poverty. it's really important, madam president, we understand that this is part of the mantra of the program that karl rove and others decided they would do five years or more ago. that is to oppose everything president obama's done. you cannot talk about what went on before because never in the history of our great republic have we had a party, a minority party that has determined to do nothing, nothing, hoping that it will get them the majority in november. we'll find out if their noble experiment works. that is, oppose everything and people will like us a lot. i don't think that's going to work. i would also say this, madam president -- we're here to do the work of the american people. is it right that we have more than a hundred people that are

being held up for no reason other than they want to make sure that if we have -- somebody is going to be a circuit court judge we have to file cloture, that's two hours, i mean two days and then we have 30 hours and then -- and then we have -- on a simply moving to a piece of legislation we waste a week getting on that because of their obstruction and delay. so, madam president, it's unfortunate that my friends talk about all the great things they've done. i'll tell you the great things they've done. this is -- i could give you lots of examples. we tried to do a highway bill. a highway bill. important for this country. we have a deficit in infrastructure of $3 trillion. it wasn't much better a couple years ago. so what we brought believe that to -- that bill to the floor and this great amendment process, they want, what --

they wanted to stop women from getting contraceptives. that held things up a month, a month, before they got some sense and withdrew that. so, madam president, the republicans made a decision a little more than five years ago to oppose everything that president obama wanted or tried to do and they've stuck with that. it's not been good for the country and we have situations just like we have here. mr. cornyn: mr. president, would the senator yield for a question? mr. reid: sure. mr. cornyn: the majority leader says there is important work for the senate to do and i can think of one urgent thing we could do today if the majority leader would cop sent. the house has passed the reauthorization of the debbie smith act, which is money that congress has appropriated to the department of justice for grants to local law enforcement agencies and forensic labs to test unprocessed rape kits.

this is a national scandal, the number of unprocessed rape kits which have prevented law enforcement from identifying a serial perpetrator of sexual assaults, many times not just involving adults but also children. the house has passed a reauthorization of that bill and all it takes is for the majority leader and the senate to consent to take that bill up today and pass it to get it to the president's desk. i can think that perhaps is the most important and most urgent thing we could be doing right now and i would just ask the majority leader if he would consent to taking that bill up and passing the senate right now. mr. reid: mr. president, the committee of which i'm almost certain my friend is a member, the judiciary committee --, is that right? you're a member of the judiciary committee? former supreme court justice of texas. they've reported a bill out of the judiciary committee of which my friend was part of that reporting situation.

and that part of what they reported out has the debbie smith language in it but it has more stuff in it than just that. i would be happy to take a look at that. you talk to the chair of the committee, the ranking member, who is on the floor here today and if they would be willing to separate this stuff here and have rather than what was reported out of the committee take a look at this, senator leahy was here on the floor, he's not here now but i'd be happy to take a look at that. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd -- if i may ask one further question of the majority leader. one followup question. mr. reid: i'm sorry. i can't hear that. mr. cornyn: i'd ask the majority leader whether he would yield for one last question. mr. reid: yes but before doing that, there bill reported out of the committee which my friend from texas serves, the senior senator from texas, we've cleared it on our side. they want to clear it today, we'll get this thing out today.

all they have to do is clear it on their side. we've cleared it. mr. cornyn: if i can ask the majority leader through the chair there is the justice for all act which as you point out, senator, includes things other than the debbie smith act, which has not cleared the senate, which the if it did clear the senate would include the debbie smith act, that would be a positive development. there is a separate bill if the justice for all act is not cleared, there is a separate bill which would reauthorize the debbie smith act which has passed thousand dollars. so we -- the the house. we could take up the reauthorization the house has passed and get that done today which i would urge the majority leader to consider if we can't clear the larger bill, the justice for all act. but, frankly, i'd be happy to with either one. but if we could just do the debbie smith act today, i think we could call that great progress and a great blow for justice and some of these people who have been waiting too long

to -- for the law enforcement community to be able to identify their perpetrators and get these folks off the street. mr. reid: the bill which 55 senators over here have cleared is a bill to protect crime victims' rights, eliminate substantial backlog of d.n.a. samples collected from convicted offenders,stand the tefsing capacity of laboratories, increase research and development of d.n.a. testing technologies and fraidges regarding the collection and use of d.n.a. pembtiond provide post-conviction evidence, to common rate the innocent, improve the counsel in state capital cases. we'll pass that right now. we're happy to do it. mr. cornyn: if i may respond to the majority leader, the bill he's referring to is the justice for all act which is something i support but there has been some reason why that bill has not come to the floor and received

floor time. i'm worried that if we wait to pass that, it will delay the passage of the debbie smith act which is a component of that act which we could take up having passed the house and we could take that up today and then deal with the justice for all act in due course. so i would ask the majority leader if he would grant unanimous consent to take up and pass the house-passed reauthorization of the debbie smith act. i ask unanimous consent to that effect. mr. reid: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: this is what we deal with here. we have a piece of legislation that's been reported out of the committee. it's been cleared by the democrats here in the senate and the republicans now are saying, well, we like that but we don't want you to do it that way. let's do it some other way. the point is the committee met and reviewed the house legislation and decided that they wanted to do more than what the house did. i think we should go along with

the committee system. i hear my friend the pleerpd and other republican senators talk about let's have the committees do their work. they've done their work. we approved their work. we're ready to pass this right now which is it includes the debbie smith language but does a lot more. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: i ask the distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee to remind me what the challenges with the justice for smith act -- justice for all act. we have a member on our side who was, unfortunately, not here today because of medical concerns that has concerns about that bill so we cannot pass that bill by unanimous consent over that senator's objection. so what we can pass is the debbie smith act, which is a piece of this, which there is no objection to that i know of. and then we can get this rape kit issue addressed today while we take up the concerns of the

absent senator who is necessarily not here because of medical issues, when he returns and when the senate returns. i would reiterate my unanimous consent request that the senate take up and pass by unanimous consent the house-passed debbie smith act. mr. reid: reserving the right to object, more diversion, delay. the judiciary committee reviewed it and said we can do better and it's here on the floor right now. and now they're saying, well, even though the judiciary committee did it which we're being told all the time let the committees do their work, we don't like what they did, we want to do something else. the debbie smith legislation is important but the justice for all act is a lot better than that. why don't we approve that? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: yes, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the republican whip. mr. cornyn: the majority leader thinks this is a zero-sum game. this could be a win-win.

