Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the underlying immigration bill, but, more importantly, to talk about an important amendment that I hope can be brought up. I have spoken on the Senate floor about this before and have provided great detail as to why it works to ensure that we have employment verification at the workplace, why it is so important, really, the critical element, I believe, in terms of immigration reform.

I believe strongly if we do not have a stronger employee verification system at the workplace, the rest of this legislation is not going to work. We are not going to have the people come out of the shadows that those who are proponents of this legislation would like to see, and I would like to see. Significantly, we are not going to be able to curtail future flows of illegal immigration.

People come here to work, and it is that magnet of employment that over the years has drawn people to this great country. If we are just going to put up more fences and have more Border Patrol, which I support, we are not going to get at the problem. First, when people want to get here badly enough, they figure out a way to go over or under those fences. They figure out a way to go around them. That has been the story of our country. Every time we have increased enforcement, including some sectors of the border now where there are double fences, people still manage to find their way across in order to find work.

Second, 40 percent of those who are here illegally in this country, we are told, came here legally. They did not come across the border illegally. They overstayed their visas. The only way to get at that problem is to ensure that we have strong workplace verification. Frankly, the underlying bill must be strengthened in order for the legislation to work the way it is promised.

I believe this amendment I am prepared to offer with Senator Tester, my colleague from Montana, is not just bipartisan, it is not just one that has been worked through with the Gang of 8, with the White House, with the chamber of commerce, with the AFL-CIO, with all the groups--we played by the rules over the last month or so to put together a good amendment--but it is one that will actually ensure to the American people that we can have an enforcement in place both at the border and in the interior at the workplace that will enable the rest of the legislation to work.

I have made it very clear over the last several weeks that I cannot support the underlying bill unless it has those enforcement guarantees because I cannot go to my constituents, look them in the eye, and say this is going to work.

So I agree, our immigration system is broken. The legal system is broken. The illegal immigration system, obviously, is broken. But we have to do the right things to fix it or else the promises we make are simply empty promises.

They say everybody wants to go to Heaven, but not everybody is willing to do the hard things to get there. This is an example of that. It is a hard thing. A lot of people do not want to see a tightening at the workplace. But it has to happen, and I think we all acknowledge that.

I was part of the 1986 immigration reform. That dates me, I know. But I was on the commission that helped come up with that. We proposed employer sanctions--it was called at the time--both in terms of the legislation and how it was implemented. Those employer sanctions were never put in place. That is one, although 3 million people were legalized, millions more came--up to 12 million now.

This is the critical part of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's have a vote on it. If we do not have a vote on it, we will not send the necessary message to the House of Representatives of the importance of this piece of the puzzle.

People said: Well, why didn't you include it in the Corker-Hoeven amendment, which was about a border surge? Because it needs to be and deserves to be drawn out as a separate issue, a separate debate, which we have had on the Senate floor. I have spoken on it before, Senator Tester has spoken on it, and we need to be sure that we can show through a bipartisan vote that, yes, we are willing to do the hard things to get to ``Heaven,'' the hard things to make sure this legislation actually works; and that is dealing with this at the workplace, which is the magnet, which is the reason people come to this country.

So I would ask any colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please, let us have a vote. There have only been 10 votes out of the over 500 amendments, apparently, that have been filed. There have been only 10 votes on this floor. Let us have a vote. We will be able to do it in a bipartisan way. We will be able to show the American people, as Republicans and Democrats, we can come together to solve big problems-- and this is a big one. If it is not solved, I will tell you, it is not going to work.

The pilot program for the kind of E-Verify that is in the underlying bill has been tested. Do you know what the recent report says on it? Fifty-four percent of those who are illegal got through the system and got a job--more than half. Why? Because the verification does not work. Our legislation strengthens it in a half dozen ways.

Again, I have gone into great detail on this on the Senate floor, and it is all in the Record, and I have shared this with all my colleagues who are interested.

Again, we have done the right thing in terms of working with both sides of the aisle, playing by the rules in terms of being sure the Gang of 8 signs off on it. It is not perfect, it is not exactly the amendment I initially drafted, nor is the underlying legislation perfect. But it does put in place real enforcement to ensure that the legalization will not occur in the absence of enforcement, which would lead not only to fewer people coming out of the shadows, but more illegal immigration coming, as happened in 1986.

The 1986 bill casts a long shadow in this place, and we have to be sure we do not repeat those mistakes. This will ensure we do that.

I urge my Republican colleagues, including the ranking member who has been terrific in this process trying to work with us, to accept a reasonable list and to accept some time limits that are reasonable.

I will say, last July 4th, a year ago, we were kept in session in this place. I was kept in session, as was every Member. I was happy to do it. But, frankly, it was regarding legislation that was more political than it was real. It never went anywhere because it was viewed as kind of a political exercise. I think both sides of the aisle would agree with that. We stayed on Saturday. As I recall, we stayed that weekend.

Here we have a historic bill before us on immigration and we cannot stay for a couple days to be sure we get through some of these amendments? That makes no sense.

Members in this body know me. I am not a partisan. I am not a guy who normally gets up here and rails against the other party about process. But I would say both parties need to figure out a way to come together and to come up with a list of amendments that make sense to ensure that this legislation we are considering is one that not only goes over to the House with over 60 votes but goes over to the House with the kind of substantive provisions that are going to make the legislation work so we can tell the American people and, frankly, tell our colleagues in the House this is something they ought to take up because our immigration system is broken.

I see my colleague from Montana is here. I would yield to him to see if he has any comments to make.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I thank him for his willingness to work on this together. This was not an easy process. Let's be honest, a lot of people would like not to tighten up the workplace requirements. There are people on all sides of this issue. The business community sometimes does not want to. Labor unions sometimes do not want to. Other groups are concerned about this. But the reality is, unless we have strong workplace verification provisions in place, the rest of the legislation does not work. It is a critical piece of the puzzle.

I urge my colleagues to give us a vote. Give us a chance. Let's show we can, on a bipartisan basis, do something that will actually create the enforcement that is needed to have the rest of this legislation work.

Again, I am urging both sides of the aisle to work on this together and to come up with a reasonable list of amendments. I am not suggesting anybody else's amendment should not be offered, but I am saying there is a way to get there. If we have to stay in, I hope Members would be willing to do this on an issue this important to the American people and this important to the future of our country.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, because there were some comments made about the amendment that Senator Tester and I have offered, let me be very clear. This is about making the underlying bill work.

I do not believe it will work if we do not have strong workplace verification, simply, both because as the Senator from Arizona said, 40 percent of the people who are here illegally did not come across the border, they came because they overstayed their visas and they are here illegally now, and because when folks want to come here badly enough to get work, they will go over, under, and around whatever barriers we put on the border.

I am for more border security. It is a good part of the bill. It does not solve the problem. Fifty-four percent--remember that. That is the pilot program for E-Verify. Over half of the people who are illegal who attempt to get work are getting through.

I don't think it is going to affect anybody in this Chamber. I don't think the bill will work. I am not going to vote for it if it doesn't have strong enforcement, because I don't think they are going to come out of the shadows in the way they want to have them, including me. I don't think you are going to be able to stop people from coming in the future. The flows of illegal immigration, as we saw in 1986, cannot be curtailed unless there is strong enforcement at the workplace.

I yield to my colleague from Arizona.

I thank my colleague. I have explained this on the floor in some detail as to what is in the legislation and why it is so important, including speeding up the time for E-Verify to apply, including a real trigger that is comprehensive, including having the ability to verify somebody's identity--which is the problem now with E- Verify--by photo match, by doubling the amount that goes to the States for them to provide the data.

It also has privacy protections. It also ensures we don't create a new national database that could have potential negative consequences for all of us as citizens who care about civil liberties. It is a great balance.

We have worked with the chamber, we have worked with the AFL-CIO, we have worked with the White House, we have worked with Republicans and Democrats alike. We have worked with people in the Gang of 8. It is not exactly the amendment we initially drafted. Ours was even tougher, I will say, in some respects, but it is an amendment I believe in my heart if we could get passed would create an E-Verify system that would be strong enough to create a deterrent, and right now the incentive to work is so strong that we can't solve this at the border. Plus, as my colleague from Arizona indicated, folks are coming over and overstaying their visas.

Let me say one more thing more if I could, please.

The Senator from Iowa has 34 amendments he wishes to have offered. I don't know if all 34 of those would actually be offered. Some of them, as my colleague from New York said, are being offered by the same Senator. I imagine there will be some voice votes in there. I know, as I said earlier, there has to be a time agreement that has to be reasonable. I know there has to be a limit. It seems to me there is a way for us to get there. This is, again, to show the American people that on a bill this historic we don't just have 10 amendments on the floor, to show we have the ability to hear not just from our amendment, Senator Tester and myself--which is critical to me to having this bill succeed--but also other Members, who as Members of the Senate have the right to be heard.

I would hope we could come together. I misspoke earlier and said it was last 4th of July. It was 2 years ago on the 4th of July. I remember missing the 4th of July events back home because we were here voting. Why? Because we wanted to spend some time on the Buffett rule, and that was fine. We all came back and did it. It didn't go anywhere.

I would only suggest this is even more important. If we have to stay through the weekend, if we have to ensure that we stay up late tonight and tomorrow tonight to get this done, I hope we will do it to provide an ability to find a way forward where we have these amendments. Significantly, we would offer an amendment like this one that enables this bill to work, and it enables us to have even more support as this bill goes to the House of Representatives.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

I thank my colleague from Montana. There was some discussion, both by Senator Leahy--who actually was complimented earlier in his absence about the way he handled this bill in committee, by Senator Grassley, because of the amendments he did offer and allowed Republicans and Democrats to offer.

To my friend, the majority leader, and to the Senator from Vermont, yes, we were offered, Senator Tester and I were offered the opportunity to put the legislation into the Hoeven-Corker amendment.

By the way, the idea there was that we had to cosponsor that amendment sight unseen, which ended up being about 1,200 pages. We chose not to do that, Senator Tester and I, for a very simple reason, which is we wanted to have a debate and a vote on this issue.

I have discussed this on the floor now three times, and I will discuss it once more. Apparently the Senator from Nevada wasn't there to hear it.

We believe--and I am passionate about this, as you can tell--that if we don't fix the workplace we cannot have

an immigration system that works. It is as simple as that. And to not have a separate debate and a separate vote on this amendment, on this issue, does not give us the possibility of sending this over to the House with a strong message and maximizing the chance the House of Representatives will see that strong bipartisan vote on this important issue of workplace enforcement to ensure it is part of the final package. It is that simple.

If it had been part of the so-called border surge amendments, rightfully so, Members from the other body and others observing this process would have said it wasn't about E-Verify, it wasn't about the workplace, it was about the border and about the 20,000 new Border Patrol agents, and they would have been right. Let's be honest.

We asked for something simple: Give us an opportunity to have a debate. It is not about us, it is not about politics, it is about the substance of the legislation, to make sure that coming out of the shadows will actually happen because folks will find it more difficult to find jobs if they are illegal, to ensure that we don't have a future flow of illegal immigration because we have, again, an employment verification system that works, and to show that there is bipartisan support for that.

