Floor Statements

Mr. President, I say to Senator Sessions, the distinguished ranking member, I am going to try to show him and other Members of the Senate that the numbers that they think they can raise revenue from, to $1 trillion, are not going to work. We can take different taxes and add them up and up and it will come out to $1 trillion. But I am going to show him, based upon votes that have been taken on the other side of the aisle, that it is not politically possible for them to do it unless they are willing to vote differently than they have ever voted before because they have to take on some of the most popular tax credits that are in the Tax Code. That is what I am going to do in the few minutes the Senator has devoted to me.

MR. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator and ask him to take as much time as he chooses. But I note, as ranking member on the Finance Committee and having been on it and having dealt with these issues for many years, the Senator knows what the political situation is and he has the staff to help him ascertain the correct numbers. I think this will be an important bit of information to share with us, and I look forward to it.

Mr. President, over the 10 years that I was chairman or ranking member of the Finance Committee, I worked with several Budget Committee chairmen. They were Senator Domenici, Senator Nickles, Senator Gregg, Senator Conrad. We did not always agree on every issue, but by and large there was coordination between the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee. Basically, I had past chairmen, Republican or Democratic, come to me and say: Tell us what you can do or not do within the Finance Committee so we do not give you an impossible task when a budget resolution is adopted by the Senate. It worked very well because they respected the institutionalized knowledge within the staff of the Senate Finance Committee, both Republican and Democratic staffs, as well as the more important institutionalized information that comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

As I said, we did not always agree on every issue, but by and large there was that coordination. Unfortunately, the coordination receded somewhat, starting somewhat in the year 2007. Since 2010, we fell into this 4-year pattern of not even having a budget debate in the Senate, even though the law requires that the Senate adopt a budget every year.

Finally, getting back to abiding by the law--coordination provided the means then between the budget and Finance Committee that allowed the Finance Committee to realistically address the demands of the tax, trade, health and welfare policies that were intended by a budget resolution. This usually happened in a bipartisan way, but this year is different. This budget resolution does not realistically address the needs or the capabilities of the Finance Committee. By capabilities, I don't mean it is not there to get it done and people are willing to do it, but the possibility of doing it is very remote based upon the unrealistic assumptions in this document.

Despite claims to the contrary, this budget is not balanced unless one believes balance is more of the same fiscal behavior of the last 4 years of the Senate Democratic leadership fiscal policy. That policy has resulted in higher taxes, higher spending, and yet higher debt. Where there is fiscal pressure, it is placed on the Finance Committee by this document now before the Senate. The Finance Committee is called upon to do all the heavy lifting.

The principal lift is in the heavy tax increases. The Finance Committee has reconciled under this document with

an almost $1 trillion tax increase. Reserve funds, in addition to that $1 trillion, reserve funds anticipate another $500 billion in tax hikes to pay for even more spending.

The task put on the Finance Committee is described as curtailing or eliminating what is called ``spending through the Tax Code,'' and ``loopholes.'' But if we look at the document, and particularly if we look at recent history, we will find a different story that says what they assume is not very realistic.

We will find tax increases. I wish to explain that. But first I will account for revenue raisers the majority party has specified and supported with votes in this Congress and the last one. What those votes show, unless there is a big change of heart on the other side of the aisle, is there is not going to be that revenue ever raised. So that makes the document on the other side, if it is not possible, blue smoke and great hope and good luck.

What this is going to tell us is that the unspecified and undefined tax increases the budget resolution is seeking, once we have the undefined tax increases--I am going to then define that. I will define it by taking the universe of tax base broadeners and working through the list to explain to all the unreality. I will be able to show one of two conclusions. The first conclusion I can show, the math doesn't work and there are not sufficient revenue raisers to fill the revenue goal of my friends on the other side of the aisle or, No. 2, the budget resolution would need to go much further down the income scale and do what we just heard Senator Roberts say, start taxing middle-income taxpayers. But it is going to be hard to get them to admit that on the other side because all we have to do is tax the wealthy 1 percent and we can solve all our problems.

But we cannot only tax that 1 percent. We could confiscate--not tax but confiscate the income over $200,000 and we are going to run the Government for just a very few months. But people tend to believe that. It is very difficult to preach the other side, how unrealistic it is, but that is a fact.

All of us should take a careful look at the claims of the Democratic leadership and see how the claims stack up to the cold, hard numbers that I will give you and the analysis by the tax-writing committee staff. So let's turn to those numbers. Over the 10-year budget window going out to the year 2023, the budget resolution demands revenue and related outlay savings of $975 billion. There are two reserve funds, as I already said, that total up to about $580 billion in tax increases if that is taxed. And around here, with the ability--the willingness--to spend what they want to spend, they wouldn't mind tapping it, but I think that is unrealistic as well.

I am going to show my colleagues this chart. The first chart is a water well. Here is the top of the well, and we can see it is a long well to the bottom, and there is a little bit of water in the bottom. But most of the well from this point to the top is dry right now, and that is what they have to fill by their budget resolution.

At the top of the well we will see this number, $1.503 trillion, plus money to raise money for the reserve fund. That is what it takes to go from here to here to fill it.

If we want to put this another way, this budget puts the burden on the Finance Committee to come up with $1.5 trillion in offsets over the next 10 years. This budget assumes the well of revenue raisers is full to the brim, but they are starting out at this point.

My colleagues know I am a farmer. I should say my son is a farmer; I am kind of like a hired man now. I think that gives me something to know about wells and the predictability of well water. We on the farm always hope we will get rain, and particularly now, as it is dry in the middle west. So now we get a decent level of water so we can fill up the well to the top so we have plenty of reserve.

As a former chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, I think I can tell my colleagues something about revenue raisers. In the positions I held on the Finance Committee, I led efforts to identify and enact sensible revenue raisers aimed at closing the tax gap and shutting down tax shelters. And as a senior tax-writing committee member, I continued to look for ways to shut off the unintended tax benefits.

Given this experience, I know what is realistic when it comes to revenue raisers. From 2001 through 2006, Congress enacted over 100 offsets with a combined total of not necessarily a lot of money but still a lot of money compared to this stuff we are talking about here, but it still scored for $1.7 billion over 1 year; over 5 years, $51.5 billion; and over 10 years, $157.9 billion. That is from about 100 offsets.

What other revenue raisers have been identified and scored? The President's last budget, the one we got in February of 2012--and they are supposed to be out every February and we are not going to get it until April 8 now; why I don't know--but the President's budget in 2012 contained a package of a lot of revenue that the Joint Committee on Taxation said would raise $1.4 trillion over 10 years.

The majority party has largely left these revenue-raising proposals untouched over the last 4 years. So if we have a Democratic President of the United States suggesting $1.4 trillion of revenue in his budget, as the suggestion from the White House, and the other side here in the Senate wants to raise a tremendous amount of revenue and they haven't touched it in the last 4 years, what makes us think they are going to touch it now? Is it realistic to think all of these taxes will be raised if even the Democratic President asks for it and his friends on the other side of the aisle--our friends as well--ignored it?

The majority party has, however, identified and specified and voted for tax hikes that amount to $108.3 billion. That is $108.3 billion of identified and scored revenue raisers. That is only about 7.8 percent of the amount that is needed to make this budget work. So we see how unrealistic this budget resolution is.

Based on these facts, what is the likelihood the Finance Committee will be able to come up with revenue raisers of this magnitude? In my view, from my 10 years as chairman and ranking member, that chance is not very high. If that is the case, then what will happen? The revenue side of the budget will be ignored, but the spending side will be followed. The net effect will be a massive tax increase, a bigger deficit, or both.

Now back to the chart. So the revenue-raising well is about 7.8 percent full. We have heard a lot about tax expenditures. As I have said before, the people have been told there are trillions of dollars of spending through the Tax Code. I am going to look at the individual income tax expenditures because the administration and the Democratic leadership have said they want to leave the corporate tax expenditures for lowering rates.