debbie smith who i've met and i dare say virtually every member of this body knows, is a passionate advocate for this cause, and hence the naming of this statute, this law on her behalf. because she recognized that these unprocessed rape kits was a national scandal and that people like her, who had been victims of sexual assault, needed help from the federal government to help provide funds to local law enforcement agencies to test and process these kits so as to identify the perpetrator and get them off the street. so what debbie smith has asked me and i dare say the majority leader and all of us to do is to take up this piece of the bill. we can do that, and i think we will have done a good thing today. if we can't take up the justice for all act because of other concerns people have, this shouldn't be a zero-sum game. we can pass the debbie smith act today and take up the justice for all act when we return following the recess. it doesn't have to be a zero-sum

game. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: this has been cleared on this side for more than two weeks. more than two weeks. this is what's going on in the senate. the republicans basically oppose everything. that's what they've decided they were going to do and they do it and they come back and say, well, we reported this out of the committee, i read what is in it, it's a very good praij piece of legislation but they say we don't like that. forget about the committee process and do what the house did. we have a committee structure here that i've tried to follow. i admire the work done by senator leahy and he led this piece of legislation out of his committee and i accepted it and i approve it as do all other 54 other democratic senators. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: i originally was

going to engage in a colloquy with senator portman on a very important piece of legislation that we and stowe senator coburn and senator carper have been working on for two years. he had to leave but will come back. so unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 337, s. 994. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 337, s. 994, a bill to expand the federal funding, accountability and transparency act of 2006 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. warner: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the carper substitute amendment which is at the desk be considered, the carper amendment be agreed to, the carper substitute as amended be agreed to and the bill as amended be read a third time and passed with no intervening action or debate.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, after the last exchange, i would point out that the senate now has acted on a very important piece of legislation that has been two years in working, that actually does reflect the ability for us to come together in a bipartisan consensus. so i rise today to discuss the digital accountability and transparency or data act. a bill that will make sure taxpayers and policymakers can track every dollar the federal government spends. it's pretty unbelievable in this day and age we don't have an easily access able web site for tracking every tax dollar. believe it or not, we don't. instead we have incomplete and thoroughly confusing structure financial report i which most people can't under. i've served in business, i've served as governor of the

commonwealth of virginia so i've done business accounting, state government account, there -- accounting, there is nothing like federal government accounting and lack of standards in transparency. our taxpayers deserve to know where their money goes and it is our obligation to share that information in a clear and direct way. today, senator portman and i originally along with senators coburn and carper, rise and now that the senate has acted are taking a giant step to correct that problem and make sure taxpayers get the transparency they deserve. since the federal government spends more than $3.7 trillion each year with more than $1 trillion in awards, accurately tracking these funds in a consistent way can definitely be a big job. but the data collected by the budget shops, the procurement officers, the grantmakers should be combined, reconciled and then presented in a relevant, user-friendly, and

transparent way. the veterans' affairs systems should be able -- various systems should be able to work together based on consistent financial standards for policymakers and the public can track the full psych of federal spending. in a word, the public should be able to wikipedia where and how the federal government spends its money and honestly that's what the data act will do. it will make four important improvements i want to highlight. first, it creates transparency for all federal funds. the data act will expand the use of usaspending .gov to track appropriation for federal agency, program function as well as maintaining the appropriate function for federal awards like contracts, grants and loans. second, we're starting down this path, we're setting government-wide financial data standards. we closely monitor the efforts

to increase transparency for the recovery act funds a few years back. and one reason, even for folks who didn't like the recovery act, that that oversight was successful was because they had consistent standards for reporting the data. our taxpayers were able to see where the funds and projects were located in their communities. so the data act requires the department of treasury to establish government-wide financial data standards for federal agencies so that every term reported is consistent across the federal government. this should clearly improve the quality of data. too often we see an item appear at one area as a grant, another as an expenditure. trying to sort through what's what is virtually impossible. this part of the data act will help clear that up. third, so we don't layer on additional reporting requirements without greater accountability, it actually reduces recipient reporting requirements. the data act requires o.m.b. to review the established reporting

requirements for contracts, grants and loans to reduce compliance costs based on these new financial data standards. i've long been concerned, and i know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, about the compliance cost for recipients of federal funds. too often a grantee has to report not once or twice, but sometimes up to a half dozen times the exact same information. we've seen this in virginia with many of our universities, like u.v.a. where they actually have to report multiple times the same information to multiple agencies. if all this redundancy were streamlined, recipients like the university of virginia or the university of tennessee could actually direct more money to programs and less to administrative costs. fourth, it improves data quality. under the data act, the inspectors general at each agency will be required to provide a report every two years on the quality and accuracy of the financial data provided to

usaspending .gov. the goodwill provide a report on quality and accuracy. too often the data reported at this point doesn't meet appropriate standards. we must have a reliable system in place to track federal funds and compare spending across federal agencies to get the best value for taxpayers and reduce duplication. in fact, in the g.a.o.'s annual report on duplication released this week, it highlighted the need for better data, and specifically called out limitations g.a.o. described as -- quote -- "lack of reliable budget and performance information and a comprehensive list of federal programs." the g.a.o. cited this as one of the biggest challenges in addressing duplication. you know, i know that many of the members when i started talking about data standards and better accountability, headed