Look, it is, frankly, not a very popular part of the legislation, and over the years it hasn't been. In 1986 it wasn't. That is why it was never implemented, because there is sort of an unholy alliance among employers, among those representing labor union members, among those representing certain constituent groups who feel there might be some discrimination or other issues. That is why we have carefully drafted this amendment to address those concerns, and we wanted to be sure we had a separate debate and vote.

By the way, we are talking about a 5-minute debate, and we still hope we will get it because it makes too much sense. We could not believe-- Senator Tester and I could not believe that couldn't be possible in this body, that the world's greatest deliberative body couldn't spend 10 minutes debating this crucial issue to show, on a bipartisan basis, what kind of support there is for not just dealing with the border but also dealing with the workplace, which, in my view, is the critical element here.

We made a mistake in 1986 by not writing the legislation properly and not implementing what we had in terms of employer sanctions. That is one reason. Although 3 million people were given legal status and amnesty, millions more came, to the point where now 12 million people are living in this country in the shadows. We have to be sure that problem is addressed, and that is why legitimately we thought it would be appropriate for this body to take up that issue and have a vote on it.

I stand by that. I think we made the right decision, although I am very, very discouraged by the fact that it now appears there might be some sort of a roadblock here. Let's get a reasonable list, let's get reasonable time limits, and let's work through these amendments. We could be doing them right now. We could have done them yesterday. We could do them tomorrow. We could be here over the weekend.

Two years ago we stayed in over the July 4th recess to talk about the Buffet rule, which never went anywhere. This is not substantive legislation that we actually hope will become the law of the land and have a major impact on all of us as American citizens and the future of our country, a nation of both immigrants and laws?

I ask again, Mr. President, that Republicans be reasonable, Democrats be reasonable, and let's come together with a list that makes sense, and let's vote on these amendments. Let's start doing our work.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the immigration bill that is before the Senate this week. We just had a vote on the Corker-Hoeven amendment. I wish to talk about why it is so important to fix our broken immigration system, but also about a critical issue that I believe has to be addressed in order for the proposed reforms to work.

I wish to begin by acknowledging the hard work of a number of my colleagues, including four Republicans and four Democrats who came together and spent months negotiating the bill we are now considering. They showed a lot of courage in addressing a tough issue. It is a tough issue politically, and it is a difficult issue in terms of the policies.

I also wish to recognize Senators Hoeven and Corker who offered that amendment today. The changes they made in that amendment are a step in the right direction because they provide more enforcement for immigration laws, and we have to guarantee there is meaningful enforcement that is coupled with any legal status for people who are now living in the shadows. I think that enforcement must include strong border protections. That was talked about a lot on the floor today.

It also has to include enforcement of the visa system so an entry- exit system for visas is effective. Finally, it has to include workplace enforcement.

In my view, the enforcement policies in the underlying bill and in the amendment we just voted on are still insufficient to ensure that we ultimately resolve our illegal immigration crisis. Much of the debate over the past week has been about border security, and the most significant provisions in today's amendment are focused on the border. So much so it was described today as being a border surge--employing an additional 20,000 Border Patrol agents and completing 700 miles of fencing that will no doubt make it harder for people to cross the southern border illegally.

Again, I think it is important we have a secure border. But, in reality, no matter how many miles of fence we build and no matter how many agents we station along the border, I truly believe people will continue to come to this country illegally as long as they believe America offers them a better life and a better job.

As we see on subsections of the border where fences have already been constructed, determined people find ways to go under, over, and around it. Some go around those parts of the border altogether to enter our country through a coastline or other less secure parts of the border. We also have to acknowledge that even if we were to prevent every single unauthorized entry at the border, such enforcement would not solve the problem of illegal immigration. Why? Because we are told that 40 percent of those here illegally are visa overstays. In other words, they came legally. They didn't come illegally across the border; they came legally and they have overstayed. They never tumbled a border fence or evaded a Border Patrol agent; instead, they came here legally and simply overstayed their visas.

Having a secure border is important for our immigration system, as I have said. It is also important because of the illegal drug traffic, because of the concern about terrorists coming over our border. So I do support having a more secure border, but I do not think it is sufficient.

Today I want to talk about an issue I think should receive more attention. It has received a lot less than border security over the past few weeks, as we have talked about this legislation. But I think it is even more important to the ultimate success of comprehensive immigration reform, and it is about turning off the jobs magnet--the jobs magnet for those who come here illegally for a better way of life and a better job. It is about effective enforcement of the workplace that I think is absolutely essential to bringing people out of the shadows and to preventing future flows of illegal immigration.

The only way to do that at the workplace is through effective employment verification--a topic that has received little attention during our debate thus far, an area where I believe the current bill and the amendment we voted on tonight fall short.

Policy efforts to eliminate this jobs magnet have been part of the discussion about immigration for decades. Yet our current employment enforcement system has failed to stem the tide of unauthorized workers. I am pleased the underlying bill would mandate the use of an electronic employment verification system called E-Verify. But the bill does little to address the inadequacies of the E-Verify system itself, including the widespread use of false documents.

An effective employment verification system must first verify authorization to work by connecting a worker's name and biographical information to a legal status, and then, second, it has to ensure the worker is who he or she says he or she is--in other words, connecting an individual to a specific name and identity record.

The goal of E-Verify should be to provide for a simple, reliable way for employers to confirm a new employee's work eligibility and to identify that person to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs in this country. Until we do that, and deal with the magnet, I do not think we are going to be able to get the kind of enforcement we need.

The current voluntary E-Verify pilot program--this is the pilot program that is out there now that is mandatory in the underlying legislation, but in the pilot program, there is a way to reliably verify authorization to work. I think that actually is fairly effective. But where it has not been successful is in authenticating a worker's identity because it lacks a universal and secure system of verification. The best recent study of the E-Verify pilot, by the way, shows that 55 percent--54 percent--of unauthorized workers are getting through the system. In other words, more than half of those who are here illegally, processed through the E-Verify system, are erroneously found to be eligible for work. The reason is straightforward: Many unauthorized workers obtain employment by committing identity fraud that cannot be detected by E-Verify. So my primary focus over the past few weeks has been on working constructively to develop a bipartisan E- Verify amendment to strengthen the employment verification provisions in S. 744 to help curtail the widespread unauthorized employment that fuels most illegal immigration.

Along with my colleague from Montana Senator Tester, I have submitted an amendment today that strengthens E-Verify in five key respects-- first, by enhancing protections against Social Security number fraud and identity theft.

A critical challenge in implementing mandatory E-Verify throughout the country will be combating the fraudulent use of other people's identities in seeking employment authorization. S. 744 seeks to address this challenge by allowing individuals to lock their Social Security numbers for purposes of E-Verify and requiring audits of suspicious E- Verify activities.

The amendment also requires the Social Security Administration to include in all of our annual statements we get from Social Security information about all E-Verify queries that have been placed during that year and for us to have a toll-free telephone number to be able to call folks if there has been a misuse of that number. This will allow us to be on guard against unauthorized workers fraudulently using our personal information to seek and obtain work.

Our amendment also requires the Department of Homeland Security to notify individuals when they identify suspected Social Security number fraud in the E-Verify system.

The amendment also allows the Department of Homeland Security to build on successful pilots programs in Florida and Mississippi to allow E-Verify to validate drivers' licenses and State-issued ID cards with information provided by the State motor vehicle administrations. This step is critical to stopping the pervasive use of fake drivers' licenses in the E-Verify process. But in doing so, we must also protect personal privacy, so the Portman-Tester amendment prohibits DHS from maintaining this information in a Federal database or transmitting that information except for the purposes of E-Verify.

Our amendment also requires regular referrals from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, identifying fraudulent Social Security number use and fake documents presented during the E-Verify process for investigation and appropriate enforcement action. And it provides for DHS outreach and training to assist employers in preventing identity fraud and strengthening hiring practices. Only with all these tools and efforts can we expect to curtail the widespread use of identity fraud and help prevent unauthorized employment.

The second focus of our amendment is to strengthen the identity authentication aspects of E-Verify and ensure that the system includes robust data privacy protections.

To improve the accuracy of E-Verify, the underlying bill expands the use of a new photo-matching process called Photo Tool, which enables employers to match a new employee's photo ID with a digital E-Verify image. Currently, photo matching is limited to documents for which there is a verified photo in the E-Verify system. Unfortunately, for more than 60 percent of us--60 percent of Americans--there is no such data in a file because we do not have a passport, we do not have an immigration document. The bill, therefore, relies on States to give the Department of Homeland Security access to drivers' license photos. But based on our experience with the REAL ID Act

of 2005, very few States are likely to comply.

There is no assurance that all or even most States will voluntarily participate in this kind of a program. So while the underlying bill provides some funding and grants to ease State compliance, we believe the amount they provide may understate the cost to most States.

To help make Photo Tool actually work, our amendment doubles the available grant moneys for States that share department of motor vehicle information and photos, and it ensures the States are fully reimbursed for whatever their actual compliance and participation costs are, providing incentives for States to participate. It also clarifies that Photo Tool will be fully integrated into the E-Verify system and that it must be implemented in time for the rollout of the mandatory E- Verify throughout the country. So it brings Photo Match into the E- Verify system to provide for better enforcement at a time when some workers are going to be provided a legal status.

Senator Tester and I want to be sure the bill's Photo Tool provisions do not lead to the establishment of a Federal database containing additional personal information and photographs of individual Americans. In fact, this will be another thing that is important to States because many States will only participate if assured the data they share will not be misused. So our amendment provides robust data privacy protections, one, clarifying that Photo Tool will be implemented so that E-Verify ``pings'' State DMV databases with individual queries rather than storing such State-provided information--so only when there is an individual request do they ping the DMV, and the DMV provides the photo; two, providing that the State DMV images and information may not be collected, may not be stored, may not be used for any other purpose other than for E-Verify, and may not be disseminated in any way beyond a response to an individual Photo- Tool query; and, three, providing for periodic DHS audits to ensure that the Photo Tool data is not being collected, stored, or improperly disseminated.

To make E-Verify work, we have to be certain employers are able to authenticate the true identify of new hires accurately, quickly, and easily. But in doing so through methods such as Photo Tool match, we must protect privacy and safeguard personal information. We have done that in this amendment.

The third way our amendment strengthens E-Verify is by enhancing additional security measures for identity verification. For new employees whose identity cannot be verified using Photo Tool, which we talked about, the underlying bill provides for the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop ``additional security measures'' designed to authenticate identity. But there is no specified timeframe for implementation and little or no guidance in the way of standards for these additional security measures.

Our amendment clarifies that the additional security measures must be integrated into the E-Verify system for workers who present a document without a corresponding Photo Tool image, that the timing of their implementation is tied to the rollout of mandatory E-Verify, and that failure to verify an identity with the additional security measures results in what is called a Further Action Notice in the E-Verify process, allowing employees to appeal through the established appeals process, where they have to prove they are authorized to work.

Our amendment also specifies standards for design and operation of the additional security measures that are provided to include state-of- the-art technology structured to provide prompt determinations and minimize employer and employee burdens. These specifications are designed to safeguard employee privacy and maximize the accuracy and efficiency of identity determinations. And the amendment permits employers to choose, with advance notice to DHS, to use the additional authentication measures on all new hires rather than only in cases where no digital image is available for a Photo Tool match. For a number of employers that is important.