Here is a little irony. The Congressional Budget Act defines refundable tax credits as spending. It makes all the sense in the world because the tax benefits go to individuals who don't pay income tax. These credits are actually paid out in the form of a check in excess of any income tax liability of that individual. However, we won't hear the majority advocate reducing, let alone eliminating, any of those refundable tax credits. In fact, the majority's budget would increase them further. They represent even more significant tax expenditures.

I have another chart here based on the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation data. Here are 10 tax expenditures. The chart shows the top 10 individual income tax expenditures from this year, 2013, through the year 2017. These top 10 expenditures represent 70 percent of the total individual tax expenditures.

No. 7 is the earned income tax credit. That is a refundable tax credit designed for low-income taxpayers.

No. 8 on the list--I won't bother to point to it--is the premium tax credit enacted by ObamaCare. By 2017, this credit will actually make its way into the top five. Like the earned income tax credit, the premium credit is fully refundable.

No. 9 on the chart is the child tax credit which is partially refundable.

For each of these credits, more than half of the value of the benefit is paid out in the form of a government check exceeding tax liabilities. That is direct spending through the Tax Code. Yet these credits are considered off limits by the majority.

So let's take a look at the tax expenditure No. 1. That is the tax- free treatment of employer-provided health care. Americans can look forward to $1 trillion of health care-related taxes coming due over the next 10 years. All of this tax increase is thanks to 21 tax increases contained in ObamaCare. My guess is the majority doesn't want to take on that group.

So No. 2 is tax-deferred retirement savings plans. It is defined benefit plans and section 401(k)-type plans. To be sure, some higher income taxpayers benefit. Defined benefit plans tend to dominate in the unionized world. Section 401(k)-type plans are more common now. Some high-income taxpayers do, in fact, benefit because they are owners of a business and we want them to set up and maintain the plans. About 4 percent of this tax expenditure goes to taxpayers at $1 million or more of income.

No. 3 on the list is the preferential rate for capital gains and dividends. It is true that higher income taxpayers tend to have more capital gains. But a few months ago the rate rose 59 percent with the ObamaCare and fiscal cliff deal tax hikes kicking in. Do we want to choke off more savings and investment?

No. 4 is the deduction for State and local income and real property taxes. The New York Times editorial page is usually very in tune with the majority. An editorial on December 6, 2012, has a title that says it all: ``Keep The State Tax Deduction.'' My guess is that with the heavy hit on heavily taxed blue State taxpayers, the majority will not want to visit that deduction.

No. 5 concerns the American dream of home ownership. It is the home mortgage interest deduction. It disproportionately goes to the middle- income taxpayer. Do we really want to tank the tepid housing recovery now underway?

So look at No. 6. It is the tax benefit from the Medicare benefits the Federal Government pays. We have heard a lot about the Medicare reforms contained in the Ryan budget from the majority. Does the majority want to cut the value of Medicare benefits by taxing them?

I have already discussed Nos. 7, 8, and 9 on the chart which are all refundable credits. They are the earned income tax credit, the premium tax credit, and the child tax credit. Significantly, the premium tax credit makes the list while only being in effect 4 out of the 5 years we have examined.

So how about the last one then, No. 10? It refers to the step-up in basis that occurs on death time transfers. Higher end taxpayers tend to pay the estate tax when they die. This policy ensures they don't pay a double tax on the transfer. Does the majority really want to reopen the estate tax debate that we all thought just ended on January 1?

If we were to expand on this list and look at the top 20 expenditures instead of just the top 10, we would account for 90 percent of the individual tax expenditures. They include such things as charitable deductions, tax incentives for college, and the exclusion of capital gains from the sale of a home. Does the majority want to raise taxes on the backs of college students or cause heartburn for middle-income homeowners when they sell their home?

Well, let's take a step back for a minute. Where does the budget take us? The terms of the budget documents tell us the majority Members say they want to eliminate or curtail spending through the Tax Code--$1 trillion plus another $500 billion if they decide how to spend it. Yet they themselves would vehemently oppose eliminating or reducing tax expenditures that are defined by our budget laws as spending.

I challenge the budget authors to tell me which tax benefits they want to curtail. Do they want to cut back the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance? Do they want to cut back defined benefit plans or 401(k) plans? Do they want to increase capital gains and dividend rates even further than the 59 percent? Do they want to cut back on the State and local tax deduction? Do they want to cut back on the mortgage interest deduction? Do they want to tax Medicare benefits? Do they want to raise the tax level on death time transfers?

Well, I conclude: This budget represents a dramatic step backward for the American taxpayer. For the first time in 4 years, thank God, we are debating a budget. Yet it repeats the same fiscal pattern of the first term of this Presidency. It spends too much, it taxes too much, and it results in too much new debt.

As former chairman and ranking member--and I suppose this is the fourth or fifth time I have said this, so people get tired of me saying it--but in that former position, I am sorry to say the experience I have had is that this budget doesn't even attempt to match the demands of the Finance Committee with the numbers in this budget.

I hope deficit hawks on both sides of the aisle pay close attention. The only thing certain here is that new spending will occur.

The deficit impact of not realistically dealing with the tax, trade, and health policy spending priorities of the Finance Committee disguises the deficit built into this budget.

I have many other concerns about the budget proposed by the majority. Simply, today, I wanted to let the Senate know how the numbers on the revenue side do not work from the standpoint of the usual stands that people take on closing loopholes and not closing loopholes and based upon what is politically feasible out of the Finance Committee.

As we take up amendments, I am hopeful we can make the budget mesh with the Finance Committee's policy demands.

I yield the floor.

Absolutely. And based upon the experience we have had of actually voting on those issues in the past--or the fact that I stated how the President put certain things in his budget of February 2012, and none of those ideas have ever been brought up by the majority party in the period of time they have been before them. So if their own President--when I say their own President, the President of their party--our President proposes that they raise revenue from those places, and they do not do it, it signals to me it is a pretty difficult job to do, and it is not going to be any easier this year than in past years.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life of SSG Steven Blass, who was killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan while serving his country. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Tricia, his young son Hayden, his parents, Randy and Carol, and all his family and friends. I know they are feeling his loss very deeply now, as is the entire community of Estherville, IA, his hometown. I understand that Steven Blass was patriotic even as a child and that joining the Army had been a dream of his. He was doing what he loved when he gave the ultimate sacrifice. His love of country and zeal for freedom represent the very best of America. Like all the patriots before him, his sacrifice has helped keep the torch of liberty burning bright. The United States of America is indeed fortunate to have a native son like Steven Blass, eager to serve his country and risk everything for his fellow citizens. We are forever in his debt. Although it is a debt which we can never repay, it is a debt we must honor by remembering SSG Steven Blass and what he did for all of us.

Madam President, it will not be long--of course it might be longer than it appears to be, but at least this week we were supposed to be considering the budget resolution and hopefully before the week is out we will. It has been 4 years since the Senate has passed a budget. The Senate deficit majority has been devoid of leadership on this matter. While American families and businesses compile a budget each and every year, the Senate deficit majority has shirked its responsibility, producing a budget has even been called ``foolish,'' by the Democratic majority leader.

After years of record deficits and debt, I think the American people disagree with the fact that the Senate has not taken up a budget for the last 3 years, even though the law requires every year for the Senate to adopt a budget. Thankfully, this year it looks as if we are going to have this debate and adopt a budget.

While we are about to debate a budget resolution, a few hours or a few days away, the President has not even proposed his budget for consideration. The Budget Committee, of which I am a member, did not hear from a single administration witness in preparation of this budget that the Senate will be working on. That is a new historical low, for which the Obama administration can take credit. House Budget Chairman Ryan has produced a budget. Chairwoman Murray produced a budget. It is quite remarkable that the President has yet to submit a budget, even though the law requires it be done by February 4.

The President plans to release his budget the week of April 8, 2 months overdue. This will be the first time a President has failed to submit a budget until after the House and the Senate have acted.

Once again, on fiscal issues, the President is leading from behind. He set a new low for fiscal responsibility. During the past 4 years, we spent well beyond our means. The gross Federal debt has increased by $6 trillion as a result. Unless we change course, we will add another $9 trillion over the next 10 years. The gross debt is now and maybe by then will still be larger than the U.S. economy. It is approaching levels where economists agree deficits and debts are causing slower economic growth.