for the exits. i recognize that this is not a topic that necessarily excites folks. i see my colleague, the senator from tennessee, on the floor, a former governor as well as i am. if we're going to give better value for our taxpayers, we have to start with good data. we have to start with a better ability to monitor that data and follow it. in a world where people can google all kinds of information, we ought to be able to follow the money in terms of where our taxpayer dollars head. we ought to make sure those recipients of those taxpayer grants can report that information in a single consistent and clear way. and policy-makers and taxpayers should be able to assess the value of the dollars that we invest in these programs. you know, this has been a long and winding path, as a relatively new member of the senate and i hear some of the debates about the old days in the senate, i'm not sure i was

here with the old days. but this was a case where over a two-year period, working with members of the house, chairman issa and ranking member cummings in the house, here in the senate with senator carper and senator coburn -- senator coburn who is out today with health reasons -- and my colleague who joined with me in pushing this bill from day one, senator portman, who if time allows will get back from a speech to add his comments as well. i would like to thank these members. i would also like to thank all the senate cosponsors for support the data act including members of the budget committee government performance task force that i chair. i'd like to thank senators coons, whitehouse, ayotte, johnson and patty must remember, budget committee -- patty murray and my staff and others who have been relentless in working through with other committees and the administration to make sure that we got this bill done. so while we may not have

resolved all of the issues of the day, today the senate acted in a unanimous bipartisan way to actually provide better value for taxpayers, more transparency and less bureaucracy. i'd say for a thursday afternoon, with all the other discussion going on, work well done. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask consent that the senator from north carolina and i be allowed to engage in colloquy for 20 minutes and following that, the senator from iowa be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank you. mr. president, the senator from north carolina and i were both involved in intercollegiate athletics. he was a scholarship athlete at wake forest university and i was a nonscholarship track person at vanderbilt university several years before that. we're here today to make a few comments on the recent ruling by a regional director of the national labor relations board that defines student athletes as

employees of the university. it affects only private universities, not the university of tennessee. about it would affect wake forest, where the senator from north carolina was an outstanding football player. it would affect vanderbilt, where i attended. and i guess our message to the ncaa and intercollegiate athletics is we hope that they will understand that the opinion of one regional director of the national labor relations board is not the opinion of the entire federal government. that's the message i would like to tkhr-fr. and i would refer back, and then i'll go to the senator from north carolina, 25 years ago when i was president of the university of tennessee, i was asked to serve on the commission on intercollegiate athletics. it was headed by bill friday and president of notre dame father

hessburg, to take a look at intercollegiate athletics. the major conclusion they came to was presidents need to assert more institutional control over athletics. but here's something that this group of university presidents and others emphasized. they said "we reject the argument that the only realistic solution to the problem of intercollegiate athletics, there have always beensome, is to drop the student athlete concept, put athletes on the payroll and eliminate their responsibility as students. such a scheme has nothing to do with education. scholarship athletes are already paid in the most meaningful way possible, with a free education. the idea of intercollegiate athletics is that the teams represent their institutions as true members of the student body, not hired hands. surely american higher education has the ability to device a

better solution to the problems of intercollegiate athletics than making professionals out of the players which is no solution at all but rather an unacceptable surrein door despair." -- surrender to despair. this was the knight commission 25 years ago. i would ask the senator from north carolina, do you not think senator burr, that while there may be some issues with intercollegiate athletics -- and we can talk about what some of those are -- that unionization of intercollegiate athletics is not the solution to the problem? mr. burr: let me say to my good friend from tennessee who not only was a welcome track member at vanderbilt but was the president of the university of tennessee, the governor of tennessee, the secretary of education and now a united states senator -- his credentials allow him to say whatever he wants to on this issue with a degree of

knowledge -- that it was teddy roosevelt who identified the challenges of college football. and through his attempt to get harvard and yale and a couple of other universities to address the risk, the ncaa was created. the amazing thing to senator alexander and myself is we've got this governing body today that by all practicalling observations has done a great job at regulating college sports. it's the reason we have fabulous playoff. it is the reason that we've got integrity in the scholarship system. but more importantly, it's the reason that we've got top-quality athletes who go in to these schools where less than 1% become pros. 99% of them are reliant on a

great education for a fabulous outcome in life. and to do anything that changes the balance of what they've been able to create is ludicrous. and i think what troubles me, and i think it troubles senator alexander. these aren't some misguided college football players. this is the steelworkers. let me say that again because i don't think people understand. this is the united steelworkers who have put up the money so that these players from northwestern would go to the nlrb and say we want to unionize at northwestern university. on the face of it it creates a great inequity between public and private schools where we've got a governing body that tries to make this process as equitable as it can. but let me make this point. if you want to drive the rest of schools out of major sports,

then do this. only 10% of our nation's athletic programs make money. that means 90% of them lose in the athletic department. but for the quality of life of all students, not just athletes, they continue and their alumni continue to subsidize it. i agree with my good friend from tennessee, this would be a huge mistake, and it's time for those players at northwestern to think about more than those individuals who have fronted them the money to bring this case. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from north carolina. the question should be obvious, is what does a student at wake forest or vanderbilt -- and we're using the private universities again because those are the only ones affected by these decisions. but if you're at vanderbilt university, according to vice chancellor, the total scholarship could be nearly