A fourth section of our amendment clarifies protections for employers who seek to comply with E-Verify procedures in good faith. The underlying bill mandates nationwide rollout of E-Verify and also increases employer sanctions--penalties for employers who do not comply with the mandated employment verification process. The bill's provisions seek to ensure that employers will not engage in unfair immigration-related employment practices, expanding both the grounds and penalties for such practices.

Employers will therefore face the often challenging task of ensuring compliance with these new employment verification obligations while simultaneously avoiding an expanded set of unfair immigration-related employment practices.

Our amendment simply provides that there is a safe harbor, a safe harbor protection to employers that comply in good faith with the requirements of the mandatory employment verification system. The amendment provides that the government must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the employer had knowingly hired an unauthorized worker and employers that take reasonable steps in good faith to avoid unfair immigration-related employment practices are not subject to liability. Again, it is very important for employers to have this be a simple system and one where, if they follow the rules, they have a safe harbor.

Finally, our amendment expedites the E-Verify mandatory rollout to American employers, while preserving the full 5-year timeline for the smallest businesses to make sure we begin rigorous enforcement efforts at the same time millions of current illegal immigrants begin to shift to a legal status.

Our amendment ensures that most American jobs are covered by E-Verify as soon as it is feasible, applying to large employers as early as 2 years after enactment, which is speeding up and expediting the coverage of E-Verify. It includes a new strengthened trigger to ensure timely and full implementation of mandatory E-Verify to all employers, including integrated Photo Tool and additional security measures prior to any adjustment to green card status. So it also has a stronger, more comprehensive trigger.

In each of these ways, this amendment presents an opportunity for this Senate to put forth good policy that will make a real difference if implemented. The amendment's provisions were drafted with input from both Republicans and Democrats. They are the product of a lot of negotiations regarding business groups, labor interests. They were developed and vetted in consultation with the administration and the officials who will actually be tasked with developing and implementing this new system of mandatory employment verification.

I am pleased Senator Tester has joined me in this effort. I know the provisions in our amendment enjoy broad bipartisan support in this Chamber and I think across the Nation. There is a recent poll, for instance, that showed that 82 percent of likely voters think businesses should be required to use E-Verify to determine if a new employee is legal.

The question before this body is a simple one: Will our comprehensive immigration reforms include serious, meaningful, and effective E-Verify provisions that along with the border security measures will actually stem the tide of illegal immigration or will we fail to eliminate the jobs magnet that makes it harder to bring people out of the shadows and continue to provide a strong incentive for people to come here illegally.

Today, I am simply asking for a debate and a vote on this critical amendment. My request does not have a political motivation. It is not about whether I support the legislation, although I will not be able to support it without it. It is about making this reform work. If this amendment is not adopted, I do not believe the reforms are going to work, and thus I would not be in a position to support final passage.

I was there during the immigration commission that came up with the proposals that led to the 1986 law, which was the last comprehensive effort that Congress made to overhaul our immigration system. I was a young staffer on what was called the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. I spent 2 years there working on

these issues and have followed them since and have been involved in immigration policy both in the Congress and in the administration since then.

But back in 1986, I saw the work that went into crafting that legislation and the hope it gave everyone that we were actually going to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Then I saw those hopes dashed, as the reforms failed to work. They failed to address illegal immigration, in part, because they did not effectively implement the workplace enforcement provisions, despite, by the way, strong recommendations from the Commission on which I served. Congress simply--and the administration--subsequently did not implement the kinds of employer sanctions at the time and the kind of enforcement at the workplace that was necessary.

Therefore, they left intact that jobs magnet that has driven so many to come here illegally in the past decades since. I do not want to see a repeat of that failure. That is why I cannot support the legislation without these changes.

We have before us a historic opportunity. We have a real chance to fix this broken system and help curtail illegal immigration. It goes without saying that in the world of partisan politics, such opportunities are pretty rare. Time and again, we have seen reform efforts held hostage by politics. During the last few weeks, we have been reminded once again how difficult it is to achieve consensus on issues relating to immigration reform.

But this system is broken, the legal system and the illegal system. So we ought to take this opportunity to fix it, but we have to really fix it. It is our responsibility to ensure that the reform legislation passed by the Senate includes policies that will actually work. We are not operating in a vacuum. Not only are the people of this country watching us, but the House of Representatives is watching too.

To ensure that effective workplace enforcement provisions actually become law, E-Verify must be prominent in our efforts and central to our debate. We must make certain the House understands that a more effective E-Verify is perhaps the most crucial element of successful reform and that real workplace enforcement remains a priority during their deliberations, as well as an eventual conference between the House and Senate to work out a final package.

A separate debate and a vote on this amendment is essential to sending that strong message to the House. They need to know one way or the other whether there is strong bipartisan support for E-Verify. I believe there will be. I believe, therefore, that maximizes the chance of it being in the final product. Politically, if supporters want this legislation to have a chance at passing the House and becoming law, we have to make sure it is focused on preventing new illegal immigration as much as it is on adjusting the status of those currently living in the shadows. I do not see how we can make that claim if E-Verify is not strengthened, if it is included only in passing, if turning off the jobs magnet is treated as an afterthought.

That is the sort of thinking that doomed the 1986 reform. It is this sort of approach that may doom this reform before it has even had a chance to be enacted. I am certain everyone engaged in this debate has the best of intentions, but we have to ensure those intentions do not lead us down a path that we repeat the mistakes of 1986.

That is why we have to have a vote on this amendment. The Portman- Tester E-Verify strengthening amendment is critical to the success of this bill. I would like to be able to support reform of a broken immigration system. An immigration system that invites the best and brightest to come to our shores and seek a better life is what this country is all about. It is part of our promise. It is one of the reasons the United States has long been called a beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world.

But I have given assurances to my constituents, the same assurances I know many in this Chamber have made; that is, that I cannot vote for this legislation unless I am convinced it will work. I cannot support reform that does not adequately address the problem of illegal immigration and provides adequate enforcement; at the border, yes, but also at the workplace. Without a stronger E-Verify system, I am convinced this legislation will ultimately fail.

I know many of my colleagues feel the same way. That is why I believe if this amendment were brought up for a vote, it would not only pass, but it would pass with a strong bipartisan vote. I am simply asking for that vote. Let's make strong and effective E-Verify part of immigration reform. Let's accomplish something of which we can be proud, something that fixes the problem this country has struggled with for decades, something we can hold up to the American people of how Washington is supposed to work, as proof the Republicans and Democrats, working together with mutual respect and in a bipartisan fashion, can achieve meaningful results.

That is what this amendment is all about. I certainly hope it can become part of this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about a couple amendments that I hope will make it on the Landrieu list. I think they are entirely consistent with what she has talked about; that is, amendments where there should not be any controversy, where we can come together as Republicans and Democrats and support them, in order to improve this underlying piece of legislation on immigration reform.

I do think it is important for us to resolve this issue of an immigration system that is broken--a legal system that fails to actually uphold the laws within it.

As the Presiding Officer knows, and I talked about it yesterday, I still have concerns about the legislation in a number of areas.

One is the internal enforcement of the legislation, particularly with regard to the workplace. I think the magnet of work that encourages illegal immigration can be addressed through a stronger and more comprehensive E-Verify system, and we plan to offer an amendment to that effect, and will work with both sides of the aisle.

I also have concerns about Federal benefits going to noncitizens. I know that Senator Hatch has been working diligently on that issue as have Senator Rubio and others, and I am hopeful that we will be able to work something out to address that issue.

Border security, of course, is an issue which we have talked a lot about today. It is important, but the provisions concerning it are not sufficient, in my view.

Finally, I do have concerns about the eligibility for legal status of convicted criminals. That is what I want to talk about today.

Again, Senator Landrieu has talked about supporting a number of uncontested amendments that will improve the underlying bill. I think these two amendments that I am going to talk about today fit well into that category.

These amendments would apply a uniform and fair standard to anyone convicted of a felony. I think that is, at a minimum, what we have to be doing. If you are convicted of a felony crime, there ought to be a fair standard applied, and you ought not to be able to obtain a legal status. They would also ensure that dangerous criminals who prey on the most vulnerable among us are not given legal status under this legislation.

Yesterday I talked in general terms about what these amendments would accomplish. One problem I identified is that the underlying bill requires an applicant for legal status to have served at least 1 year in prison in order to make that person ineligible, regardless of the crime, even if the crime they committed was a felony.

I think it is also important to understand the kinds of criminal convictions that, under the current bill before us, would not prevent someone from beginning the process of becoming a citizen, so I am going to give a couple examples. These are the kinds of incidents that we see on the nightly news and that fill us with disgust and outrage. They are not hypothetical:

A man convicted of felony child abuse for beating his children ages 6 and 8 with a riding crop, shooting them with BB guns and bottle rockets, and choking and burning them with cigarettes; a woman convicted of aggravated child abuse for giving alcohol to an 8-pound, 7-week-old infant to the point that its blood alcohol level was more than four times the legal limit for an adult; a man convicted of felony domestic violence when he broke into the home of his ex-girlfriend, choked her, pulled out her hair, and beat her to keep her from getting help.

All of these criminals were convicted of felonies; none of them served the full year imprisonment required to be inadmissible under S. 744, the underlying bill. So if somebody were convicted of these horrible crimes, they could still be admissible to go into legal status because they didn't serve that 1 year minimum.

By the way, this can result from several different factors. One is the disposition of the sentencing judge. Another is the recommendation made by prosecutors, possibly for reasons that were valid such as to get more information out of these criminals. It could also be because of overcrowding in our State prisons, which, unfortunately, is endemic in this country.

So I think making decisions based on time served is not the right way to go. It means that if two individuals are convicted of the same crime of violence--in this case domestic violence--but one serves 1 year in prison, and the other is sentenced to 6 months; the first person is barred from citizenship while the second would still be eligible. It is unfair, it is illogical, and it is not in keeping with the spirit of the legislation before us to treat all violent felons in the same manner.

My very simple amendment would ensure that those convicted of domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse, who could have been sentenced to not less than 1 year imprisonment for the crime at the time of conviction, are not eligible for citizenship.

My second amendment ensures that crimes against children involving moral turpitude--things like child abuse, child neglect, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor through sexual acts--are not subject to the discretionary authority of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the immigration judges with respect to removal, deportation, or admissibility of an individual. Crimes involving moral turpitude look past a conviction and the elements of a crime because these acts are conclusively against our values as a people.

This amendment would continue the standards we have always had enshrined in our immigration system. For that reason, just like the previous amendment, I believe, in a sense, that this is just a clarification that is necessary to make this underlying law work.

A quirk in the bill before us would change that. It weakens the laws designed to protect our kids. That is the kind of reform we don't need.

Discretionary authority has its place, I acknowledge that, but there is no excuse for committing acts of violence against children, and those who would do so are not worthy of citizenship. But under the legislation as currently written, someone who commits a felony assault--for example, a man who gets in a bar fight with another man-- would be deported, but a father who goes home from that same bar and beats his children or hits his wife would not necessarily face the same consequences.

I can't believe that this was the intention of this legislation or that anybody in this Chamber would find that acceptable.

