment by a number of my colleagues: Senator Enzi, Leader McConnell, Senator Cornyn, the finance ranking member Senator Hatch, as well as Senators Burr, Roberts, Portman, Isakson, Thune, Coats, and Rubio.

In order to ensure tax reform does not become a tax-raising exercise, this amendment eliminates the nearly $1 trillion in new revenue and the reconciliation instructions called for in the majority's budget. It further creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for progrowth, revenue- neutral tax reform.

The budget reconciles the Finance Committee to come up with nearly $1 trillion in revenue. I spoke last night how difficult that is to do unless you want to tax middle-income Americans. This reconciliation instruction, in addition to raising a lot of money to spend more, dashes the hopes that the Finance Committee can take a bipartisan approach to tax reform. First, it puts in place an arbitrary deadline that requires the Finance Committee to produce a bill by October 1 of this year. Tax reform will be a long and difficult process. Hopefully it will not take 3 years to produce it, as it did in 1986, the last major tax reform we had, but discussions about tax reform should not be cut short to meet an arbitrary deadline. The Finance Committee needs to be allowed to do its work.

Second, reconciliation is not a suitable way to produce tax reform that simplifies the Tax Code. This is because it prohibits any changes to the Tax Code that score as adding anything to the deficit. This requirement is incompatible with the goal of simplifying the Code, making it easier to administer. Chairman Baucus has voiced similar concerns, which is why he has concerns about including a reconciliation instruction in the budget.

While the budget does not call explicitly for tax reform to be a part of the reconciliation process, it has that effect by requiring the Finance Committee to come up with nearly $1 trillion in ``savings . . . by eliminating loopholes and cutting unfair and inefficient spending in the Tax Code.''

If such large amounts of low-hanging fruit exist in the Tax Code, you would have thought that either Chairman Baucus or I, during the period of time I was finance chairman, would have gone after some of these along with the billions of dollars of loopholes that we have worked to close already. The truth is that the majority's definition of a loophole is so broad as to be void of any real meaning, and their idea of spending in the Tax Code is popular deductions widely used by middle-class Americans such as tax deductions, mortgage interest, charitable giving, State tax deductions, and in order to

raise the revenue they want to, you have to go to those areas. When you do that, you end up taxing middle-class America.

Also, referring to these tax increases as savings or as eliminating loopholes or spending in the Tax Code does not change the fact that to raise nearly $1 trillion, the middle class will see higher tax bills. The budget of course does not only assume nearly a $1 trillion in tax increases, additional reserve funds in the budget assume another $500 billion in tax hikes to pay for more spending.

The underlying premise in this budget is that the Federal taxes are too low to support much-needed Federal spending. The budget resolution has this completely backwards because until we get spending under control, we will never be able to raise enough revenue that will suffice to satisfy the spending appetite that some in Congress have.

Yesterday I had charts--I have a different one today--that lists the last five times we had a balanced budget. The last five times were the years 1969 and 1998 through the year 2001--5 years in the last 43 years. As you can see, in each of these years, spending as a percent of GDP was significantly lower than 20 percent--significantly lower than 20 percent. This line represents the spending level of these years, right here, the years when we balanced the budget. Over the next 10 years as projected by the Congressional Budget Office, under current law spending will average 22.1 percent of gross national product as CBO estimates it under current law. Actually the budget resolution would be higher than that 22 percent.

Lower on the chart I have another dotted line which represents projected revenue, right here, about 18.9 percent. That is over the next 10 years. As this chart shows, these revenues are more than enough to bring our budget into balance simply if we return to the spending levels of the late 1990s and 2000.

The larger gap where spending was and where spending is projected to be is where our problem is. In between here and here is where the problem is. Congress has exhibited an appetite in the last few years to go hog wild on spending compared to the average of the last 50 years of about 20 percent.

We all know there is clutter in the Tax Code. There has been a proliferation of tax preferences that should be reexamined. However, they should be reexamined in the context of enacting progrowth tax reform, not as a means to finance higher government spending. The goal of tax reform is to simplify the Tax Code and make it more efficient. The ultimate goal is economic growth, but true tax reform should be revenue neutral. It should not act as a way to increase taxes. Revenue raised by eliminating tax preferences should be used to lower marginal tax rates because that is where you get economic growth, you encourage entrepreneurship, and that is how you create jobs.

The assumption in the budget that business and corporate loopholes are available for revenue reduction is particularly puzzling. We currently have the highest tax rate among our major trading partners. The President has even recognized the competitive disadvantage this puts us in. That is why he has called for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent down to 28 percent. That is the President of the United States who wants to do that.

At a recent hearing before the Budget Committee on tax expenditures, the Democrats' only witness, Professor Edward Kleinbard, similarly recognized the need to use revenue from eliminating business tax preferences to lower rates. It was his view that the corporate rate should be reduced to the mid-20s by eliminating corporate tax expenditures.

I want to stress this was the opinion of the majority's witness. Raising revenues by closing so-called loopholes or reducing tax expenditures is a tax increase. Unless it is used to offset true tax reform, it is a tax increase that will support more spending, and that is the purpose of it, according to the budget resolution.