$60,000. that's the value each year of your athletic scholarship. times four, so you're up to a quarter of a million dollars. the college board says that roughly estimates that a college degree adds $1 million to your earnings during a lifetime. so the idea that student athletes don't get anything in return for their playing, playing a sport is financially wrong. and just speaking as one individual who had a privilege of participating for two years as a student athlete without getting anything, i mean, i had scholarships but they weren't athletic scholarships, the discipline, the memories, the competition, the chance to be in the southeastern conference tournament, that's very important to me. it was then, just as athletics always is. it is a rare privilege to participate in intercollegiate

athletics. and the presidents have looked at the problems of intercollegiate athletics -- and there are some. but people forget, and i wonder if the senator from north carolina, i know is aware of this. but let's say you're at vanderbilt and you have a $58,000 scholarship, tuition, room and board. and let's say you come from a poor family that has no money and you're put in the embarrassing position of not having walking around money, money to go out and get a hamburger, whatever you want to go do. 47% of student athletes in america also have a pell grant because 40% of all students in america have a pell grant. and the pell grant can be on average $3,600. so that's dollars 300 a month that could be added. perhaps there are other issues that ought to be addressed, but i wonder if the senator from north carolina would speak more about one thing he talked about. i imagine florida state, the university of tennessee, stanford, maybe wake forest, they'll all be fine with a more

expensive athletic program. but what's going to happen to the smaller schools? what's going to happen to the minor sports? what's going to happen to the title 9 women's sports if for some reason a union forces universities to have a much more expensive athletic program for a few sports? mr. burr: well, let me say to my good friend from tennessee, i'll quote nathan hatch in an editorial he wrote in "the wall street journal" this week. he says, "because student athletes implies is an affront to those players take full advantage of the opportunity to get an education, do we really want to signal to society and high school students that making money is the reason to come play a sport in college as opposed to getting an education that will provide a lifetime benefit?"

and president patrick parker, president of the university of delaware, in the same article said, "turning student athletes intoal is ride employees would endanger the existence of varsity sports on many college campuses. only about 10% of college sports programs turn a profit and most of them, like ours, $28 million worth of athletic program at the university of delaware, lose money. changing scholarship dollars into salary would almost certainly increase the amount of schools that have to drop sports since earnings -- the amount schools have to spend on sports since the earnings are taxed and the scholarships are not. just to match the amount of a scholarship, the university would have to spend more." and waic at wake forest, the scr areship is worth $15,1512 in room and board, $1,100 in books,

and i'll say to my good rend from tennessee, i'm not sure if there's still $15 of laundry money a month that exists under a scholarship. that's what it was when i was there. i dare say i hope it is more than that today because i don't think you can do laundry for $15 a month. mr. alexander: thank the senator. i wonder if i could ask the senator to reflect a little bit on some of the practical consequences of a student athlete suddenly findin findingf thought of as an employee of the university. i wonder, for example, would the employee of the university, the quarterback or whatever position he plays, have to pay taxes on his income? i would think so. i was thinking about the recent changes in labor law that allow for microunions -- almost any little group can petition the national labor relations board under the obama administration's views to become a union. i wonder if quarterbacks would become a microunion and they

would say, we're more important. look at the nfl. they get paid a lot more. we want a bigger scholarship than others. i wonder about five-star recruits. let's say there is a terrific defensive back, like i'm sure senator burr was when he was in high school. he has five stars from all of the recruiting service. would the private schools who are unionized go out and compete to see who could pay the highest salary to the five-star recruits, a lot less to the walk-on, maybe less for a three-star? what are the consequences of a student athlete findin finding f defined as an employee of the university under the national labor relations act? mr. burr: let me say to my good friend, as one that remembers august practices in the south, hottest time of the year, three practices a day, the first thing i would bargain out for all players is that i would have to get my ankles taped at

4:30 in the morning. i couldn't take the tape off until 8:30 after three practices. i'd negotiate away the smell of dead grass in august, a memory that every college football player -- as a matter of fact, every football player has of that dead summer practice in hot weather. and i plead with those who play today, do you really believe that you can form a team if in fact you've got individuals that negotiate individual things for themselves, if quarterbacks negotiate, they can't be hit. how good is the club, but where is the team? if individuals find that it's advantageous to them because they're stars and they can negotiate it, where have we lost the sense of team sports?

the senator from tennessee mentioned this to begin with. college sports is a lot about the experience. it builds characteristic, builds integrity. it builds drive. it builds resilience. it's not the only thing in life that does it, but to me, for many individuals, for many young men and women, this is the most effective way for them to become leaders. i might say that it's very much the style of our training in the military, as we raise those young officers, they go through a very regimented thing. imagine what it would be like if we allowed the military to collectively bargain. well, let me tell you, none of us would feel safe at night because we don't know -- exactly know what they would gone through. today we feel safe because we

know they've all gone through the same thing. mr. alexander: mr. president, i think our 250eu78 is coming toward a close. -- i think our time is imhg -- s coming toward a close. we have about five minutes left. then we will hear the comments of the senator from iowa. we thank him for his courtesy in allowing us to go ahead. guess the message -- and i particularly enjoyed hearing the senator -- the message today is really directed two directions. one is to the ncaa, which is to say, don't think that the attitude of one regional director of the national labor relations board reflects the view of the united states government. it does not. it does not. and the other is to the student athletes. i mean, think about the value of the opportunity you have. here are two former student athletes of varying talent who have benefited enormously from that. there are many others who would say the same. the university doesn't owe us

anything. i mean, we owe the university. at least that's the way i feel about it -- for the privilege of competing, for the privilege of attending. if i had had a consoli regar sct would have been even better. but just the privilege of participating. and to the ncaa and the members of the ncaa, the ncaa has talked about issues like should we provide more expense money for athletes? i mentioned earlier that 40% of them have pell grants, which can go up to $5,600 year in addition to their $55,000 or $60,000 of football scholarships. so think about that. and that was considered by the ncaa and voted down because the small schools said, it will hurt us. many of the women's programs, said we'll have to drop women's programs. so this is more medicated than it would -- so this is more