We want to make sure that this immigration bill only benefits those who are worthy of it. This bill is for the men and women who have come to this country to build a better life for themselves and their families, not those who would abuse them. It is for those who are willing to work hard, not for those who have served hard time. It seeks to open the door to American citizenship for those who share our values of respecting and protecting human life, not those who would commit crimes against the most vulnerable among us.

The debate on immigration reform has been long and at some points it has been difficult. I saw that on the Senate floor earlier today. And many of the amendments that have been offered have been highly contentious.

Again, I will be offering some amendments on ensuring that there is proper enforcement of the legislation later in this process. But I would say that these amendments we have offered, which are before the Senate, amendments Nos. 1389 and 1390, are amendments that shouldn't be contentious. They are intended only to protect our children and

to ensure that the creation of a path to citizenship does not leave the victims of domestic violence as second-class citizens.

There will be hard votes in the days to come. This is not one of them. I urge my colleagues to support both of these amendments.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are debating the immigration bill again today, and as the Presiding Officer knows, I am one of those Members of the Senate who believe our immigration system is broken, both the legal system and the way in which we want to deal with those who come here illegally.

I have concerns with the underlying legislation. I have spoken about that on the floor. I have concerns about the workplace magnet. I think the E-Verify proposals in the underlying bill are an improvement to the current system but still not as strong as they need to be to be an effective deterrent to those who are unauthorized to work. I don't think the system will work, frankly, unless we strengthen those provisions at the workplace. Most people want to come here for economic reasons, and if we don't deal with the workplace we will not be able to affect much at the border if people really want to come here with their families to get a job.

Second, we have learned now that 40 percent of those who are here illegally have actually overstayed their visas, meaning they came here legally but then overstayed their visas and are here illegally now.

We also learned that under E-Verify, unfortunately, about 54 percent of those who are unauthorized to work are getting through the system now with the pilot programs that are available. So that needs to be strengthened, and I will have proposals to do that.

I am working with the eight Members of our body here who have put together this legislation and other Senators on both sides of the aisle to try to strengthen those provisions because I don't think the bill is going to hold together without real enforcement.

Secondly, the border enforcement needs to be strengthened and the triggers need to be strengthened. I am working with Senator John Cornyn and others on that. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle can agree that along with having workplace verification that really does determine who is eligible to work and whether documentation is fraudulent, we also need to have a secure border moving forward.

Third, I have concerns about some of the benefits that will be offered to people who are in this interim status, so-called RPI status, who would be in a legal status but still not able to obtain a green card. So the question is, What benefit should they get? We want to be sure people are not enticed to come here for benefits but, rather, come here legally to work.

Finally, I have concerns about some of the criteria for this status, which would be a legal status, as it relates to crimes they have committed. As a result, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support two amendments I have filed to the underlying bill. I believe these amendments would serve to clarify what kinds of criminal acts would render violent offenders inadmissible under the immigration reform bill we are debating.

The first amendment addresses convictions for domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse. Under the current language, those convicted of these crimes would only be ineligible for admission in the event they served at least 1 year in prison. My amendment would change this language to declare inadmissible anybody convicted of such crimes who could have been sentenced to no less than 1 year of imprisonment for the crime at the time of conviction. I think this is really a clarification amendment and a simple amendment that should be accepted by both sides because it is in keeping with the original purpose of the language, which is to allow a more consistent and fair application of the law.

If my amendment is accepted, two individuals convicted of the same crime under the same circumstances would be treated in the same way under our Nation's immigration laws. That is not the case as the bill is currently written. The current language puts emphasis on the time served rather than the offense committed. As we all know, the amount of time a person convicted of a crime might serve in prison is related to a whole lot of factors unrelated to the purpose of this legislation-- from the disposition of the sentencing judge, to the recommendations made by the prosecutors, to the overcrowding in many of our State prisons. So this amendment would take those extraneous considerations out of the picture, applying the same standard to all applicants for citizenship while ensuring that the spirit of the original language remains--preventing violent criminals from reaping the benefits of this legislation.

The second amendment serves a similar purpose. It would exclude crimes against children involving moral turpitude--things such as child abuse, child neglect, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor through sexual acts. It would remove those from the discretionary authority of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and immigration judges with regard to removal, deportation, or inadmissibility of an individual. This amendment would strengthen our efforts to prevent and punish child abuse and would ensure that anyone who endangers our children is not eligible to become a citizen of this country.

Nothing is more precious than American citizenship. We see that everyday with people coming to this country, some legal and some illegal. We have to ensure that this legislation does not extend that privilege to those who would commit crimes against the most vulnerable among us.

These very simple, commonsense amendments would help to achieve that goal. So along with E-Verify and ensuring that our border will be secure,

ensuring that the appropriate benefits are provided to those who are not citizens but here in an interim status, I urge my colleagues to adopt these two amendments to ensure that those who would like to become citizens of the United States are those who deserve it and are not individuals who have engaged in the kinds of criminal acts that would make them inappropriate to become citizens of the United States.

I thank the Chair, and I yield back the time. I don't see any colleagues stepping forward, so I note the absence of a quorum.

The ranking member of the Finance Committee, member of the Judiciary Committee, I was told I could speak even before that, but then the majority leader came out to the floor to do some important business, and I was put back. I have about 5 or 10 minutes in which I would like to talk about E-Verify, as indicated earlier, and border security.

I would defer to my colleague as long as my other colleagues would allow me to speak after that.

Mr. President, I would like to join in the debate on immigration reform, and I think my colleague from Utah who just spoke makes a couple good points--one on the substance of the legislation and the need for us to be concerned about what the eligibility is, particularly as it relates to Federal benefits, to go to a legal status, but second about the process. I do hope the process can be an open one.

Not all of us are in the Gang of 8. Not all of us are on the Judiciary Committee. A number of us have what we think are improvements to this legislation to make sure that it does work and hope that there will be an openness to that over the next couple of weeks as we take up this legislation. It is my hope that, working constructively in a bipartisan fashion, we can address some of what I see as shortcomings in this legislation.

I do believe our current immigration system is broken. I think it is far too easy for people to cross our borders illegally and too easy for folks to find work without authorization. I think it is also too difficult for those who seek to come here in accordance with the law. So both the legal and the illegal part of our immigration system need fixing. It can't keep up with the demand for legal immigration or stem the tide of illegal immigration. So I think reform is essential.

As it stands now, however, I am concerned that the legislation will not provide the country with a lasting workable solution. Like a lot of my colleagues we just heard from today--Senator Cornyn talked about this, Senator Hatch talked about it, and others have talked about it today on the floor--I remain concerned about a few things. One is the eligibility for Federal benefits. Senator Hatch talked about that. But for me, a lot of it comes down to meaningful enforcement of our laws, including on the border, which is very important, also entry-exit, as Senator McCain talked about, but significantly workplace enforcement. This is one area in particular that I believe must be addressed in order for us to have a successful implementation of the bill. Particularly, I would like to focus my comments today on what is called employment verification, or the E-Verify system.

When we talk about strong enforcement measures, we hear a lot of talk about the border, and we heard a lot of discussion about it earlier today, and that is important. It is important to have a secure border for a lot of reasons, including the movement of guns, drugs, certainly terrorism, as well as immigration. But I don't believe that border security alone will address the problem. Why? Because so many people enter here legally but then overstay their visas. It is estimated that 40 percent of those who are here illegally are here because they overstayed their visas. So we are not going to solve that problem at the border.

Second, I believe that no matter how many miles of fence we build or how many Border Patrol agents we put side by side along the border, as long as there are people wanting to come here for economic reasons--and I believe economic incentives are the primary reason people come to this great country--I think it is going to be very difficult to stop illegal immigration just at the border. We have to deal with the jobs magnet, which is why people are coming here.

This, by the way, has been a discussion over the years going back to the 1980s. The 1986 act talked about the jobs magnet and the need for us to have an effective--at that point it was called the employer sanctions system. It was never put in place. That is one reason the 1986 act did not work. It has been in the debate for decades, and yet we haven't fixed it yet.

My belief is that the underlying bill still needs to be improved in this regard. Our current employer verification system has simply failed to address some of the very fundamental problems of having unauthorized workers. So effective employment verification is essential to the successful completion of this legislative process and to having a successful comprehensive immigration reform bill that prevents future illegal immigration.

Simply put, whatever reform we may adopt in this Congress will fail in the long run, in my view, if we don't eliminate the enticement to come to our country to work. I believe we must have a strong and workable E-Verify system that can help solve this basic problem.

Ideally, E-Verify would enable all employers to be able to, first, verify accurately and efficiently the identity of new employees and, second, ensure their work eligibility. By ensuring that only authorized job seekers get hired, we can begin to remove the jobs magnet that, frankly, as I said earlier, undermined the 1986 reform effort and left us in the situation we face today where we have over 10 million people working and living in the shadows here in this country.

Ultimately, I believe the E-Verify system contemplated by this legislation falls short but could be improved. While no verification system is perfect, the bill we are now considering mandates nationwide E-Verify implementation while doing little to address the fundamental flaws we have seen in E-Verify. There is a recent study that estimates that E-Verify has an error rate for unauthorized workers of 54 percent. That means half of the folks who are not authorized to work who go through E-Verify are able to be qualified anyway. In other words, the E-Verify system is not working to detect more than half of the unauthorized workers.

In implementing the mandatory E-Verify system, we have to do more to strengthen the protections against the fraudulent use of identifiers-- particularly the Social Security cards and Social Security numbers in the employment authorization process--and we need to improve individuals' data privacy protections in that process. The proposal before us attempts to address some of these problems through what is called a photo-matching tool. This tool is designed to allow employers to compare a digital photograph from the E-Verify system with the photo on a new hire's passport, immigration document, or driver's license.

Unfortunately, the verification system doesn't have access to photos for more than 60 percent of U.S. residents who do not have a U.S. passport or an immigration document, making the photo-matching ineffective. The current legislation therefore relies on the States to give the Department of Homeland Security access to driver's license records on a voluntary basis. There is no assurance that all or even most States will choose to participate in this. Past experience with what is called the REAL ID Act would indicate that fewer than half of the States would comply. Some say only 13 States would comply, some say 18 States would comply. The fact is, fewer than half of the States are complying with REAL ID, which would mean that on a voluntary basis it is unlikely we are going get those driver's licenses or get those photos to be able to have photo-match work effectively for the 60 percent or fewer residents who don't have a passport or immigration document.

So I think more can be done to make this bill work better, and I am committed to trying to do that through legislation, amendments, and working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

American citizenship is precious, and there are millions around the world who dream of attaining it. Our Nation deserves an immigration system that works. We can get there but only if we demand reform that recognizes the mistakes of the past--including the lack of promised enforcement from the 1986 law--and take steps to remedy those mistakes.

I am committed to addressing the deficiencies in the present legislation, and I will work on the Senate floor to help strengthen border security, deal with the eligibility issues Senator Hatch talked about, and eliminate this magnet of illegal employment. In particular, I am committed to helping ensure that E-Verify is implemented in a manner that does curtail the employment of unauthorized workers, protects privacy, and minimizes the burdens on employers, particularly small businesses. I sincerely hope we can get there.

I am confident that if this process is indeed open, as was discussed earlier, if it is an open process where amendments are able to be accepted, where people of good faith on both sides of the aisle are trying to get to a solution for a broken immigration system--broken both in terms of legal immigration and illegal immigration--we can in the end pass good legislation out of the Senate.