Tax reform, then, should be revenue neutral and my amendment would ensure that any reduction in tax preferences is used to lower tax rates. In other words, tax reform and not finance more spending.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, this amendment strikes a $975 billion tax increase. This amendment in turn sets up a deficit-neutral reserve fund that will allow the Finance Committee to reform corporate and individual taxes in a revenue-neutral way.

The President got his $612 billion tax increase January 1. We should not raise taxes another $1 trillion with unemployment at 7.7 percent. We should not close loopholes for more spending. We won't grow the economy by raising taxes by $1 trillion as the majority wants to do. We will grow the economy with more efficient progrowth tax reform.

My amendment is progrowth, pro-small business, and pro-jobs. The Democrats' budget taxes the middle class to spend more. It is balanced and fair because they have finally come to the conclusion they cannot raise taxes just on the wealthy; they have to raise it on the middle class.

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

Mr. President, at an appropriate time I will ask for some consideration of an amendment of mine, amendment No. 6. My amendment would hold the Obama administration accountable for its recent decision to release more than 2,000 undocumented immigrants from detention centers across the country in the past month. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed they were releasing these people because they needed to reduce their average daily detention population of about 34,000 people--a congressionally mandated requirement. They claimed they had to reduce the detention population for budgetary reasons. Week after week, agents were tasked to release so many individuals.

At first the Department of Homeland Security claimed it only released a few hundred people. However, last week the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement admitted that the administration had misled the American people by confessing that over 2,200 aliens were actually released. They continue to stand by the excuse that budget cuts were the reason for releasing these individuals.

Simply blaming budget reduction as a means to turn a blind eye toward the national security of the American people is a very dangerous plan and one that calls into question the Department's preparation for sequestration, particularly when we consider that months before sequestration the Office of Management and Budget put out an order to all departments that national security, law enforcement, and safety and health should be a top priority. So if keeping criminals off the streets of the United States shouldn't be a top priority--as per the order from the Office of Management and Budget--I don't know what should be. So I want an accounting for it, and that is what my amendment does--requests a simple accounting for why they were released and what it was all about. What is even more disturbing is the fact that the Department had billions of unobligated funds from the past 2 years that could have been put into protecting the American people.

On February 27 I sent a request to Secretary Napolitano questioning the decisions of the Department. The letter, cosigned by Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, was an attempt to better understand--just a simple understanding--how the Department will better confront sequestration and reduce operational challenges that could affect the life, safety, and health of the American people--the same life, health, and safety of the American people evidenced by this very administration's directive going out from the Office of Management and Budget of the priorities that ought to be established during sequestration.

Now, you know what. So often what we find from this administration-- and have even found in previous Republican administrations--is that letters that are embarrassing go unanswered. Unfortunately, this is not unusual. About a dozen of my letters to the Secretary of Homeland Security on just the immigration issue have gone unanswered. There is no respect for congressional oversight. It is very frustrating.

We are on the cusp of undertaking a massive reform of our immigration system. Yet getting answers to the most basic questions seems to be an impossible operation. Time and again, we have seen this administration refuse to be held accountable, and what we want is just information. It is not as though we are saying that what the administration has done-- even if we disagree with it--can't be done or shouldn't be done. But shouldn't the people know about who is being turned out in the streets when they have been held in confinement for a long period of time? I fear what will become of the President's promise of transparency if and when we do pass an immigration bill. And this is an example of things to fear in the future. Enacting a bill is one part of the process, and implementing the law is another part of the process. If we don't have faith in this administration now, what about trust for the future?

So my amendment would require U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to submit weekly reports--just submit reports--to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and the Judiciary. The reports will be required to contain detailed budgets on how ICE will maintain the 34,000 detention bed occupancy levels authorized by Congress. It also requires ICE to provide the number of aliens released from detention as well as the following information on aliens released for budget-related purposes: the conviction or charge for which they were detained, fugitive status, existence of a prior deportation order, and the terms of release.

My amendment happens to be cosponsored by Senators Inhofe, Vitter, Boozman, Roberts, Coats, McConnell, and Collins.

Within the last few days, we have had the Director of ICE, Mr. Morton, testify--well, it was just yesterday in the House. Chairman Goodlatte said his testimony raised more questions.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a press release that expresses the testimony of Director Morton.

Last week Mr. Morton said they released 10 level 1 offenders. These are people convicted of violent crimes. They are repeat drunk drivers, as an example. Yesterday he said they only released eight, but he also said they were trying to relocate them and bring them back in. Well, if you have these dangerous people out on the streets, the public ought to know about it.

So I suspect that when I ask unanimous consent now, the other side will object to my amendment. And I don't know why they want to go to such lengths to protect this administration when all we want is simple information--just simple information. We aren't saying that the decisions made--even though we disagree with them--ought to be changed. We are just saying that the public ought to know when we put violent people out on the streets, and when we put people out on the streets who shouldn't be out on the streets, we ought to know where they are, why they were put out there, and what it is all about.

I think the objection to allowing this amendment to have a vote--as I presume it will be objected to--is indefensible, but at this point I call up for consideration my amendment No. 76, and I ask for just 10 minutes of debate and a vote on my amendment. I ask unanimous consent to do that.