complicated thank i than it wour at first. i'm sure many on the other side say we'd automobiles able to be insured for any kind of preexisting condition. these are issues that can be looked at by the ncaa. unionization, in my opinion, would destroy intercollegiate athletics as we know it. and i think we should look back at the opinion of the knight opinion and reaffirm that the student athlete is not a professional, not a hired hand. he or she is a student. 1% of the undergraduates in this country, there may be problems to solve, but the universities and the ncaa can address those problems and unionization is not the way to do it. mr. burr: i just wanted t to adescries one last thing. that's the claim that this is all aboutsless -- the senator

from tennessee has pointed out the options we have today. a college athlete, four operations, two niece, an elbow, a finger, the only record i'll hold at wake forest is the total number of scars on my body. and because of modern medicines, that record won't be broken because they don't do surgery that way. i think it is best summed up by arniarne duncan. "when sports are done right, when priorities are in order, there is no better place to teach invaluable life lesson than on a playing field or court. discipline, selflessness, resilience, passion, courage -- those are all on display in the ncaa. why would we do anything to risk that? and not only do i believe this is risky, i think gist a consideration of it is enough to

make us -- or should make us reject this quickly, not embrace it. i thank my colleague from tennessee. mr. alexander: and i thank my colleague from north carolina. i thank the senator from iowa for his courtesy in allowing us to go ahead and i ask consent that an extension of my remarks be included in the record, following our colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: 25 years ago today the whistle-blower protection act was signed into law. i want to come to the floor to discuss some of the history that led to that legislation. the lessons learned over the past 25 years and the work that still needs to be done to protect whbles. -- whistle-blowers. and i emphasize that last part because there still needs to be at that lost work done.

the whistle-blower protection act was the result of years of effort to protect federal employees from retaliation. 11 years before it became flaw 1989, congress tried to protect whistle-blowers as part of the civil service reform act of 1978. i was then in the house of representatives. there i met a person named ernie fitzgerald who had blown the whistle on the lockheed c-5 aircraft program going $2.3 billion over budget. ernie was fired by the air force for doing that, and as he used to say, he was fired for the act of committing truth. when the nixon tapes became public after watergate, they revealed that president nixon personally telling his chief of

staff to get rid of that s.o.b. that's the respect that a famous whistle-blower that pointed out the waste of $2.3 billion was treated. the civil service commission didn't reinstate ernie until 12 years later. in the meantime, he was instrumental in helping get the civil service reform act of 1978 passed. yet it soon became very clear that that law didn't do enough to protect whistle-blowers. in the recallly 1980's, the percentage of employees who didn't report government wron wrongdoing due to fair retailation nearly doubled. some wries l blowers still had the courage to come forward. in the spring of 1983 i became aware of a document in the defense department known as "the spinning report."

the report exposed the unrealistic assumptions being used by the pentagon in its defense budgeting. those unrealistic assumptions were the basis for add-ons later on in defense contractors, to bid up the cost. it was written by chuck spinny, a civilian analyst in the defense department's program evaluation office. i asked to meet with chuck spinny but was stonewalled by the pentagon. when i threaten a subpoena, we finally gottemoeller to agree to a friday aftermoon meeting. the pentagon hoped the hearing would get buried in the end of the week news cycle. instead, on monday morning, the news stands featured a painting

of chuck spinny on the front cover of "time" magazine. it labeled him as "a pentagon maverick." i called him what he oughted ought to be called: the conscience of the pentagon. the country owes a debt of gratitude to people like ernie fitzgerald and chuck spinny. it takes real guts to put your career on the line to expose waste and fraud and to put the taxpayers ahead of washington bureaucrats. in the mid-1980's, we dusted off an old civil war era measure known as athe false claims act as a way to encourage whistl whistle-blowers to come forward and report fraud. we amended that civil war law in 1986 to create the modern false claims act, which has resulted

in over $40 billion in taxpayers' money being recovered for the federal treasury. we made sure that when we passed it that it contained very strong whistle-blower protections. these provisions helped to build up support for whistle-blowing. people like chuck spinney and ernie fitzgerald helped capture the public imagination and showed what whistle-blowers could accomplish. however, that didn't mean the executive branch stopped trying to silence whistle-blowers. for example, spring of 1987, the department of defense asked ernie to sign a nondisclosure form. it would have prohibited him from giving outclass phiable as -- out classifiable, as opposed to classified -- classifiable information.

that would have prevented those of us in congress from getting that information so we couldn't do our oversight work. further, the term "classifiable" didn't only cover currently classified information, it also covered any information that could later be classified. the government-wide nondisclosure form arguably violated the lloyd lafollat law of 1912. that law states that -- quote -- "the right of employees to furnish information to congress may not be interfered with or denied." just to make sure, i added the so-called antigag appropriations riders that passed congress in december 1987. that rider, the antigag rider,

said that no money could be used to enforce any nondisclosure agreements that interferes with the right of individuals to provide information to congress. it remained in every appropriation bill until 2013. i then worked to get that language into statute in 2012 through the passage of the whistle-blower protection enhancement act. by the time of the first antigag rider in 1987, there was widespread recognition that all federal employees ought to be protected if they disclose waste and fraud to the congress, or for a lot of other reasons as well. meanwhile, i had also worked with senator levin of michigan to coauthor what we called the whistle-blower protection act. it was introduced february 1987. there were hearings on our bill

in the summer of 1987 and the spripspring of 1988. it proceeded to pass the senate by voice vote in august. then the house unanimously did that in october. after reconciling the differences, we sent the bill to the white house. however, president reagan failed to sign it. that meant that we had to start all over again in the next congress. we didn't let president reagan's inaction -- because that was a pocket veto -- stand in the way. senator levin and i moved forward again. when we reintroduced the bill january 1989, i came to the floor to make the following statement, so i have a long quote here. "we're back with this legislation in the 101st congress and this time we're going to make it stick.