During the past 4 years, we witnessed President Obama's theory of economic stimulus. We saw massive expansion of government and deficit spending. President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress pushed spending up to 25 percent of the economy in recent years and an $800 billion stimulus bill was a big part of that. That bill was pushed through in the name of economic growth. It was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent. It did not keep unemployment below 8 percent because, in fact, the legislation written was more an appropriations bill than a stimulus bill.

It didn't create the sustainable job growth it was supposed to. It was one big ineffective spending bill. The economic growth it was supposed to stimulate never materialized. Now we are dealing with a deficit and debt caused by that failed stimulus bill.

Despite this failure, the President and the Senate deficit majority seem even more fixated on growing the government. According to the economic policies of President Obama, the government needs to grow even bigger to help our economy. It is not going to work. The overriding belief of the administration is that economic growth will only come through private wealth confiscation that supports an even bigger and more intrusive government.

If government just gets a little bigger and a little more involved in every facet of our economy and of our lives, that will surely increase the economic prosperity of Americans, right? Of course not. The problem is raising taxes only extracts private capital from job creators and small businesses. Small businesses happen to be where 70 percent of the new jobs are created. So if we want to create new jobs, why would we take capital out of a sector where job creation can occur and bring it to the government where it is spent wastefully by often inefficient and bloated bureaucracies? The higher taxes are robbing the unemployed of needed jobs. The government they support does not create economic growth or self-sustaining jobs.

This 4-year spending binge we have been on has led to deficits that crowd out private investment which would otherwise be used to grow the economy and create jobs. The government doesn't create self-sustaining jobs; the government only creates government jobs. The private sector creates jobs. Wealth is created in the private sector. It is the responsibility of the government to create an environment for job growth and opportunity--opportunity for entrepreneurs who then create jobs.

Instead of raising taxes, what this country needs is more taxpayers. We get more taxpayers by reducing the unemployment, and we do that by keeping money in the private sector. Besides that, the government can provide this environment by instituting the rule of law, protecting property rights and a patent system. There are many other things I could probably mention as well. The government consumes wealth. It does not create wealth through economic freedom. Entrepreneurs and individuals are free to innovate and prosper.

This budget fails to recognize these simple principles. The budget presented by the deficit majority makes no effort to reduce the deficits, reduce spending, balance the budget, or grow the economy. Instead, this budget seeks to grow government by taxing more and spending more. It is time we all recognize that government exists to serve the needs of the people rather than people serving the needs of their government. There are some who believe government is the only creator of economic prosperity. If others have achieved success, by default they must be the cause of others' hardships. This type of class warfare--demagoguery, as it is--is harmful to America and our future. It seeks to divide America.

The budget presented by the deficit majority is partisan business as usual. It would tax success by adding another $1 trillion. It increases government spending, it ignores the subject of our health care entitlements, and this whole approach is simply not good for advancing America's economy. It places no priority on ever bringing our budget into balance. The deficit majority speaks at length about growing the economy and creating a middle class. Their budget is perfectly backward. It does nothing to address economically harmful deficits and debt or the drag it creates on the economy, and it includes as much as $1.5 trillion in job-killing tax hikes.

The majority claims this revenue can be collected without harming the economy by closing loopholes. The fact is that regardless of how it is described, a $1.5 trillion tax increase will affect the middle class, harm the economy, and not create jobs. A $1.5 trillion tax hike--while economic growth is slow and unemployment remains at 7.7 percent--is a reckless formula and will further devastate the economy. Even worse, the tax increases will not be used to balance the budget. Higher taxes support even higher spending.

This is a typical tax-and-spend budget. This budget was crafted as if we don't even have a spending problem or a debt crisis. This budget assumes everything is just fine and everything will work out if we simply proceed forward on the current path of tax and spend. This budget represents a missed opportunity. Don't take my word for it. Editorial writers across the country have made similar statements about this budget.

A Washington Post editorial called it a complacent budget plan. They wrote that the majority budget fails to recognize the long-term fiscal problems:

Partisan in tone and complacent in substance, it scores

points against Republicans and reassures the party's liberal

base--but deepens these senators' commitments to an

unsustainable policy agenda.

In short, this document gives voters no reason to believe

that Democrats have a viable plan for--or even a responsible

public assessment of--the country's long-term fiscal

predicament.

The Chicago Tribune had a similar description in their editorial. They described it as a deficit of ambition:

The Democrats, unfortunately, are feigning fiscal

responsibility instead of practicing it. What is needed is a

lot more ambition than the Murray plan reflects.

If Democrats don't like the Republican plan for balancing

the budget, they should produce their own.

Finally, a USA Today editorial referred to the budget as a namby- pamby budget that underwhelms at every turn:

The Murray budget neither balances the budget nor reins in

entitlements. Its one-to-one ratio of spending to tax

increases might sound balanced, but the spending cuts are not

actual reductions. They are merely reductions in the expected

rate of growth.

All this makes the Murray budget barely a Band-Aid.

And that one-to-one ratio that is quoted in the USA Today editorial reminds me--and let me explain this--of where they raise $1 of taxes for $1 of cuts, which reminds me of the President's own position on that which he stated just before the election in his meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board and suggested that we raise taxes $1 and cut expenditures $2.50.

How do we go--just before the President is elected--from a $2.50 reduction for every $1 increase to a one-to-one ratio now? I hope when the President submits his budget on April 8 that he sticks to that ratio of $2.50 to $1.

I am sure we will hear the term ``progrowth'' applied to this budget when we hear from people speaking on the other side of the aisle. The only thing it can mean is growth in the size and scope of the Federal Government and growth in the national debt. We will also hear the term ``balanced.'' Please don't be fooled. The deficit majority is not speaking about a balanced budget. Their understanding of balance is higher taxes and higher spending.

This budget does not tackle runaway spending. It raises taxes, not to balance the budget but to spend more and more. This budget will grow the government, harm economic growth, and increase the debt. After 4 years of contemplating a budget resolution, I would have expected a more fiscally responsible budget. The American people deserve much better.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, a bill that would establish within the judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Representative Sensenbrenner is introducing the companion bill in the House. This bill will help make sure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy.

The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. The job of the Inspector General is to be the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs.

That is why, during my 30 years in Congress I have worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Inspectors General throughout the Federal Government. I have come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. When that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action.

During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated nearly $7 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal judiciary. To put this in context, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received a similar or less amount than the judiciary. Yet all three of these entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, I cannot see why the Judiciary wouldn't deserve the same assistance.

But there is an additional reason why the Judiciary needs an Inspector General. The fact remains that the current practice of self- regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. I would point out to my colleagues two recent events here in the Senate that support this conclusion.

In the past 5 years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Who did he obstruct?

Who did he lie to? He did this to his fellow judges, who were assembled to investigate the allegations of his obscene and criminal behavior. But it took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements to his colleagues as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him.

In the second case, the Senate found that former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was guilty of a number of things, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. Once again, this Judge's misbehavior came to light through a Federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge.

What's more, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status what would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.''

The judicial misconduct committees are simply inadequate for investigating claims of misconduct. These judges are not given the resources necessary nor do they have the expertise in conducting a complete investigation. They cannot, despite their best intentions, remove the inherent biases that develop from working closely with other judges. This duty would be better suited to an independent entity within the Judiciary.

The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act is the answer. This bill would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the Federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. In addition, the bill establishes whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees.

Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They are supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the Federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. Whistleblower protections for judiciary branch employees will help keep the judiciary accountable. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only ensure continued public confidence in our Federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, a bill that would establish within the judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Representative Sensenbrenner is introducing the companion bill in the House. This bill will help make sure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy.

The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. The job of the Inspector General is to be the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs.

That is why, during my 30 years in Congress I have worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Inspectors General throughout the Federal Government. I have come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. When that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action.