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

Madam President, today I wish to remember Eugene Ruehlmann, former mayor of Cincinnati, OH, for his leadership, his visions, and his dedication to his community and for his distinguished career in law and public service. Mr. Ruehlmann passed away at the age of 88 on June 8, 2013.

A native Cincinnatian, Mr. Ruehlmann's talents were recognized early on when he was voted ``Boy Mayor of Cincinnati'' in 1942 as a teenager. His public service career officially took off years later after he served our Nation in the U.S. Marine Corps in World War II, earned degrees from the University of Cincinnati and Harvard Law School and launched a successful law practice. Ultimately, Mr. Ruehlmann served 12 years on the Cincinnati City Council beginning in 1959 and served as the mayor of Cincinnati from 1967-1971.

Known as a ``Clean Gene'' for his principled leadership and legendary integrity, Mr. Ruehlmann was instrumental in advancing Cincinnati as a major league city. His leadership included guiding the early transformation of downtown Cincinnati with the development of the new Fountain Square Plaza, Riverfront Stadium, the establishment of an NFL team, the Cincinnati Bengals, and constructing Cincinnati's Convention Center.

Following the race riots in 1967, Mr. Ruehlmann worked to heal the city. He reformulated the city's Human Relations Commission, and founded the Mayor's Housing Coordinating Committee and the city's Project Commitment.

He has given his time to numerous charitable and community organizations, such as Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Greater Cincinnati Foundation, the Work and Rehabilitation Center, March of Dimes and the National Conference of Christians and Jews.

Mr. Ruehlmann was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Cincinnati in 2011. In 1998, he was named a Great Living Cincinnatian by the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce for his lifetime of service and leadership. In 1970, the Urban League of Cincinnati honored him with a special award for Outstanding Achievement in Public Service.

He built a successful law practice as founder of the Strauss, Troy and Ruehlmann law firm, as a partner with Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease in Cincinnati, and as a director on the Board of the Center for Resolution of Disputes.

In all these years, and with all these accomplishments, he remained a devoted family man. He and his late wife, Virginia, were married for 61 years and raised 8 children, 25 grandchildren and 11 great- grandchildren.

Mr. President, I would like to honor Eugene Ruehlmann for his dedication to the City of Cincinnati, to his community and to his family.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in condemning the Internal Revenue Service for intentionally singling out dozens of nonprofit organizations for no cause other than their political leanings. This is not an issue of Democrat versus Republican. Indeed, the actions of the IRS have brought rare bipartisan accord. There are lessons for us all in this scandal.

One is that a government that is too big, too powerful, and too all- encompassing is prone to overstep its bounds. It becomes unwieldy and inefficient. And sometimes, it tramples upon the rights of the people it is supposed to serve. We have seen those maxims in action over these last few weeks.

We have an IRS that targeted groups of American citizens, threatening them with the force of law and imprisonment, for no other reason than they had certain political affiliations. We know now the IRS selected these groups by zeroing in on certain words and phrases.

And what were these words and phrases that elicited such concern in the halls of the Internal Revenue Service? Words like ``patriot'' and ``we the people.''

It seems to me that we can draw only one of two conclusions from the actions of the IRS. Either some in the administration intentionally attempted to use the power of the Federal Government to target and cripple their political enemies, or they lack the competence to oversee a bureaucracy that has grown too big not to fail.

One thing is for sure, though. The reputation of the IRS has been tarnished in ways that will take years to repair, and it is imperative that we restore the trust that has been lost between the American people and our government. That work begins with getting to the bottom of this scandal.

We have many questions that need answers. Did these IRS officials act on their own, or did they have direction from their superiors? How high up does this scandal go? What did the White House know, and when did they know it?

This scandal comes as Washington is preparing to hand over even more power and authority to the IRS. It will be the IRS that enforces the mandates of the new health care law. It will be the IRS that will have control over some of our most private, personal decisions.

It is not too late to change course. But if we insist on placing the blame for the IRS's actions on a few low-level staffers without looking at the root cause of the abuse--corruption, or a government that, as the President's former Senior Advisor David Axelrod recently admitted, has become too vast to manage and oversee--then we will continue to witness scandals like this.

Big government comes with bigger problems, bigger scandals, and bigger dangers for our liberties. The Tea Party and organizations like it have been arguing that position since they were founded. And while I know there are some in this chamber that will hate to hear this, it turns out the Tea Party's fears were justified.

We need more than just an audit of what happened at the IRS. We have given the IRS every opportunity to deal with this issue internally. More than a year ago, Senator Hatch and I sent a letter to the IRS expressing our concerns about the targeting of conservative groups. We received a response assuring us that our concerns were unfounded.

We now know that this response was false, and perhaps intentionally misleading. Tuesday, former-Commissioner Steven Miller appeared before the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee on which I serve. During that hearing, Mr. Miller claimed that while he had dispatched a team to investigate our concerns a month before he responded to our letter, the response was sent without input from that team. He claims he did learn that targeting had occurred, but not until a week after misinforming the Senate that all was fine. He said he was ``outraged.'' And yet he never corrected the record, choosing instead to allow his false response to stand. At the very least we have a situation where the IRS, knowing what had happened a week after they sent a response saying everything was fine, refused to correct the Record. I believed them at the time. Unfortunately, we were misinformed. And yesterday, Lois Lerner, the head of the IRS's tax- exempt organizations division, declined to answer questions regarding this scandal, deciding instead to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

Despite all this, the IRS asks us to trust them when they tell us that this scandal was simply the result of a few misguided, low-level employees, and that no senior officials were involved. With all due respect, I am done taking the IRS's word for it. We need an indepth investigation, one that fully documents the what, when, and who of this scandal. Only when we get to the bottom of this incident can we begin to rebuild the bridge of trust between us as citizens and our Federal Government here in Washington, DC.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of Stepping Stones Center, which serves the needs of people with disabilities in Greater Cincinnati and inspires independence and pathways to helping people achieve their potential. I have visited Stepping Stones on several occasions and have always been impressed by their work.

Stepping Stones Center was founded in 1963 when a handful of parents and friends of children with disabilities established Cincinnati's first day camp for children with disabilities. These passionate and loving parents wanted their children to have opportunities like those of their siblings, friends and neighbors.

Over the years, Stepping Stones has continued to expand, broadening the scope of services and the ability to reach more families. In the early years, Stepping Stones' services focused on traditional day camp opportunities, which were enhanced to provide therapeutic benefits including outdoor activities, arts and crafts, swimming and games.

In 1971, the region's first on-site infant stimulation program was developed and Stepping Stones helped launch Cincinnati Mothers of Special Children in 1974.

Partnering with the Rotary Club of Cincinnati, programming for a second campus was developed for Camp Allyn in Batavia, augmenting summer programs with year-round educational programs, overnight camps and initiating services for adults.

In response to the growing needs of children with autism, Stepping Stones launched its innovative Step-Up program as Greater Cincinnati's first alternative education program for students with severe autism and extreme behaviors in 2004. Today, Step-Up serves students from 14 school districts in the region. In 2013, Stepping Stones launched the region's first sensory needs respite and support program for children with autism and other sensory needs and extreme behaviors, filling a critical need for ongoing overnight recreational respites.

Since its founding, thousands of high school students in Greater Cincinnati have been trained and have served as volunteer camp counselors, learning the benefits of giving back to their communities and gaining an understanding of occupations that serve those with special needs. Many special education teachers, therapists and disabilities professionals in Greater Cincinnati can trace their vocations to summers volunteering at Stepping Stones.

On this occasion I would like to recognize Stepping Stones Center and honor the founders, Margaret--Peggy--Geier, Minor LeBlond and Mary T. Schloss, the trailblazers who identified a need, envisioned a solution, and then worked tirelessly to make Stepping Stones happen. I salute the volunteers, staff members, donors and parents who carry on their sprit every day, continuing to build pathways to independence for people with disabilities. It is a privilege to recognize this 50 year anniversary, and I wish Stepping Stones all the best for the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor 453 high school seniors in 8 northeast Ohio counties who deserve this Nation's eternal gratitude for their commendable decision to enlist in the United States Armed Forces. Of these 453 seniors from 130 high schools in 93 towns and cities, 86 will enter the Army, 171 will enter the Marine Corps, 62 will enter the Navy, 43 will enter the Air Force, 3 will enter the Coast Guard, 82 will enter our Ohio Army National Guard, and 6 will enter into the Ohio Air National Guard. In the presence of their parents/guardians, and high school counselors, military leaders, city and business leaders, all 453 will be recognized on May 7, 2013 by ``Our Community Salutes of Northeast Ohio.''

In a few short weeks, these young men and women will join with many of their classmates in celebration of their high school graduation. At a time when many of their peers are looking forward to pursuing vocational training or college degrees, or are uncertain about their future, these young men and women instead have chosen to dedicate themselves to military service in defense of our rights, our freedoms, and our country.

I have no doubt that many are anxious about the uncertainties that await them as members of the Armed Forces. But they do not go forward from their homes and their families alone. They should rest assured that the full support and resources of this Chamber, and the American people, are with them in whatever challenges may lie ahead.

These 453 young men and women are the cornerstone of our liberties. It is thanks to their dedication and the dedication of an untold number of patriots just like them that we are able to meet here today, in the U.S. Senate, and openly debate the best solutions to the many diverse problems that confront our country. It is thanks to their sacrifices that the United States of America remains a beacon of hope and freedom in a dangerous world. We are grateful to them, and we are grateful to their parents and their communities for instilling in them not only the mental and physical abilities our Armed Forces require, but more importantly the character, the values, and the discipline that leads someone to put service to our Nation over self.

Their decision to serve our country will not go unrecognized, not by the veterans who will stop to salute them as they pass, nor by the everyday Americans who will shake their hands in grocery stores and gas stations and airports, just to let them know how much we all appreciate their service. I would like to personally thank these 453 graduating seniors for their selflessness and the courage that they have shown by volunteering to risk their lives in defense of our Nation. We owe them, along with all those who

serve our country, a deep debt of gratitude.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the 453 high school seniors.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the installation of an Ohio Historical Society marker commemorating President Lincoln's funeral train stop in Urbana, OH on April 29, 1865. Urbana was one of the Ohio communities President Lincoln's funeral train passed through on its 1,654-mile trek from Washington D.C. to Springfield, IL. Around midnight on April 29, 1865, 10,000 mourners gathered near Urbana's train station to pay their respects to President Lincoln during the train's 20-minute stop.

To commemorate this historic event, the Champaign County Bicentennial Historical Marker Committee is installing an Ohio Historical Society marker in Urbana. This marker will not only honor one of America's greatest presidents, but it will also recognize this historical event which contributes greatly to Urbana's rich heritage.

I wish to recognize Champaign County for keeping history alive for future generations through the installation of the Ohio Historical Society marker, and for other historical preservation and commemorations in an Ohio county with a rich history.

Mr. President, today, finally, we are going to see the President's budget--so we are told. When we look over the history of the last few decades, never has there been a budget submitted so late. The budget is due in February, as we know. With the exception of the first year of a President's term, when a new President comes in, when we give that new administration some time to put together its own budget, this will be the latest budget submission in decades.