congress passed this bill last fall after extensive discussions with members of the reagan administration. but in spite of the compromise we worked out, this bill fell victim to president reagan's pocket veto. whistle-blowers are a very important part of government operations. by exposing waste, fraud and abuse, they work to keep government honest and efficient. and for their loyalty, they are often penalized. they get fired, demoted and harassed. under the current system, the vast majority of employees choose not to disclose the wrongdoing that they see. they're afraid of reprisals and the result is a gross waste of taxpayers' dollars. government employers should not be allowed to cover up their misdeeds by creating such a hostile environment."

end of quote of the statement i made on the introduction of that bill january 1989. now, once again the bill passed the senate and the house without opposition. working with george h.w. bush, this time we got the president to sign it. april the 10 10th, 1989, the whistle-blower protection act became law. we left part of the work undone 25 years ago. the civil service reform act of 1978 had exceptions for the f.b.i., the c.i.a., the n.s.a. and other parts of the intelligence community. the whistle-blower protection act left employees of those agencies unprotected and so have the laws that followed it. i am very pleased that the preconferenced intelligence

authorization bill released today will remedy that for the intelligence community. back in 2012, i championed the addition of intelligence whistle-blower protections through the whistle-blower protection enhancement act. the provisions i authored prohibited various forms of retaliation, including changing an employee's access to classified information. working closely with the senate select committee on intelligence, we got that language into the bill that passed the senate by unanimous consent may the 8th, 2012. however, it was not included in the bill that the house passed september the 28th, 2012. prior to the differences being reconciled on october the 10th, 2012, president obama issued presidential policy directive 19. it provided certain limited protections for whistle-blowers

with access to classified information. yet that executive order by president obama was weaker than the provisions that i had authored in the whistle-blower protection enhancement act. unfortunately, president obama's actions undercut support for those provisions by suggesting that the statutory protection was now unnecessary. the final law that passed in november left intelligence whistle-blowers at the mercy of presidential directive. now, much of the language that i had championed is in the intelligence authorization bill currently under consideration. it is certainly a step up from presidential policy directive 19. making any protections statutory is very significant. the bill also has better substantive protections than the

presidential directive. it does still have some gray areas, i'm sorry to say. it leaves some of the policy and procedure developments to the discretion of the executive branch and that is a mistake that we know exists because we had a similar happening with the f.b.i. because in 1989, the origination of the whistle-blower protection act, it didn't apply to the f.b.i. that's a -- turns out to be a big, big mistake. yet that law did riefer the attorney general to -- require the attorney general to implement regulations for those agencies consistent with the whistle-blower protection act. however, it soon became clear that that was a little like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. the justice department and the

f.b.i. simply ignored that part of the law for nearly 10 years. not until 1997 did the attorney general finally implement regulations for whistle-blowers at the f.b.i. the justice department was pushed into finally issuing those regulations by an f.b.i. employee by the name of dr. frederick -- fred whitehur whitehurst. dr. whitehurst was considered by the f.b.i. to be its leading forensic explosive expert in the 1990's. what i'm about to show you is, being a good, patriotic american and blowing the whistle when something's wrong, you can ruin yourself professionally. shortly after the whistle-blower protection act was passed in 1989, dr. whitehurst disclosed major problems with the f.b.i.

crime lab. from 1990-1995, he wrote close to 250 letters to the justice department inspector general about these problems. in other words, he tried to be a loyal to the agency he was in and work within that agency to expose wrongdoing but didn't get very far. so in january of 1996, he formally requested that the president implement regulations as required by the whistle-blower protection act. only after fred was suspended in 1997 did the white house finally issue such a memo to the attorney general. it instructed the attorney general to create a process for f.b.i. whistle-blowers as directed by the whistle-blower protection act. fred whitehurst's case dragged on for another year until

february, until the f.b.i. finally agreed to settle with him february 1998. he got more than a million-dollar settlement out of that. just because he was trying to do the right thing. but he's got his badge and his gun taken away from him and he was in a sense being ridiculed for doing what a patriotic american ought to do. now, fred whitehurst and the f.b.i. is not alone in the f.b.i. of people having problems. over the years others such as mike germany, basam yosef, jane turner, robert kobis have blown the whistle from within the f.b.i. even after the inspector general issued findings in their favor, several have had to navigate a snefer endinanever-ending kafkae

internal affairs process. it seemed to grind down these patriotic americans into submission through years of inaction. now history has started to repeat itself. as congress was passing the whistle-blower protection enhancement act of 2012, president obama issued presidential policy director -- directive 19. he tasked attorney general holder with reevaluating the same f.b.i. whistle-blower procedures that fred whitehurst helped get in place in 1997. the attorney general was given six months to report back. when the attorney general didn't report back and didn't issue that report at the six-month mark, i asked the government accountability office to do its own independent evaluation of the f.b.i. whistle-blower protections.

now, 18 months after the president's directive, the attorney general holder still hasn't released his report. now, here's a person appointed by the president of the united states, directed by the president of the united states to do something in six months, presumably loyal to the president of the united states, isn't doing what the chief executive of our great country told him to do. potential whistle-blowers should not have to wait a decade, as they did with the first set of regulations. it appears that the justice department is simply sitting on its hands once again. the example of the f.b.i. should be instructing. unlike the whistle-blower protection act, the intelligence authorization bill is much more detailed about the protections congress intends. it puts a time limit on how long the intelligence community has to create their procedures given

them -- giving them six months. however, remember, that's exactly the same amount of time that president obama gave the attorney general holder to come up with regulations and it still hasn't happened 18 months later. congress needs to be very vigilant about getting both the intelligence community and the attorney general to act. in the meantime, the f.b.i. fiercely resists any efforts at congressional oversight, especially on whistle-blower matters. for example, four months ago, i sent a letter to the f.b.i. requesting its training materials on the insider threat program. now, when you just want copies of training materials, would that be a difficult thing for bureaucracy to present to a member of congress? that program happened to be