During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated nearly $7 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal judiciary. To put this in context, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received a similar or less amount than the judiciary. Yet all three of these entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, I cannot see why the Judiciary wouldn't deserve the same assistance.

But there is an additional reason why the Judiciary needs an Inspector General. The fact remains that the current practice of self- regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. I would point out to my colleagues two recent events here in the Senate that support this conclusion.

In the past 5 years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Who did he obstruct?

Who did he lie to? He did this to his fellow judges, who were assembled to investigate the allegations of his obscene and criminal behavior. But it took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements to his colleagues as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him.

In the second case, the Senate found that former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. was guilty of a number of things, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. Once again, this Judge's misbehavior came to light through a Federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge.

What's more, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status what would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.''

The judicial misconduct committees are simply inadequate for investigating claims of misconduct. These judges are not given the resources necessary nor do they have the expertise in conducting a complete investigation. They cannot, despite their best intentions, remove the inherent biases that develop from working closely with other judges. This duty would be better suited to an independent entity within the Judiciary.

The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act is the answer. This bill would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the Federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. In addition, the bill establishes whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees.

Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They are supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the Federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. Whistleblower protections for judiciary branch employees will help keep the judiciary accountable. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only ensure continued public confidence in our Federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch.

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

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

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for 15 minutes on this nomination that is before the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Caitlin Halligan, the President's nominee for the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. I wish to take a few minutes to explain to my colleagues why we should not change our prior position regarding this nomination. It was previously rejected and should be rejected again.

Before I talk about Ms. Halligan's record, I want to comment on the process. While I recognize the majority leader's right to bring up this nomination, I question why we are spending time on a politically charged and divisive nomination. I wish the Senate instead would focus on the critical fiscal, national security, and domestic issues we face.

The Senate determined more than a year ago that this nomination should not be confirmed. Rather than accepting the Senate's decision, the President has renominated Ms. Halligan. It is time for the President and Senate Democrats to accept the fact that this nomination is not going to be confirmed by the Senate. We need to move on.

It is well understood and accepted that nominations to the DC Circuit deserve special scrutiny. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit hears cases affecting all Americans. It is frequently the last stop for cases involving Federal statutes and regulations. Many view this court as second in importance only to the Supreme Court. And as we all know, judges who sit on the DC Circuit are frequently considered for the Supreme Court. So there is a lot at stake with nominations to this court. This is a court where we can least afford to confirm an activist judge.

I have a number of concerns regarding Ms. Halligan's views that indicate she will be an activist judge. There are concerns regarding her judicial philosophy and her approach to interpreting the Constitution. Her stated view that courts seek ``to solve problems and not just to adjudicate them'' indicates a willingness to abuse the role of a judge should she be confirmed. She has advocated for an ``evolving standard'' of the Constitution, indicating a judicial philosophy that embraces the notion of a living Constitution. In adopting the ``living Constitution'' theory of interpretation, judges routinely substitute their own personal views in place of what the Constitution demands.

I wish to share with my colleagues why I have concluded that Ms. Halligan would approach judging with an activist bent. Let me give just a couple examples, beginning with her record on the second amendment.

In 2003, Congress was debating the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act or, as most of us called it, the Gun Liability bill. At the time, gun manufacturers were facing lawsuits based on meritless legal theories. This frivolous litigation was specifically designed to drive gun manufacturers out of business.

As it turns out, while many of us--both Republicans and Democrats-- were fighting here in Congress to stop these lawsuits, Ms. Halligan was pursuing this precise type of litigation in the State of New York.

In New York v. Sturm & Ruger, Ms. Halligan advanced the novel legal theory that gun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers contributed to a ``public nuisance'' of illegal handguns in the State. Therefore, she argued, gun manufacturers should be liable for the criminal conduct of third parties.

Some of my colleagues have argued that we should not consider this aspect of Ms. Halligan's record because at the time she was working as the solicitor general of New York. But no one forced Ms. Halligan to approve and sign this brief. No one compelled her to advance a completely frivolous legal theory.

I believe a close examination of Ms. Halligan's record indicates she was more than just an advocate. She was using the full weight of her office to advance and promote a political agenda masked by a legal doctrine that is well outside of the legal mainstream.

In the case I just mentioned, which was the first of two cases Ms. Halligan was involved in regarding gun manufacturers, the New York State appellate court found her argument to be completely meritless and explicitly rejected her theory.

The court went so far as to say that it had ``never recognized [the] common-law public nuisance cause of action'' that Ms. Halligan advanced, and that it would be ``legally inappropriate'' to permit the lawsuit to proceed. Moreover, far from accepting Ms. Halligan's invitation to legislate from the bench, the court properly concluded that ``the Legislative and Executive branches are better suited to address the societal problems concerning the already heavily regulated commercial activity at issue.''

I will remind my colleagues that Ms. Halligan was pursuing this legal theory at the same time we were debating the gun liability bill here in Congress. There is no question that the dubious legal theories she was advancing in court reflected her own personal views, not just a position she was advocating on behalf of a client.

In a speech Ms. Halligan delivered on the subject in May of 2003, she said she opposed the legislation being considered by Congress because, ``[i]f enacted, this legislation would nullify lawsuits brought by nearly 30 cities and counties--including one filed by my office--as well as scores of lawsuits brought by individual victims or groups harmed by gun violence. . . . Such an action would likely cut off at the pass any attempt by States to find solutions--through the legal system or their own legislatures--that might reduce gun crime or promote greater responsibility among gun dealers.''

Later in that same speech, Ms. Halligan expressed her view of the law and legal system. She said, ``Courts are the special friend of liberty. Time and time again we have seen how the dynamics of our rule of law enables enviable social progress and mobility.''

I find this statement troubling, especially as it relates to the nuisance lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Those lawsuits are a prime example of how activists on the far left try to use the courts to affect social policy changes that they are unable to achieve through the ballot box. That is why I believe those lawsuits represented not only bad policy but, more broadly, an activist approach to the law.

Now, as I said, the State appellate court rejected her legal theory, and Congress subsequently passed legislation--by a wide bipartisan margin--to stop those lawsuits. But Ms. Halligan still forged ahead. In 2006, notwithstanding the fact the Congress had passed tort reform in this area, she attempted once again to revive the ability of States to pursue gun manufacturers. Only this time, she advanced her claims in Federal court, arguing the legislation Congress passed was unconstitutional. Fortunately, the Federal appellate court rejected her legal theory as well.

Ms. Halligan's record of taking far left and legally untenable positions is not limited to her legal briefs in gun cases. Another example of how she crossed the line from advocate to activist is Scheidler v. National Organization for Women. In that case she argued for an expansive definition of extortion under the Hobbs Act. Her support of NOW's claim that pro-life groups had engaged in extortion was rejected by eight Justices of the Supreme Court, including Justice Ginsburg--one of the most liberal justices on the Court.

There are a number of other aspects of her record that I find problematic. For instance, Ms. Halligan's views on the war on terror and the detention of enemy combatants are especially troublesome because Ms. Halligan is a nominee for the DC Circuit, where many of these issues are heard.

In 2004, Ms. Halligan was a member of a New York City bar association that published a report entitled: ``The Indefinite Detention of `Enemy Combatants' and National Security in the Context of the War on Terror.''

That report argued there were constitutional concerns with the detention of terrorists in military custody. It

also argued vigorously against trying enemy combatants in military tribunals. Instead, it argued in favor of trying terrorists in civilian, article III courts.

Ms. Halligan is listed as one of the authors of that report. But when it came time to testify at her hearing, Ms. Halligan tried to distance herself from the report. She testified that she did not become aware of the report until 2010. In a followup letter after her hearing, Ms. Halligan did concede that ``it is quite possible that [a draft of the report] was sent to me,'' but that she could not recall reading the report.

I recognize that memories fade over time. But, as I assess her testimony, I think it is noteworthy that at least four other members of that bar association committee abstained from the final report. Ms. Halligan did not.