I hope the wait will have been worth it. In other words, I hope what the President submits today is something serious, that helps us address the central challenge of our time. I see there are some young pages on the floor. I also met with lots of young people from the Ohio State University this morning. I told them the same thing I

will say today, which is their future is at stake.

It is about our economy, but it is also truly about the future. Are we going to get control of the record debt and deficits and begin to turn our country toward the America that has been something we so much have taken for granted over the past century, which is an America that is growing, that is prospering, where wages are going up, where we have the ability to chart our own course and are a beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world? Or, are we going to continue the slide we are on now, where wages have actually gone down, where America's deficit and debt continue to grow at unacceptable levels, where we risk a financial crisis as we have seen in Southern Europe, in countries such as Greece, places where they did not watch what was happening in terms of their fiscal house.

These countries allowed their debts and deficits to grow to such a large extent that they became as large as the entire economy of those countries. Guess what? As of this year, we are told our debt--our gross debt in this country--is now the size of our entire economy. There are studies out there that indicate that when we get to that kind of a level, there is a big impact on economic growth. We are certainly seeing it, are we not?

We are living through the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, whether it is measured in terms of our economic growth or whether it is measured in terms of jobs. We just had a very disappointing report last month on the jobs front showing that we only gained about 88,000 jobs, disappointing all the projections.

But significantly, one-half million people--almost 500,000 people left the workforce. We now have the lowest labor participation rate-- meaning that as a percentage of people working or seeking work--that we have had since the days of Jimmy Carter. That is over three decades. In some ways, the policies of Jimmy Carter have been replicated over the last few years in the sense of larger government, more taxes, more regulations.

What we are seeing is, frankly, an economy that is starting to resemble what happened back in the Carter days. That is unacceptable. We need to provide opportunities for Americans who are on that first rung of the economic ladder to get to the second and to the third and to the fourth. Those are the folks who are being hurt the worst with this economic malaise we have with this anemic economic growth, with these job numbers that are so disappointing.

They do relate back to the budget deficit and debt. There is a study by a couple economists named Rogoff and Reinhart that indicate we would have about 1 million more jobs this year alone if we did not have debt at these incredibly high levels.

This year we are told we can expect a deficit of $1 trillion again or more. This is the fourth year in a row. Never in the history of our country have we had debts and annual deficits of $1 trillion. Yet the President's budget, it appears, will not fundamentally change the course we are on. I think from what I have heard from the media reports and so on, it is likely to add about $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years, putting our debt that is already at over $16 trillion, again, at a level where it is at the entire size of our economy, where we have unfortunately continued economic doldrums because we cannot get out of this huge overhang of debts and deficits.

It is time to make a change. It is a moment for truth. It is an opportunity to address the challenge. My fear is the President's budget will not be adequate to meet the challenge.

There are some things in the budget I think will be positive. I want to say that. I understand the President is likely to propose a more accurate measure of inflation, when we are talking about how to adjust for cost of living and our programs, including the important and vital but unsustainable program Social Security.

Social Security this year is actually in deficit, meaning that $77 billion is projected to be spent for benefits in Social Security greater than the amount of payroll taxes coming in. So people who say Social Security is OK, it is in fine shape--a $77 billion shortfall is not OK. Also, we are told the disability trust fund will be insolvent, bankrupt, belly up by 2016. That is just a few years from now. More people have gone on disability, unfortunately, than have been added to the work rolls in the last 4 years. Yet this trust fund is going bankrupt in just a few years.

Even if we include all the IOUs in the trust fund for the Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund, the fundamental trust fund for Social Security, that will be insolvent by 2033. That is not that long from now. Folks who are retiring today, many of whom are likely to live to that point, in other words, for retirees today, they are looking at the possibility of this trust fund going bankrupt.

What happens under law when that goes bankrupt? There is a 25-percent cut in benefits. That is the law. So with this hemorrhaging every year, this year again about $77 billion with these trust funds heading toward insolvency, Social Security does have to be addressed. I commend the President for saying let's use the right measure of inflation. It also happens to affect the benefit side and the tax side. So it actually increases taxes as well because there will not be the same adjustment for the rates for indexing on the income tax side. So there is both revenue gained through this proposal and also there are some savings on the programmatic side because the more accurate measure of inflation is used.

This is a controversial issue among some folks. I understand that. Again, I commend the President for putting it in the budget, as I am told he will. But having said that, this is just one step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, even with that proposal, Social Security will continue to have these enormous shortfalls. On the health care side, I am told the President may make a proposal to reduce some spending in health care. That is a good thing but again not adequate to the task before us. I am told it will be $400 billion. We can argue about where that $400 billion comes from. But it looks like most of it will come out of providers; in other words, the people who are providing health care to lower their reimbursement at a time when more and more providers are saying, we are not interested in providing care under Medicare and Medicaid because the reimbursement is already too low.

So we need to be careful how it is done. But let's assume we could agree on the $400 billion. What would that mean? That would mean that instead of rising 110 percent over the next ten years, Federal health care expenses would go up 100 percent.

The point is we have a challenge in front of us that requires a much more aggressive approach. It requires us to be honest with the American people. It requires us to tell the American people: things are not going well. We are not turning the corner because these incredible debts and deficits do not enable us to do that. It is a shadow over the economy. It is a wet blanket on the economy today. Unfortunately, for the young people listening today, it is going to affect their futures in very significant ways if we do not address the problem.

We will see what happens with this budget proposal today. I am hopeful it will have more in terms of savings than has been suggested in the media. Those savings that are in there, I think we ought to support, as Republicans and Democrats alike, and then encourage the President to work with us on taking it to the next level, to truly address this challenge.

On the tax side, we are told the President is likely to recommend additional increases in tax. Remember, taxes were increased about $620 billion already this year, just a few months ago. So the ink is barely dry on that huge tax increase--some would argue the largest tax increase in the history of our country. Yet the President is apparently likely to recommend taxes at about that level again, $600 billion or more. Some say it is more like $1.5 trillion, which was in the Democratic one offered on the Senate floor. But I am told maybe it is more like $600 billion. But whatever it is, we have to acknowledge that increasing taxes again is going to hurt the economy. There is no question about it. The question is whether it is appropriate to have a higher level of taxation in our economy.

Let's think about that for a moment. We are told by the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan

group that analyzes all these budget proposals, that currently we have taxes as a percent of our economy, which is probably how you ought to look at it, at levels in 2015 which would be below our historic average. So in a few short years, we are looking at taxes that they say are 19.1 percent of the economy. What does that mean? Typically, it is about 18.3 percent. So it is higher than the average. We are already, under current law, looking at higher taxes, partly because of the fiscal cliff agreement and the $620 billion in new taxes that were raised over 10 years.

The spending, on the other hand, which is already at levels higher than the historic average--which is about 20 percent, today it is at about 23 percent--is projected to go up and up and up. In fact, over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it goes from 20 percent to, on an average over the last 50 years, about 39 percent.

Then, frankly, they stop counting because they cannot imagine spending at that level because we have no sense of how to get revenue at that level. No one is talking about taxes that would be increased that high. It would be tripling the taxes, at least. So these are issues we need to talk about as a country. How much taxation do we want to have on our economy? How much spending do we want to have? I think what we ought to do is come up with a plan. Ten years from now, where do we want to be? Republicans are calling for a balanced budget. We think true balance means we balance the budget. We stop spending more than we take in. Democrats would like to see more taxes and fewer spending reductions.

We need to come up with something that makes sense for the American people. We need to acknowledge the fact that our issue is not the revenue.

Instead, it is the spending. That must be addressed. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's work together to get America back on track, to solve this problem which, if we do not deal with it, will not allow our economy to prosper. It will not allow America to continue to be that beacon of hope and opportunity for the rest of the world.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the commencement of the Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Veterans Project. CPT Jonathan Grassbaugh and three other soldiers were killed in action in Iraq on April 7, 2007, when an insurgent detonated a 500-pound explosive beneath their truck. His wife, CPT Jenna C. Grassbaugh, has collaborated with the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law to create the Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Veterans Project. The Jonathan D. Grassbaugh Veterans Project will provide veterans returning from deployment with legal assistance, with the help of law students aided by professional lawyers.

CPT Jenna Grassbaugh donated $250,000 of her husband's life insurance policy to the Moritz College of Law in order to honor her husband's legacy and assist returning veterans. The Grassbaugh Veterans Project will open in April and will be operational by fall 2014.

I would also like to pay tribute to Jonathan D. Grassbaugh and the rich legacy he leaves. His commitment to service is an inspiration to all of us and he will not be forgotten. I would also like to recognize CPT Jenna Grassbaugh for honoring the legacy of her husband in such a meaningful way.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that actually saves some money. It is an amendment that instructs the Judiciary Committee to produce savings of over $60 billion by cutting back on frivolous lawsuits through medical malpractice reform.

Today, patients and physicians alike are held hostage by a broken medical liability system that continues to incentivize defensive medicine, which leads to a lot of wasteful spending and unnecessary tests and studies. PricewaterhouseCoopers has released a study showing that the estimated cost of this defensive medicine is about $210 billion a year.

Comprehensive medical malpractice reform has been proposed by Simpson-Bowles, by Rivlin-Domenici, and by other bipartisan deficit- reduction groups. It has also been examined in depth as a means for deficit reduction by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In fact, CBO has told us that sensible medical malpractice reform could reduce the deficit by over $62 billion over 10 years. CBO also points out that comprehensive reform could alleviate shortages of certain kinds of physicians around the country.

The amendment provides maximum flexibility for the Judiciary Committee in allowing the committee to determine the best way to achieve deficit reduction by reforming the current system. This flexibility, by the way, includes the ability to enact reforms that

would only come into effect if States fail to act.

ObamaCare has not only led to rising insurance premiums and loss of employer-sponsored coverage, but it has also missed this crucial opportunity to reduce costs while maintaining access to critical specialty care.

So let's set this reform in motion today as part of this budget process.

Mr. President, this is a jobs amendment. This is about having authority to knock down barriers to trade.

I am offering this in connection with Senator Wyden today and also Senator Hatch. Expanding exports and enforcing our trade laws go hand in hand. That is why later I will be supporting the ENFORCE Act offered by Senator Wyden.

The bottom line is that not since 2007 have we had trade promotion authority in this country, and without it we can't complete trade agreements. As a result, America is falling behind because other countries are completing agreements, and the people who are getting hurt the most are our workers, our farmers, and our service providers.

So if you want to give our workers in this country a fair shake, a level playing field by knocking down barriers to trade, you can vote for this amendment.

I yield to my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. President, this should be an easy one. It is simply an amendment that says that here in the Senate we should have better information to be able to legislate better. By the way, it is information that the House of Representatives already has. Surely we would want to have the same information in the Senate that the House of Representatives as they pursue tax reform.

This says the Congressional Budget Office should provide the Joint Tax Committee macroeconomic analysis of tax reform. It only applies to tax bills over a certain amount, $5 billion a year. I worked with the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office to ensure this would not require more work because the analysis is already done, but it is not provided to us.

Under a 2003 rule in the House, it is provided to the Ways and Means Committee. It is required to be provided but not to us. We heard a lot of discussion over the last several days about the need for tax reform--Democrats and Republicans agree on that--and we agree it ought to be progrowth. The President called for it. This would enable us to legislate more wisely.

Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Sessions' motion to recommit on a balanced budget. I think it is important that we have a balanced plan before us, as we have talked about a lot today, but that means balancing the budget, just as we ought to do in our families and people have to do in their businesses. States all around the country have to do it. Local governments have to do it.

Let's stop spending more than we take in. We can do it over time and without making the kind of severe cuts that were alleged earlier. We can do it by growing the economy and restraining spending. So I am happy to stand in support of that.

I stand here because I am worried about where we are headed. Our debt now is about $140,000 per household. Think about that. For all of the folks watching today, on average, $140,000 is what every household in America owes on this debt. This is now something that, in my view, can put us in a perilous situation. Our economy is already weak and we have this huge debt and deficit, which is something that worries me. I think our country is in trouble.

The Democrats have a proposal. Their budget is before us now and this is what we are talking about. It adds another $7 trillion to that debt. It actually doesn't deal with our budget problems. In fact, it actually makes them worse, which I will talk about soon.

Let me for a minute, if I could, talk about where we are. There is a lot of discussion on the floor about, Gosh, we need to raise more revenue and how this is not about spending; it is about taxes. Republicans are saying, No, the problem is spending. Let me explain why we are saying that. It is arithmetic. It is math. It is what the numbers show.

This is from the Congressional Budget Office. This is the nonpartisan group

here in Congress that tells us how much we are spending, how much revenue we are bringing in, and then they make a projection. They did this about 3 years ago. They said, Here is where we are heading as a country. Here is where we are now. Tax revenue is the blue line and spending is the red line. By their projections, by 2015, a couple of years from now, we are going to be back up above the historical levels.

Historically, taxes have been about 18 percent of the economy, and that is the way economists like to look at it: What is the percentage of the economy? Revenue has been about 20 percent. So here is 18 percent and here is 20 percent. This has been the average.

What they are saying is, actually it gets up to just over 19 percent in a couple of years, by 2015, and then stays up above the historical average over the next decade. In fact, what they tell us is that over the next decade we are going to have the second highest amount of revenue that we have had in the history of our country except for one other decade.

So when we say it is spending, that is the issue. It is because the revenue which, as we know, impacts the economy--the more revenue we take out of the economy the harder it is for the private sector to get ahead and to create jobs. We are saying, by the projections of this nonpartisan group, they are going to be slightly above the average.

The problem is spending. What they tell us is that in a few decades-- here is 2040--spending is going to get so high that there is no way to catch up to it with taxes. We can't even do it under the income tax system. It is impossible.

Why do we say spending is a problem? Because if we don't deal with this issue, our kids and grandkids are not going to have the economic future we hope for them. The prosperity of this country will go down the drain because this spending level will make it impossible to create prosperity. That is the issue before us today. Yet, again, we have a budget before us that, unfortunately, doesn't address that issue. In fact, I would argue that it makes it worse.

Some have said, Gosh, we ought to be increasing taxes $1 for every $1 of spending reductions. What I would say to that is pretty simple. This line here is about 19 percent of the economy. That is the revenue line. And that is very close to the historical spending line, which is about 20 percent. So let's take 19 percent as the revenue line. The Democrats, who have talked today on the floor about $1 of revenue for every $1 of spending cuts, what do they mean by that? Well, this is 39 percent up here, here is 19 percent. So if we take $1 from each as a percent of the GDP, it would go to about this line here. Where is that? Well, 19 and 39, it is about 29 percent. What does 29 percent mean? That means we would have a government bigger than we have ever had in the history of this country. Again, the average has been about 20 percent in this country. That means we would have to have huge tax increases to get to balance. Nobody on this floor, Democrat or Republican, is talking about tax increases of that magnitude.

Why? Because that would be about doubling the taxes in this country. So everybody listening today would be looking at their taxes and saying: My gosh, my taxes just went up by 100 percent. That is what that would mean. It would mean the biggest government in the history of our country, so the scope and the size of government would grow.

So when you hear ``1 to 1,'' I hope you will just think about it in terms of what does this mean based on these projections that have been given to us by this nonpartisan group. It means a different country. It means a much bigger government. It means a much bigger burden of taxation. It means we end up not looking like the entrepreneurial, innovative America that has been on the cutting edge and has created the greatest economy on the face of the Earth.

That is our concern. That is why we say we have to deal with the spending. It is pretty simple. Again, it is really a question of math.

I would be happy to yield.

That is true. This chart is as a percent of the GDP. So, look, we all want the economy to grow. Actually, they projected it will grow under the Congressional Budget Office analysis. Even so, that growth in the economy cannot keep up with this great surge in spending.

So other folks have said on the floor over the last 24 hours: Well, gosh, let's go back to the Simpson-Bowles 3-to-1 ratio, where you have $3 in spending cuts for every $1 of revenue. That is what Erskine Bowles testified before the supercommittee on, that that was what their revenue was, $1 of revenue for every $3 in spending cuts.

That is also not what this budget does, this underlying budget, because it actually increases taxes dramatically. Even under their own calculus, again, it is 1 to 1. We have looked at it. We think the tax increase is between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion in this budget. So it is the biggest tax increase in the history of the country.

What does $1 trillion mean--or $1.5 trillion? Well, it means that you are going to have to tax a lot of people other than rich people. I would refer you to an economic expert on this, a guy named Gene Sperling, who is down at the White House, who talks about these economic issues a lot. Here is what Gene Sperling said about raising $1 trillion. He said you cannot do it without hurting middle-class families. This is his quote:

[A] careful look at the math of these types of caps and

limits [on tax preferences] shows that, once one takes into

account the reality of their impact on the middle-class

families and on charitable donation, plausible limits raise

only a fraction of the $1 trillion or more some have

suggested.

It is just too much to raise without going to the folks who are making less than $200,000 a year, less than $100,000, less than $50,000. So I would just suggest today that we have a problem in this country. It is a spending problem. Yes, we want to get the economy moving, and that will create more revenue. But we have to address that issue and, unfortunately, the budget before us does not do it.

In addition to having these huge tax increases--the biggest in the history of our country--this budget also has huge spending. The spending is actually an increase. When you wipe away the gimmicks that are in the budget that they have proposed--and we have talked a lot about OCO. That just means the spending in Afghanistan. They project that all this spending is going to occur that nobody expects is going to occur, so because it does not, they say, well, that is a savings. Then you are going to be able to spend more to make up for that.

Well, we are going to spend some more in Afghanistan. We all understand that. But we are not going to spend as much as the CBO projects. So those savings are not real, unfortunately. That is in their budget. That is a gimmick.

They also say: Let's do away with this so-called sequester. This is the thing that the Budget Control Act put in place. The Budget Control Act said: Let's find these savings of $1.2 trillion in spending. Yet in this budget, they say: No, let's replace that. So you have to add that as well because instead of $1.2 trillion, they are saying half of that is going to be new taxes. So that is less spending cuts.

So when you add all that up, and when you wipe all that away, it looks like the spending increases are about $900 billion over the next decade. So despite all these problems, we are talking about a huge spending increase.

Now, let's just talk for a second about what the spending increase is on. Here is the debt chart I have in the Chamber that shows the debt climbing to $24 trillion over the next 10 years, under the Murray budget, under the Democratic budget we are talking about today. But what is the problem? Well, we are starting to do more to get the discretionary spending under control. That means the spending that Congress appropriates every year.

But when you think about the budget as kind of a pie, 62 percent of that

budget--the biggest piece of that pie--is not spending that Congress appropriates every year. Congress does not do it because it is on autopilot. That is interest on the debt that you have to spend; and then it is the very important, vital entitlement programs--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security--but that are not sustainable in their current form.

By the way, everybody agrees with that. The President talks about it publicly. Everybody talks about it privately. But the fact is, these programs are incredibly important. We want to ensure that they can continue into the future. That is why we need reform--to preserve and protect them. Yet, unbelievably, this budget before us does absolutely nothing there. In fact, when you add up the changes on the entitlement programs over the next 10 years--which, again, is the biggest reason for these huge spending increases; in fact, as a percent of GDP, it is the only reason--all of the spending increases are because of those entitlement programs and interest on the debt, all of them as a percent of the GDP, all of them. Yet this budget does not touch it. In fact, it slightly increases spending as compared to the CBO baseline, as compared to what we are going to do anyway that the Congressional Budget Office just told us about.

That, to me, is the most amazing part of the budget. It is the responsible thing to do. Again, the President has talked about it. Members of both parties acknowledge this. We have to deal with this issue. If we do not, we are not going to be able to have these programs going forward.

Under their budget, the disability fund in Social Security--and a lot of people rely on disability--runs out of money in 2016.

Under their budget, the Medicare trust fund itself goes bankrupt in 2024.

Under their budget, Social Security's fund for senior citizens would go bankrupt in 2033, to the point that under law--remember this is just 20 years from now--a 25-percent benefit cut would be put in place.

That is what this budget would lead to. So it is hard for me to take it very seriously as a budget. It is, I guess, more of a political document.

The final thing I will say is, if we do this, if we go down this path of more spending next year, more spending the next year, huge increases in spending and taxes over the next 10 years, we will not only have a budget that is out of control--and, as I said earlier, risk us having a meltdown in terms of our economy because of a potential crisis we could have, like has happened in southern Europe; Greece is a country people talk about--but think about what it does to our economy.

This huge overhang of debt and deficits everybody now acknowledges is bad for the economy. Some people think it is worse than others think. But if you look at these studies--the Rogoff-Reinhart study has been talked about on the floor. I know that is the one that says, when you get to the level we are at now, you lose about 1 million jobs per year.

Well, something is happening in our economy, and I think a lot of it--the negative part of it--is because of this debt and deficit. We are living through the worst economic recovery since the 1940s. All of us are discouraged by it, Democrats and Republicans alike. The average growth rate was less than 1 percent over the last 4 years, and that is not acceptable to any of us. We have to deal with this issue because it is the right thing to do for our kids and our grandkids, as we have talked about, the right thing to do for these programs so they are viable and their trust funds do not go insolvent, but also for today's economy. If we do not deal with this issue we are not going to have people taking the risk, making the investment.

There are companies making money out there. Do you know what they are doing with it? They are keeping it on the sidelines because they are afraid of this, because they see this coming. They are worried about making the investments. That is how we are going to create the jobs.

Right now, in the weakest economy we have had in a long time--and the worst economic recovery since the 1940s--we are looking at unemployment numbers that are unacceptably high. We are looking at a place such as Ohio where we have a struggle with manufacturing. We are trying to get back on our feet. We are looking for economic growth again. We are not going to get it unless we deal with this issue.

The Heritage Foundation has looked at this budget, and they have done an analysis of it in terms of its impact on jobs, on the economy. They have said the budget will result in losing 800,000 jobs in our country. In my State of Ohio, they said we will lose 40,000 jobs. We cannot afford to lose 40,000 more jobs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office--which I mentioned earlier and is the group in Congress that advises us on the economy-- has said this new debt will reduce long-term economic growth and cost jobs.

So, ultimately, this is about a choice. Do we want to expand government or do we want to expand the economy? Do we want to create the opportunity to get the private economy moving or do we want to grow the size and scope of government?