announced by the obama administration october 2011. it was intended to train federal employees to watch out for insider threats among their colleagues. public news reports indicated that this program might not do enough to distinguish between true insider threats and legitimate whistle-blowers. i relayed these concerns in my letter. i also asked for copies of the training materials. i said i wanted to examine whether they adequately distinguished between insider threats and whistle-blowers so it didn't become a damper on whistle-blowing. in response, the f.b.i. legislative affairs official told my staff that a briefing might be the best way to answer my questions. it was scheduled for last week. staff of both chairman leahy and

my staff attended. the f.b.i. brought the head of their insider threat program, yet the f.b.i. didn't bring the insider threat training materials as we had requested. however, the head of the insider threat program told the staff of both senator leahy and mine that there was no need to worry about whistle-blower communications. now, they're telling you -- telling me that at a time when we got decades of history of whistle-blowers being treated like skunks at a picnic. this gentleman said whistle-blowers had to register in order to be protected, and the insider threat program would know to just avoid these people. and now i have never heard of

whistle-blowers being required to --quote, unquote -- register in order to be protected. the idea of such a requirement should be pretty alarming to all americans. you're talking about patriotic americans just wanting to make sure that the government does what the law says it should do and spend money the way congress intended it be spent, and you have to register to be protected just because you're a patriotic american? you know, the reason you can't do that is sometimes confidentiality is the best protection a whistle-blower has. unfortunately, neither my staff nor chairman leahy's staff was able to learn more because in about ten minutes, only ten minutes in the office and into the briefing, the f.b.i. got up

and abruptly walked out. it might be one thing to walk out on a republican's staff, but they walked out on a democrat chairman of one of the most powerful committees in the united states senate as well, chairman leahy's staff. f.b.i. officials simply refused to discuss any whistle-blower implications in its insider threat program and left the room. these are clearly not the actions of an agency that is genuinely open to whistle-blowers or whistle-blower protection. like the f.b.i., the intelligence community has to confront the same issue of distinguishing a true insider threat from legitimate whistle-blower. this issue will be impacted by title 5 of the current

intelligence authorization bill, which includes language about continuous monitoring of security clearance holders. director of national intelligence james clapper seems to have talked about such procedures when he appeared before the senate armed services committee february 11 of this year. in his testimony, he said this -- quote -- "we're going to proliferate deployment of auditing and monitoring capabilities to enhance our insider threat detection. we're going to need to change our security clearance process to a system of continuous evaluation. what we need is a system of continuous evaluation where we have a way of -- get this -- a way of monitoring their behaviors, both their electronic

behaviors on the job as well as off the job to see if there is a potential clearance issue." end of quote. director clapper's testimony gives me major pause, and i hope it gives my colleagues. it sounds as though this type of monitoring would likely capture the activity of whistle-blowers communicating with congress. to be clear, i believe the federal government is within its right in monitoring employee activity on the worker computers. that applies all the more in the intelligence community and that context. however, as i testified before the house oversight and government reform committee recently, there are areas where the executive branch should be very cautious. the house oversight committee held a hearing on electronic

monitoring that the u.s. food and drug administration had done of certain whistle-blowers in that agency. this monitoring was not limited to work-related activity. the food and drug administration allows its employees to check personal email accounts at work. as a result, its whistle-blower monitoring captured the f.d.a.'s whistle-blower montana attorney general captured personal email account passwords. it also captured attorney-client communications and confidential communications to congress and the office of special counsel. some of these communications are legally protected. if an agency captures such communications as a result of monitoring, it needs to think about how to handle them very differently. otherwise, it would be the ideal

tool to identity and retaliate against whistle-blowers. so without precautions, that kind of monitoring could effectively shut down legitimate whistle-blower communications and it wouldn't surprise me considering the culture of some of these agencies we have. that's exactly like what they want to do, because there is a great deal of peer pressure to go along to get along within these agencies, and whistle-blowers, like i said, are kind of like a skunk at a picnic. there could be safeguards, however. for example, whistle-blower communications could be segregated from other communications. access could be limited to only certain personnel rather than all of the upper management. in any case, whistle-blowing disclosures to congress or the special counsel can't just be

routed back to the official accused of wrongdoing. as the 1990 executive order made clear, whistle-blower is a federal employee's duty. it should be considered part of their official responsibilities and something they can do on work time. however, that doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to make their protected disclosures confidentially to protect against the usual retalliation. a federal employee has every right to make protected disclosures anonymously, whether at work or off the job. every member of this body should realize that without some safeguards, there is a chance that their communications with whistle-blowers may be viewed by the executive branch. these same considerations apply to the intelligence community. the potential problems are

heightened. if electronic monitoring extends off the job, such as director clapper mentioned in the quote that i gave him. we have to balance detecting insider threats with letting whistle-blowers know that their legitimate whistle-blower communications are protected. with continuous monitoring in place, any whistle-blower would understand that their communications with the inspector general or congress would likely be seen by their agency and punishment could follow. they might perhaps even be seen loy or by those they police chief are responsible for waste, fraud and abuse and punishment follow. that leaves the whistle-blowers open to the retaliation. even with the protections of this bill, we should all understand that it's difficult

to prevent retaliation because there is so much indigenous in the culture of most government agencies. it requires a lengthy process for an individual to try and improve the retaliation and get any remedy. it is far better where possible to take precaution that is prevent the likelihood of retaliation even occurring. otherwise, what will make it -- it will make it virtually impossible for there even to be such a thing as an intelligence community whistle-blower. fraud and waste then would go unreported. no one will dare take a risk. to return to the theme that i started, whistle-blowers need protection from retaliation today just as much as they did 25 years ago when this whistle-blower protection bill was passed on april 10 that year.