I would also point out that several years later she co-authored an amicus brief before the Supreme Court in the 2009 case of Al-Marri v. Spagone. Ms. Halligan's brief in that case took a position similar to the 2004 report with respect to military detention of terrorists. In that case, she argued that the Authorization for Use of Military Force did not authorize the seizure and indefinite military detention of a lawful permanent resident alien who conspired with al-Qaida to execute terror attacks on the United States.

The fact that Ms. Halligan coauthored this brief, pro bono, suggests to me that she supported the conclusions reached by the 2004 report. And again, this issue is particularly troublesome for a nominee to the DC Circuit, where many of these questions are heard.

There are additional aspects of Ms. Halligan's record that concern me.

As New York's Solicitor General, Ms. Halligan was responsible for recommending to Attorney General Spitzer that the State intervene in several high-profile Supreme Court cases. She filed amicus briefs that consistently took activist positions on controversial issues such as abortion, affirmative action, immigration, and federalism.

These are just some of my concerns regarding the nominee's judicial philosophy and her approach to interpreting the Constitution. These are neither trivial nor inconsequential grounds on which to oppose her nomination.

Based on her record, I simply do not believe she will be able to put aside her long record of liberal advocacy and be a fair and impartial jurist.

Supporters argue that out of a sense of ``fairness'' we should confirm Ms. Halligan. They note that her nomination has been pending for over 2 years.

Let me remind my colleagues that while this seat has been vacant for over 7 years, it has not been without a nominee for all of that time.

Following the elevation of then-Circuit Judge John Roberts in 2005, President George W. Bush nominated an eminently qualified individual for this seat, Peter Keisler. Mr. Keisler was widely lauded as a consensus, bipartisan nominee. His distinguished record of public service included service as Acting Attorney General. Despite his broad bipartisan support and qualifications, Mr. Keisler waited 918 days for a committee vote that never came. There was no clamor from the other side that we needed to fill the vacancy. There was no demand that Mr. Keisler be afforded an up-or-down vote. So it seems to me that too often, with my Democratic colleagues, ``fairness'' is a one-way street.

When the Democrats refused to consider Mr. Keisler's nomination--or even to give him a committee vote--the other side justified their actions based on the DC Circuit caseload. So I would like to make a few comments about how the current caseload of the DC Circuit stacks up against the caseload that existed when Mr. Keisler's nomination was subjected to a pocket filibuster.

Before doing so, I would again emphasize that given Ms. Halligan's record on a host of controversial issues, the case for rejecting her nomination would remain, regardless of the number of vacancies or the court's workload. However, since some of my colleagues are declaring a ``judicial emergency'' on the DC Circuit Court, let me set the record straight. Contrary to assertions we have recently heard regarding the court's workload, since 2005, the DC caseload has actually continued to decline. The total number of appeals filed is down over 13 percent. The total number of appeals pending is down over 10 percent; filings per panel are down almost 6 percent.

Compared to other courts of appeals, the DC Circuit caseload measured by number of appeals pending per panel is 54 percent less than the national average. Filings per judge are also significantly lower than for the rest of the courts. While the national average of filings per active judge is 361, the DC Circuit is less than half, at 170 filings per active judge. And if you take into consideration the fact that the DC Circuit now has six senior judges, all of whom continue to hear cases and write opinions, there is a 26-percent decrease in case filings per judge on the court since 2005. So by any meaningful measure, the DC Circuit's workload pales in comparison to the other circuit courts.

Given the concerns I have about Ms. Halligan's record on the second amendment, the war on terror, and other issues, my concerns regarding her activist judicial philosophy, and the court's low workload, I oppose this nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Finally, I would note a number of organizations have expressed their opposition to this nomination. They are the American Conservative Union, 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee for Justice, Concerned Women for America, the American Center for Law and Justice, Heritage Action, Liberty Counsel Action, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Center for Judicial Accountability, Republican National Lawyers Association, Judicial Action Group, Susan B. Anthony List, Americans United for Life Action, and the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

Mr. President, back in 2003, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, issued a report that revealed that suspected terrorists could stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. The GAO shed light on a serious problem in our visa policies that posed a threat to our national security. The GAO found that many individuals were granted visas, but later, the FBI and intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism. The FBI didn't share the derogatory information with our consular officers in

time. Consular officers had one tool at their disposal, and that was to revoke the visas. But, many of the individuals had made it to the United States.

What the GAO found was that even though the visas were revoked, immigration officials couldn't do a thing about it because the revocation didn't go into effect until after the alien departed. They were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. Today, our immigration agents may not be able to locate the individual even if they could deport them.

The GAO report opened our eyes and showed us how revocations were not being used effectively, and how terrorists could exploit a loophole to stay in the country. Since the GAO report was issued, I have attempted to plug this hole in the system. Today I am reintroducing a bill to give the Department of Homeland Security a critical tool that allows the Secretary to issue revocations and remove aliens from the United States without the hurdles they currently face.

Let me elaborate. Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officers abroad are non-reviewable. We give our consular officers great latitude to protect the country and make a determination if an applicant is eligible for admission into the United States. This is known as consular non-reviewability. In 1950, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, determined that ``it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.''

Justice Minton, in his decision, stated, ``At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the procedure which the United States provides.''

The doctrine of non-reviewability is a long-standing one that allows the Department of State to keep foreign nationals from entering the United States. But, the doctrine should be applied in instances when a person is granted a visa, enters in the country, and the Government subsequently revokes that visa.

There are some national security implications at stake. The ability to deport an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal the revocation. So, in effect, the State Department doesn't use their authority to revoke. In fact, I am told they aren't doing it at all when the alien, even a potential terrorist, is in the country. They need a change so that foreign nationals are not able to freely roam our communities when they shouldn't be here in the first place.

Secretary Chertoff, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security agreed that the policy needed to be changed. When Secretary, he said,

The fact is that we can prevent someone who's coming in as

a guest. We can say, ``You can't come in overseas,'' but once

they come in, if they abuse their terms and conditions of

their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process.

That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are

admitted as guests like guests in my house--if the guest

misbehaves, I just tell them to leave; they don't get to go

to court over it.

What's more, allowing judicial review of revoked visas, especially on terrorism grounds, could jeopardize the classified intelligence that led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and CIA to be hesitant to share information. Why would our intelligence community share information with the State Department if they knew State wouldn't revoke a visa when the alien is in the U.S.? Current law could be reversing our progress on information sharing. Intelligence officials need to share information with immigration and consular officers to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and to impede their mobility.

My bill would give the U.S. Government the ability to expedite the deportation of suspected terrorists by applying the same ``non- reviewability'' standard for revocation decisions. It would treat revocations similar to visa denials. My bill gives the Federal Government the ability to deport an alien who has already entered the United States but shouldn't have ever been granted a visa.

Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11. We can't let that happen again. We should not allow potential terrorists and others who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and run to the courts and seek relief from deportation. We need to ensure that the government has all the tools at its disposal to keep the homeland safe.

I urge my colleagues to support my bill.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Small Business Efficiency Act with my colleagues Senators Nelson, Portman, and Pryor. Many small businesses rely on Professional Employer Organization, PEOs, and to handle many of their human resources responsibilities. The Small Business Efficiency Act will provide an important layer of certainty and protection for small business owners and their workers by eliminating any ambiguity about a certified PEOs ability to assume employment tax responsibility. It further implements safeguards for the certified PEOs small business clients. This will give small businesses peace of mind that their human resources and employment tax responsibilities are taken care of so they can focus on their core business and create more jobs.

I urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.

Mr. President, back in 2003, the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, issued a report that revealed that suspected terrorists could stay in the country after their visas had been revoked on grounds of terrorism because of a legal loophole in the wording of revocation papers. The GAO shed light on a serious problem in our visa policies that posed a threat to our national security. The GAO found that many individuals were granted visas, but later, the FBI and intelligence community suspected ties of terrorism. The FBI didn't share the derogatory information with our consular officers in

time. Consular officers had one tool at their disposal, and that was to revoke the visas. But, many of the individuals had made it to the United States.

What the GAO found was that even though the visas were revoked, immigration officials couldn't do a thing about it because the revocation didn't go into effect until after the alien departed. They were handicapped from locating the visa holders and deporting them. Today, our immigration agents may not be able to locate the individual even if they could deport them.