We have a fundamental choice to make in this Chamber with regard to this budget today. I am hopeful we will be able to amend the budget so we can take out some of the taxes and the spending and the borrowing, so that it is better for the economy. Even if we cannot prevail--and if this budget passes over the next couple days here--I still hope, as a Congress, working with the President, we can address this issue.

Once this budget debate is behind us on the floor, I hope we can sit down as Republicans and Democrats alike, as Americans, acknowledging that if we do not deal with spending, we cannot get this economy back on track, acknowledging that trying to tax, spend, and borrow your way to prosperity does not work. We tried it. We have seen the results.

We have also seen the opposite, over time, through the great history of this country. The time-honored principles that have made us this cutting-edge economy, that have made us the envy of the world, relied on entrepreneurship, innovation, keeping taxes low, keeping government spending under control, and encouraging the private sector to do what they do best, which is, to create jobs. This is why I oppose this budget. This is why I also support a better way, to bring back the jobs and get our country back on track.

Madam President, we have had a great debate here on the floor today about the budget. What we have heard is the fact that in the face of unprecedented debt and deficits, we need to get spending under control and grow the economy. Unfortunately, the Democratic budget that has been presented doesn't do that because it actually increases spending and increases taxes.

But there is an alternative, and that is to restrain spending in ways that are smart but also get this economy moving so we have more revenue and revenue the way we ought to get it, which is through growth. One obvious way to do that is through tax reform.

We just had a vote on a tax reform proposal. I am offering a couple of amendments that I want to talk about tonight. One is with regard to tax reform on the business side, where there is an amazing consensus now between Democrats and Republicans, the White House and the Capitol on how to get this economy moving again by ensuring that our Tax Code becomes more competitive globally--not to cut taxes, not to raise taxes, but in a revenue-neutral way to improve the way we collect taxes at the business level to be sure we can create more jobs at a time when we are suffering through the worst recovery we have had since the Great Depression.

Second, I am going to offer an amendment that ensures that we have the right information from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, which are the two groups who give us information here on Capitol Hill, as to what tax reform means because we want to be sure that as we reform our Tax Code, we do it in a way that is progrowth and projobs.

Fundamental tax reform should be done across the board, in my view, not just on the business side but also on the individual side. On the individual side, we have a great opportunity to broaden the base of tax and lower the rates to make the code again more progrowth. Most businesses in America pay their taxes through the individual Tax Code because they are what are called passthrough entities, about 85 percent of businesses--they tend to be smaller businesses. That is very important.

But tonight I want to talk about the other part of that, which is the business Tax Code that relates to primarily our larger companies and a lot of the international companies, so-called C corporations.

Back in 1986 we actually reduced the rate on the corporate side from 46 percent down to 34 percent. That was 1986. It was done in a bipartisan way with Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, and the idea at that time was to take our tax rate down to the point that it was competitive, meaning that it was below the average of our global competitors.

In the intervening 2\1/2\ decades, guess what has happened. Every single country of the developed world--the so-called OECD countries, our global trading competitors--every single one of them has reformed its tax code. They have lowered their rates, but they have also made their codes more competitive--every single country except us. So America has been on the sidelines while these other countries have moved quickly to improve their tax code. Why? Because they want investment, they want the jobs, and what has happened is, sure enough, they are more competitive.

Capital is now flowing outside of this country. We are losing headquarters. We are in a situation where if there is a foreign acquisition to be made, those companies in foreign countries have an advantage because they have a more competitive tax code. Our tax rate,

which in 1986 was purposely put in place to be just below the average of all the developed economies in the world, is now No. 1. It is the highest rate in the world. That is a No. 1 we don't want to have.

Japan just lowered their rate last year, putting America as the top corporate tax rate in the world. This means, again, we are losing people, we are losing capital, we are losing headquarters, we cannot keep up.

So what is the solution? Well, let's go do what we did back in 1986 again, let's do it quickly, and let's do it on a bipartisan basis because everybody seems to agree that our current code is not competitive, that the rate is too high. We have some disagreements on how to correct it, but actually there is a growing consensus about that as well.

The White House has talked about this. In fact, in a February 2012 white paper issued by the Treasury Department, they said: Let's lower the rate of corporate taxation by broadening the base, meaning reducing or getting rid of a lot of the preferences that have built up in the Tax Code. By the way, hundreds of them have been built up in the Tax Code since 1986. So not only has our rate become high because other countries have lowered theirs, we have added more and more complications to our Tax Code.

It is not just the White House that is talking about this. In front of our committee, the Budget Committee, a professor came to talk to us--who was the Democrats' witness; this was not the Republican witness--who was gung ho also on doing corporate tax reform. This was the Democrats' witness. This is what he said:

. . . corporate income tax's statutory rate of 35 percent

is today far outside world norms. The rate needs to come

down. . . . I therefore conceive of corporate tax reform as a

roughly revenue neutral undertaking, in which the corporate

tax base will be broadened through closing business tax

expenditures and loopholes, and the resulting revenues used

to pay down the corporate rate.

Pay down the corporate rate.

In the paper from the Treasury Department in February 2012, they said we should reinvest the savings we get from getting rid of some of these loopholes and expenditures and use it, as they said, to invest in lowering the rate.

So here we have an opportunity as a Congress--Republicans and Democrats alike--to do something that is good for jobs. By the way, the Congressional Budget Office has looked at this in terms of who benefits. It is not the corporate boardroom that benefits, it is the workers. They have said 70 percent of the benefit of lowering the corporate rate is going to go to workers in the form of higher salaries, better benefits, and more jobs.

By the way, the Congressional Budget Office has also said if you would like to get this economy moving, probably the best bang for your buck is going to be to do something on the corporate tax code because it has gotten so complex and the rate has gotten so high. If you do this, you are also doing something we ought to be doing generally in our Tax Code; which is you are not picking winners and losers. Instead of the government stepping in and deciding where resources are allocated, you have the private sector doing that, market forces doing that, which is going to help grow the economy.

So just as President Reagan and Democrats did in 1986, we should cap or eliminate inefficient tax preferences and loopholes, and we should use that revenue to reduce both the corporate rate and the individual rate, without adding to the deficit.

Another amendment of mine takes this same idea, which is tax reform on the individual-corporate side, and allows us, as legislators, to understand better what we are doing.

Right now, when the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation give us an analysis of taxes, they tell us the revenue is likely to be based on what they call a static score--a static score. It does not take into account the big macroeconomic changes you are likely to see from people's changed behavior from lower rates, for instance.

I will give you an example. Back in 2003, the capital gains tax, as you know, was reduced. So what did they say? Well, the Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO did their analysis, and they said: Well, that means, because you lowered the rate of taxation, you are going to get less revenue, right, because you have less taxes coming in. No. Because they lowered the capital gains tax, there was more economic activity. It turns out we actually got more revenue in. So in 2007 they said revenue was going to go down. In fact, revenues shot up. The same thing happened, by the way, back in 1997, the last time this Congress had a unified balanced budget. That was when Bill Clinton was President, and he worked with the Republican Congress to get some of the spending under control, as we talked about earlier. But they also cut the capital gains rate, and, lo and behold, as I recall, about $100 billion showed up on the revenue side that folks did not expect because we lowered the capital gains rate. Because of the behavioral change, the dynamic scoring, the macroeconomic scoring, showed that was going to happen, but the static score did not.

So as we begin to formulate what kind of tax reform we should do on the individual side and on the corporate side, wouldn't it be great if we had access to two kinds of analysis: one, the static score--and that will continue to be the official analysis; nothing changes there--but also why shouldn't we have access to the macroeconomic analysis--not done from the outside, not from groups from the outside that might have a pretty aggressive dynamic score, but let's just use the macroeconomic model that the Joint Tax Committee already does. In fact, they are required to look at it in three different ways. CBO already does. It does not add more work in the sense that this analysis is already being done; it is just that we are getting the benefit of it.

So this second amendment that I hope my Democratic colleagues will also support, as I hope they will the first one, says, quite simply: Let's have more information so we can make smarter decisions. Who could be against that?

Some have said: Well, we do not believe in dynamic scoring. Fine. If you do not believe in dynamic scoring, let's see what happens. We are going to have a static score, which will be the official score still-- that is what we will have to use around here--and then we will have that dynamic score. Again, we want that so we can formulate a better tax proposal but also to know what the impact is going to be. We will see what happens.

My belief is that the macroeconomic score is more likely to be accurate, as it has been in the past, and over time I would not be surprised if this Congress decides: My gosh, that is more consistent with the behavior changes you are going to see with good tax reform. Let's make that part of the official analysis. But that is not what we are talking about tonight. The official score would still be the static score.

I believe this will enable us to be better legislators, and certainly it will enable us to have an opportunity, as we look at this budget deficit and these historic debts and the impact it is having on our kids, on our grandkids and on today's economy, to come together as Republicans and Democrats and do the two things that everybody knows have to be done: One, restrain spending, specifically to deal with these important but unsustainable entitlement programs--remember this: The Congressional Budget Office has told us in the report just about 2 weeks ago that the growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, incredibly important programs--and that is why we need to save them-- that growth will go up by 94 percent over the next 10 years. It nearly doubles. In fact, they have told us that as a percent of the economy, which is how they look at the spending--as a percent of the economy, the only growth in our spending over the next 10 years is going to be from these entitlement programs and interest on the debt. Other parts of our budget actually, as a percent of the economy, are going to be flat or even a little bit below as a percent of the GDP. But what is going to grow dramatically are these programs.

So we know we have to have entitlement reform to save these programs so that the trust funds do not go insolvent, which they otherwise will. But we also know as part of that we should do tax reform. Those two together--entitlement reform, smart reforms to make these programs work better to ensure they are there for the future,

and then tax reform that is progrowth, that is going to generate revenue, to help us because it will change people's behavior, which will change economic growth, which will, in turn, provide more revenue--revenue, really, the right way--will help us get the debt and deficit under control and at the same time give people the opportunity to get back to work, deal with the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression, help us to get out of the doldrums we are in right now in this economy.

The shot in the arm that tax reform can give us--particularly if we have the right information from these organizations on the Hill: the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation--will enable us to move this country forward in ways that can be bipartisan, in ways that can be consistent with what the administration and the Congress are talking about: restraining spending, growing the economy.

I thank the Chair for letting me talk about this tonight. I look forward to having these amendments offered tomorrow. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will be willing to stand together and to say: Yes, we can do this. We can get this economy moving. We are going to have to change the way we deal with our tax system. We are going to have to retrain the spending. If we do that, our future can be brighter.

I yield back my time.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, today I wish to honor the 125th anniversary of The Public Library of Mount Vernon and Knox County and its service to the community.

The library opened on February 16, 1888, to serve residents of Mount Vernon. In 1924, services were expanded throughout the Mount Vernon school district and in 1985, the library was officially renamed, The Public Library of Mount Vernon and Knox County.

Promoting education and cultural awareness, the public library is a valuable resource to the Knox County community. Volunteers have been delivering books to hospital patients and residents of nursing facilities since in 1948. The library delivers books today through its outreach service department, serving hospitals, nursing homes, the local jail, Amish schools, and daycare facilities. More than 35,000 citizens of Knox County benefit from the public library system.

I extend my sincere congratulations to The Public Library of Mount Vernon and Knox County on 125 years of dedicated service to the community.