The GAO report opened our eyes and showed us how revocations were not being used effectively, and how terrorists could exploit a loophole to stay in the country. Since the GAO report was issued, I have attempted to plug this hole in the system. Today I am reintroducing a bill to give the Department of Homeland Security a critical tool that allows the Secretary to issue revocations and remove aliens from the United States without the hurdles they currently face.

Let me elaborate. Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officers abroad are non-reviewable. We give our consular officers great latitude to protect the country and make a determination if an applicant is eligible for admission into the United States. This is known as consular non-reviewability. In 1950, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, determined that ``it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.''

Justice Minton, in his decision, stated, ``At the outset we wish to point out that an alien who seeks admission to this country may not do so under any claim of right. Admission of aliens to the United States is a privilege granted by the sovereign United States Government. Such privilege is granted to an alien only upon such terms as the United States shall prescribe. It must be exercised in accordance with the procedure which the United States provides.''

The doctrine of non-reviewability is a long-standing one that allows the Department of State to keep foreign nationals from entering the United States. But, the doctrine should be applied in instances when a person is granted a visa, enters in the country, and the Government subsequently revokes that visa.

There are some national security implications at stake. The ability to deport an alien on U.S. soil with a revoked visa is nearly impossible today if the alien is given the opportunity to appeal the revocation. So, in effect, the State Department doesn't use their authority to revoke. In fact, I am told they aren't doing it at all when the alien, even a potential terrorist, is in the country. They need a change so that foreign nationals are not able to freely roam our communities when they shouldn't be here in the first place.

Secretary Chertoff, former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security agreed that the policy needed to be changed. When Secretary, he said,

The fact is that we can prevent someone who's coming in as

a guest. We can say, ``You can't come in overseas,'' but once

they come in, if they abuse their terms and conditions of

their coming in, we have to go through a cumbersome process.

That strikes me as not particularly sensible. People who are

admitted as guests like guests in my house--if the guest

misbehaves, I just tell them to leave; they don't get to go

to court over it.

What's more, allowing judicial review of revoked visas, especially on terrorism grounds, could jeopardize the classified intelligence that led to the revocation. It can force agencies such as the FBI and CIA to be hesitant to share information. Why would our intelligence community share information with the State Department if they knew State wouldn't revoke a visa when the alien is in the U.S.? Current law could be reversing our progress on information sharing. Intelligence officials need to share information with immigration and consular officers to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and to impede their mobility.

My bill would give the U.S. Government the ability to expedite the deportation of suspected terrorists by applying the same ``non- reviewability'' standard for revocation decisions. It would treat revocations similar to visa denials. My bill gives the Federal Government the ability to deport an alien who has already entered the United States but shouldn't have ever been granted a visa.

Terrorists took advantage of our system before 9/11. We can't let that happen again. We should not allow potential terrorists and others who act counter to our laws to remain on U.S. soil and run to the courts and seek relief from deportation. We need to ensure that the government has all the tools at its disposal to keep the homeland safe.

I urge my colleagues to support my bill.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Small Business Efficiency Act with my colleagues Senators Nelson, Portman, and Pryor. Many small businesses rely on Professional Employer Organization, PEOs, and to handle many of their human resources responsibilities. The Small Business Efficiency Act will provide an important layer of certainty and protection for small business owners and their workers by eliminating any ambiguity about a certified PEOs ability to assume employment tax responsibility. It further implements safeguards for the certified PEOs small business clients. This will give small businesses peace of mind that their human resources and employment tax responsibilities are taken care of so they can focus on their core business and create more jobs.

I urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which permits judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what happens inside our courts. Our judicial system remains a mystery to too many people across the country. That doesn't need to continue. Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. I believe that granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all.

For decades, States such as my home state of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen states allow news coverage in most courts; sixteen allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining fifteen allow coverage with stricter rules.

The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to federal courts by letting federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges, it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a three-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. The bill prohibits the televising of jurors. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party.

We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, a bipartisan bill which permits judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts.

Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what happens inside our courts. Our judicial system remains a mystery to too many people across the country. That doesn't need to continue. Letting the sun shine in on federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. I believe that granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all.

For decades, States such as my home state of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, only the District of Columbia prohibits trial and appellate court coverage entirely. Nineteen states allow news coverage in most courts; sixteen allow coverage with slight restrictions; and the remaining fifteen allow coverage with stricter rules.

The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and five other cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Chairman Leahy, will greatly improve public access to federal courts by letting federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media.

The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges, it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a three-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. The bill prohibits the televising of jurors. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party.

We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our states have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Madam President, the last 2 days in the debate here, a lot has been said about the sequestration that presumably is going to happen tomorrow. I would like to speak on that subject because it is very important, particularly the history of sequestration and what has gone on here in recent weeks as we discuss this issue.

In August 2011 a compromise was reached to grant President Obama's request to raise the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. I believe that was because we had a feeling that there ought to be a $1 decrease in spending for every $1 increase in the ceiling. So that adds up to $2.1 trillion. In exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, we Republicans in Congress asked for spending reductions. This all added up to the Budget Control Act passed on August 2, 2011. Decisions we are debating today were decided 18 months ago, so if you didn't like them in 18 months, you had an opportunity to change them. But here we are at the last minute talking about some changes.

The Budget Control Act of August 2, 2011, included budget caps to cut about $900 billion in spending immediately--August 2, 2011--and then it set up a supercommittee to find at least $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction. History shows that the supercommittee could not reach an agreement. So the failure of the supercommittee to reach an agreement led to the sequestration we are now debating and facing tomorrow, which is, as we know, automatic spending reductions of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

I didn't support the Budget Control Act. I don't criticize those who did, and to be fair, it was a bipartisan vote that got the Budget Control Act adopted. I knew at the time--and one of the reasons I voted against it--that the supercommittee was unlikely to reach an agreement and that it would ultimately only further delay difficult fiscal decisions that needed to be made. But at the end of the day the bipartisan majority in the Senate and the House passed and President Obama signed the Budget Control Act--a bill to bring about $2.1 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years.

Most believe sequestration is a terrible way to reduce spending. I agree. There are surely better ways to reduce spending by the $85 billion that is going to happen this year--of which, by the way, only $44 billion is going to be spent between now and September 30.

When that is done, we are going to have a situation where every year there is going to be some decision made on whether to continue the $1.2 trillion, and I hope for the good of the country that continues, whether it is by across-the-board automatic cuts or maybe there will be a compromise that can be reached to do it in a more studied way.

The Republican-led House of Representatives, soon after the 2011 decision, recognized that the automatic reductions weren't the best way to do it. So last year they passed two bills to reorganize those cuts in a more structured way. Did the Senate consider those two bills? No. The Democratic-led Senate produced or considered no bill prior to today to avert the sequester.

So I think it is fair to say that for the 18 months we could have been working together to find an agreement, nothing was done after the House of Representatives worked that agreement. Now we have all these crocodile tears flowing from the majority here in the Senate because of the terrible hardship this sequester may cause. Well, where have they been for the last 18 months? Why have they not proposed a single piece of legislation to avert sequestration until this very last minute? The two votes we just had today are an example.

Why has the Senate avoided regular order with such vigor? In other words, regular order--let the committees hold hearings; let the committees debate, amend, vote a bill out; let it come to the Senate floor; debate, amend, and vote it to a conference with the House of Representatives. But no regular order. Under regular order, you work to compromise. But the Senate failed to act after the House acted. So here we are at the eleventh hour to consider an alternative.

Just like their inability to produce a budget in nearly 4 years, this Senate majority has again failed to act. A budget is a very important part of fiscal discipline, but we haven't had a budget debate for 3 years even though the 1974 law requires us to have such debate and passage.

Tomorrow the President is going to meet with leaders in the Congress to see what can be done about sequestration, but why the very same day sequestration is taking place? What has the President been doing?

Well, we have seen him traveling around the country generating mass hysteria about what might happen--and wouldn't have had to do it if we had regular order here in the Senate in the meantime.

I would like to remind my colleagues that not only is the sequester a product that came from the White House, he explicitly pledged to veto a proposal to replace the cuts sometime when it was brought up in late 2011 and 2012. This is what the President said on November 2011:

Some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic

spending cuts. My message to them is simple. No. I will veto

any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to

domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-

ramps on this one.

Now the President and the Democrats here in the Senate want us to agree to more tax hikes on the American people rather than to cut the $3.6 trillion budget by just 2.4 percent, which they agreed to as part of the 2011 deal. Tax hikes were not included in that deal. They weren't included because we know that spending is the problem, not revenues.

The President must be absolutely frustrated. He apparently can't manage

a meager 2\1/2\-percent reduction even though just a few years ago he stated:

I want to go line by line through every item in the federal

budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure

that those that do work, work better and cheaper.

He must not have had any success because once again he is asking for a tax hike to reduce the deficits rather than addressing the real cause of the problem, which is spending.

Over the past several years we have heard a lot from the other side about increasing taxes on the so-called wealthy. The President and my Democratic colleagues argued that this was necessary to make the rich pay their fair share. Well, on January 1 the other side got their wish. The top statutory tax rate increased from 35 to 39.6 percent. When this statutory rate increase is coupled with the hidden rate increase from reinstituting the personal exemptions phaseout and the limitation on itemized deductions, the top marginal effective tax rate is not 39.6 percent but near 41 percent.

Not only did we see an increase in the income tax on January 1, but we also saw a significant tax increase on capital gains and dividends. The fiscal cliff bill instituted a top 20 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends. However, this is not the whole story. A provision from the health care reform bill that imposes a 3.8-percent surtax on investment income also went into effect at the start of the year. Thus, the top rate has jumped not from 15 percent to 20 percent but instead to 23.8 percent. That, of course, is nearly a 60-percent rate hike. You would think, after securing these tax hikes on the so-called wealthy, the other side would claim victory and move on. At least one would think they would move on from the tired old rhetoric that the wealthy do not pay their fair share.

Even before the most recent tax hikes, that claim was dubious at best. According to the Congressional Budget Office--remember, that is a nonpartisan study group that gives us basic information on changes of law--they say the top 1 percent already had an average Federal tax rate of 29 percent compared to 11 percent for the middle 20 percent of households. Yet the other side continues their politics of division. They continue to pit American against American and single out politically unpopular industries for tax hikes. While this may be good politics, it does not make good policy. You know, it is the other rule we ought to follow: Good policy is good politics.

The other side has resurrected in addition as part of this package before us the so-called Buffett rule, which would phase in a minimum 30-percent tax rate for taxpayers earning more than $1 million. This is despite the fact that this proposal was voted down by this body less than a year ago and they know there is no chance of it passing at this point. Moreover, their argument for this provision makes even less sense now, given the tax increases that went into effect on January 1.

It also is not clear to me why, when we are talking about reforming the Tax Code, we are now seeking to add an additional layer of complexity onto a Tax Code we already agree is too complicated.

At the end of the day, all the Buffett rule will accomplish is siphoning off more job-creating capital and investment for Main Street so that we can spend it here in Washington, DC. I hope we all know that government consumes wealth, it does not create wealth. The wealth is created outside of this city of Washington, the seat of our government. We have to take that into consideration. It takes capital to create jobs. If you want to get unemployment down, you do not take capital out of the private sector.

In addition to the Buffett rule, the other side has resurrected another proposal voted down by this body less than a year ago. This proposal has to do with businesses deducting ordinary and necessary business expenses. The rhetoric from the other side is that their proposal would close a loophole that incentivizes companies to ship jobs overseas. The problem is no such provision exists. The deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses is a mainstay of our Tax Code. It is an income-defining provision that accounts for the cost of doing business. What the proposal before us actually does is target companies doing business on a worldwide scale for a tax hike. This will not create jobs in America. It will not bring jobs that have relocated offshore back home. What it will do is punish businesses that seek to expand in the international markets, which in turn could actually cost us jobs here at home.

The final tax increase included in the other side's proposal today is more of a budget gimmick than a serious proposal to help pay for the delay in the sequester. The proposal would subject oil from tar sands to taxes that support the oilspill liability trust fund. However, if the revenue raised from this proposal is dedicated to this trust fund, how can it at the same time be dedicated to deficit reduction? If we are going to get serious about deficit reduction, we need to put an end to this double-counting charade.

The only spending the other side is willing to cut is farm subsidies. Using farm subsidies to help pay for sequester replacement puts the Agriculture Committee in quite a tough position. I want to remind my colleagues, though, that when we wrote a farm bill last year that passed the Senate by a bipartisan majority--it didn't pass the House of Representatives--but we cut $23 billion from that. We did away with direct payments, we maintained the crop insurance program, we put money in other programs and in food stamps as well.

There is broad support for the farm bill here in the Senate from both Democrats and Republicans and there is broad support for making spending reductions. But for Democrats to include cutting subsidies outside the context of a farm bill will make it difficult for us to write a farm bill. As we all know, there has been a lot of history of rural and urban legislators working together on farm and nutrition issues in the farm bill. By cutting farm programs in this sequestration replacement, my Democratic colleagues are undermining the ability of the Agriculture Committee to craft a bill that will gain the needed support to move through the Senate in a bipartisan way as it did last June.

I think the proposal will hurt our agriculture communities and I think those involved in American agriculture will oppose it.

At the end of the day, though, there will be money saved in the farm bill. If, given that opportunity, we can provide savings from a lot of programs, we should. We showed that ability last year. We all know the farm bill faced big challenges in the House last year. The challenges probably still exist in that Chamber, but we should not put ourselves in a position where we cannot even get a bill through the Senate.

For those of us who support the farm bill, we should be very concerned that this plan the Democrats are putting forward to avoid sequestration could seriously undermine the ability to pass a farm bill in either Chamber this time around. We just had an opportunity to vote on the Democrats' tax increase. This was the first vote in the Senate on an alternative to sequestration and the first alternative offered by the Senate majority. Over a period of 18 months, they had an opportunity to offer that alternative, just as the House Republicans offered us two alternatives we never took up.

We also had the opportunity to vote on one alternative from the Republican side of the aisle, but both of these votes were for show. I hope we can now work together in a bipartisan way, in regular order, to make sensible spending reductions. It is time to end the incessant talk of more tax hikes on Americans when those tax hikes already took place on January 1, when we know that the problem is in fact runaway spending. It is time to end the constant campaigning and do the work the American people expect us to do so we can leave the next generation a better life than the present generation has.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Jack Lew to be the Secretary of the Treasury. Am I in order to do that?

Mr. President, the problem we face with Mr. Lew's nomination is that the Senate does not have answers to very basic and factual questions about Mr. Lew. How can we make an informed decision on his nomination if we don't have answers to basic questions?

Let me provide several examples, starting with New York University. He worked for this tax-exempt university and he was given a subsidized $1.4 million mortgage. Mr. Lew claims he cannot remember the interest rate he paid on his $1.4 million mortgage the tax-exempt New York University gave him.

Does that pass the laugh test? I asked Mr. Lew to provide details on the mortgage to Congress. He refused repeatedly to provide full details and documentation of this taxpayer-subsidized mortgage. The explanations he did provide were needlessly complex, making it almost impossible to understand the structure of his loan.

What is he hiding? Why can't Congress get a straight answer out of this nominee to be our next Secretary of Treasury?

When Mr. Lew was executive vice president of New York University, the school received kickbacks on student loans from Citigroup. Then Mr. Lew went to work for that same Citigroup. When I asked Mr. Lew if he had any conversations with Citigroup about these kickbacks while he was at New York University, he once again ``could not recall.'' I asked for any documents related to his involvement in the kickbacks and he refused to search for them.

Did those conversations occur? We don't know.

On Monday, the New York Times uncovered a $685,000 payment that New York University gave Jack Lew on his way out the door. The New York Times called the payment ``unusual.'' It is a shame Mr. Lew failed to provide these details as part of his confirmation process, leaving us to rely on the press to dig out the details.

He told the committee he received ``severance pay'' from New York University but did not disclose the amount. The dictionary defines severance pay as: ``A sum of money, usually based on length of employment, for which an employee is eligible upon termination.''

Was Mr. Lew terminated? If so, why was he terminated? If not, was the severance package truly a parting gift from the university? I don't know the answers to those questions because Mr. Lew was not forthcoming with the answers.

When it comes to questions about investments in the Cayman Islands, things get even less transparent. Mr. Lew claimed he did not know Ugland House was a notorious tax haven. He claims he did not know he had his money in the Cayman Islands. He claims he was not aware of any Citigroup Cayman Islands account.

Again, this does not pass the laugh test. President Obama and Chairman Baucus have highlighted Ugland House as a problem over a long period of years. When Mr. Lew was at Citigroup for years he signed documents which disclosed the fact that he was investing money in the Cayman Islands.

This is his distinctive signature, right here; the Ugland House description here, and the Grand Cayman name here. It is very obvious this signature doesn't belong to anybody else. It has been highlighted, and there have been a lot of newspaper articles about it. How are we going to have that signature on the dollar bill if he gets to be Secretary of Treasury?

So everybody knows to whom that belongs. Yet with all this information, he is telling the committee he doesn't know anything about the Cayman Islands or where his money was going.

We have so many more questions for Mr. Lew.

This is what the Wall Street Journal said last week in reference to Mr. Lew's past:

Investor in Cayman Islands tax haven? Check. Recipient of a

bonus and corporate jet rides underwritten by taxpayers at a

bailed-out bank? Check. Executive at a university that

accepted student-loan kickbacks toward a favored bank? Check.

Excessive compensation with minimal disclosure? Check.

Mr. Lew's eagerness and skill in obtaining bonuses, severance payments, housing allowances, and other perks raise very serious questions about whether he appreciates who pays the bills. How will he approach the burden on taxpayers to pay the government's bills? Will he act as cavalierly toward the taxpayers as Treasury Secretary as he did at Citigroup and New York University?

But despite all these questions, we are right now, this very day, rushing ahead to a vote on this nomination. Clearly, these questions don't matter to Mr. Lew's supporters because they are confident they have the votes. Unfortunately, they even have some assistance from my side of the aisle. But transparency and sunlight are essential for Congress and for the American people because with transparency and sunlight comes accountability.

Those supporting Mr. Lew today better not expect any real answers out of him in the future if he will not answer these questions before confirmation. Whether we serve on the Finance Committee or on any other committee, we must do our constitutional job of oversight. We pass laws and we appropriate money and so we have a responsibility as Senators to make sure the laws are faithfully executed, which means we have to get answers from Cabinet people or people generally in the executive branch of government. If there are questions about the seriousness of faithfully executing the laws, faithfully spending the money we appropriate, we must ask questions. Do you think we will get answers from Mr. Lew after he becomes Secretary of the Treasury if he will not answer questions before his confirmation?

The larger problem, though, may be that when Mr. Lew actually does try to answer a question, he confirms our concerns. For example, when Mr. Lew was caught with the Cayman Islands bank account, he said: Well, I didn't make any money. Apparently, there is now a brandnew standard. It is OK to invest in ``the largest tax scam in the world''--and those are the President's words about the Cayman Islands and Ugland House, the largest tax scam in the world--so long as you don't make any money. That is the new standard.

When Mr. Lew was asked about New York University's investment in Cayman Island investments, again he could not recall them. Mr. Lew received over $1.2 million in his final year at New York University. He was hired specifically to run the business side of New York University. Yet despite all this, he claims he had no specific knowledge of where NYU's money was being invested.

When I asked Mr. Lew if he could explain morally his decision to take almost $1 million from an insolvent company supported by taxpayers, he could not answer. He said this to me: ``I will leave it to others to judge.'' Mr. Lew refused to explain why he thought the bonus was justified. Since Mr. Lew could not answer that question, today I answer it for my colleagues, as they consider a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote on this nomination.

It is important we hold members of this administration equal to the standards they set for everyone else. When it comes to oversight, I don't think anybody is going to question this Senator is an equal opportunity overseer, because I raise these same questions about oversight whether we have a Republican administration or a Democratic administration. I believe it is important to hold members of this administration equal to the standard they set for everyone else.

Let's look at that standard. In the past, the President has railed against

the ``fat cats'' on Wall Street. Today, the President nominates a man who took a bonus from a bailed-out, financially insolvent bank. The President has constantly complained about the high cost of college tuition. While Mr. Lew was at NYU, the university increased tuition nearly 40 percent while he was getting paid more than the New York University president.

In the not-so-distant past, the President has called the Ugland House ``the biggest tax scam in the world.'' Today, he nominates a man who invested there. In fact, the President has repeatedly railed against the Cayman Islands and Cayman Islands investments.

Mr. Lew is a serial Cayman Islands investor. On his watch, Citigroup invested money there, New York University invested money there, and he invested his own money there.

I believe it is essential to hold everyone to the same standards they set for others. For these reasons, I vote NO on this nomination.

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

Madam President. I intend to object to proceeding to the nomination of Christopher Meade to be General Counsel to the Treasury Department for the following reason: At his confirmation hearing, I asked Mr. Meade for the Treasury Department's legal basis for not responding to an oversight request I made regarding the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Mr. Meade is currently the Acting General Counsel and his response appeared to indicate that he interpreted a statute which states: ``Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prevent disclosure to either House of Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of the Congress'' as a limitation on Congress' ability to access information. The plain reading of the statute appears contrary to this interpretation.

In addition, Mr. Meade appeared to interpret a statute which requires CFIUS to brief certain specified Members of Congress as restricting CFIUS' ability to brief anyone except those members. Again, the plain reading of the statute appears contrary to this interpretation. There is nothing in this statute which restricts Treasury from briefing any other Members of Congress.

In an attempt to give Mr. Meade an opportunity to clarify his statements and explain his legal reasoning I wrote Mr. Meade another letter asking him to explain his logic and legal reasoning. I expect his reply shortly.

The most important role a Department General Counsel plays is in the interpretation of statutes passed by Congress. If Congress cannot be satisfied that Mr. Meade will impartially and accurately interpret statutes, this is a grave concern. The issues I have raised appear uncontroversial. If a statute says that ``nothing'' in it can be construed to prevent the disclosure of information to Congress, I do not expect it to be interpreted to limit Congress' ability to access information. If a statute does not limit CFIUS' ability to brief Members of Congress, I do not expect it to be interpreted to limit CFIUS' ability to brief Members of Congress.

I strongly believe that Congress' job does not end once it passes a statute. It is our job to ensure that the Executive Branch enforces the statute the way it was written. I will object to proceeding to Mr. Meade's nomination until he demonstrates that he will interpret these statutes consistent with their plain meaning.

Bill Schultz

Madam President, I would also like to express my opposition to moving forward with Bill Schultz as the General Counsel for the Health and Human Services Administration. My objection is due to the agency's refusal to respond to my oversight requests. It is not based on Mr. Shultz's qualifications or ability to do the job. I have met with Mr. Schultz and believe him to be fair and hard working.

However, as I mentioned to him during his nomination hearing and when I met with him personally--I have many unanswered letters and document requests pending with HHS. Specifically: I have received no response to my December 6, 2011, letter eliminating the age restriction on Plan B; I received no response to Chairman Issa and my April 5, 2012, letter to FDA regarding the monitoring of FDA employees; I received no response to my July 16, 2012, letter to FDA regarding the monitoring of FDA employees; I received no response to my July 24, 2012, letter to FDA regarding the monitoring of FDA employees.

This is unacceptable.

FDA intentionally spied on confidential communication with Congress, the Office of Special Counsel, and the whistleblowers private attorneys. Furthermore, in a meeting with my staff you indicated that one month was too long for letters from Congress to go unanswered. My letters have gone unanswered ranging from 7 months to over a year.

Until I receive answers to my letters and document requests, I am hesitant to agree to any movement on this nomination.