i have always said whistle-blowers are too often treated like a skunk at a picnic. you have heard it for the third time. you can't say it too many times. i have seen too many of them retaliated against. however, 25 years after the whistle-blower protection act, the data on whistle-blowing is in and the debate on whether to protect whistle-blowers is over. there is widespread public recognition that whistle-blowers perform a very valuable public service. earlier this year, pricewaterhouse coopers found that 31% of serious frauds globally was detected by whistle-blowing systems or other tipoffs. according to a 2012 report from another organization, that number is even higher when looking -- when looking just in the united states, with 51% of the fraud tips coming from a

company's own employees. in 2013, the u.s. workers who had observed misconduct and blown the whistle, 40% said that the existence of whistle-blower protection had made them more likely to report this conduct. whistle-blowers are particularly vital in government where bureaucrats only seem to work overtime when it comes to resisting transparency and accountability. a year and a half after the whistle-blower protection act, president bush issued an executive order in 1990 that said that all federal employees -- quote -- "shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse and corruption to appropriate authorities." end of quote. that should change the entire culture of these agencies that are antiwhistle-blower, but it hasn't, but that's what the directive is. federal employees are still under obligations this very day.

they are fulfilling the civic duty when they blow the whistle. i have encouraged president reagan and every president after him that we ought to have a rose garden ceremony honoring whistle-blowers because if you do that, it sends the signal from the highest level of u.s. government to the lowest level of u.s. government that whistle-blowing is a patriotic thing to do. unfortunately, there isn't a single president that has taken me up on my suggestion. further, while the obama administration promised to be the most transparent in history, it has instead cracked down on whistle-blowers like never before. last week, the supreme court denied a petition to hear an appeal from a case named kaplan versus conyers. the obama administration position in that case if allowed to stand means untold numbers of federal employees may lose some of the very same appeal rights we tried to strengthen the

whistle-blower protection act. it could be half or more of the federal employees impacted. such a situation would undo 130 years of protection for civil servants dating back to the pendleton civil service reform act 1883. you remember that president obama promised to ensure that whistle-blowers have full access to the courts and due process. however, his administration pursued the exact opposite goal here. that ought to be unacceptable to all of us. i think it's important to send a loud and clear signal that waste, fraud and abuse won't be tolerated in government, and that's why i'm pleased to announce that i will officially be forming a whistle-blower protection caucus at the beginning of the 114th congress. until then, i will be taking -- talking to my colleagues and encourage them to join me as we start putting together an agenda for that caucus in a new

congress. as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of this very important bill called the whistle-blower protection act, we should all recognize whistle-blowers for the sacrifices that they make. those that fight waste, fraud and abuse in the government should be lauded for patriotism. whistle-blower protections are only worth anything if they're enforced. just because we've passed good laws does not mean that we can stop paying attention to the issue. there must be vigilance and oversight by the congress. the best protection for a whistle-blower is a culture of understanding and respect, the right to blow the whistle. i hope that this whistle-blower caucus will send a message that congress expects that kind of culture. i call on my colleagues to help me make sure that whistle-blowers continue to

receive the kind of protection they need and deserve. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to urge -- the presiding officer: the senate is currently in a quorum call. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to stop the taxing tax offenders and prosecuting identity theft act of 2013. with tax day, as everyone knows, coming upon us on tuesday, the time is now to pass this bipartisan legislation. i worked on this bill, the stop identity theft act to, address the growing problems of tax identity theft and to protect

taxpayers against fraud. from the beginning, this bill has been bipartisan. senator sessions is the lead republican on this bill, and in fact just recently this bill passed the senate judiciary committee on a vote of 18-0, which given a number of the members on that committee with very different views on issues, that is an accomplishment, and it shows what a pressing problem this is. i think people will be pretty shocked, as you will be, mr. president, when you hear these numbers. criminal are increasingly filing false tax returns using stolen identity information in order to claim victims' refunds. you might think that would be a rare incident, mr. president, but as a former law enforcement, as the attorney general for the state of new mexico, i think you know anything can happen. well, this is a problem where more than anything is happening. in 2013 alone, eye -- in 2012

alone identity thao*efs filed -- thieves filed 1.8 million fraudulent tax returns. the numbers and the documents in these cases may be forged, but the dollars behind them are real. because in 2012 there were another 1.1 million fraudulent tax returns that slipped through the cracks, and our u.s. treasury -- are you ready for this? -- our u.s. treasury paid out $3.6 billion. that is a number coming from the i.r.s. that's your taxpayer dollars going down to the drain to people that actually are stealing taxpayers' identity, putting them on returns, filing returns and getting back the money. when criminals file these fake tax returns, it's not just the treasury that loses out. everyday people are the real streubg -- victims here because

when someone else uses your identity, when someone else fakes your identity, people are forced to wait months and sometimes even years before receiving their actual refund. what's going on? we're having double refunds; right? first they go to the thief. this is happening millions of times. then the real taxpayer says, wait a minute, where is my refund, files a return. then the government has to check this out and figure out what happened to the first one. and they then pay twice. this is what is happening in the united states of america. in 2012, allen stender, a retired businessman from the 5,000 town of circle pines, minnesota, was working to file his taxes on time just like many people are doing right now. after completing all the forms and sending in his tax returns, alan heard from the i.r.s. that there was a major problem. so he gets it done on time, files his returns. he finds out from the i.r.s. there is a problem. someone had stolen his identity

and used his personal information to fraudulently file his taxes and steal his tax return. just last week 25 people were arrested in florida for using thousands of stolen identities to claim $36 million in fraudulent tax refunds. this included the arrest of a middle school food service worker who stole the identities of more than 400 students, if you can believe this. those victims are just kids, and criminals are stealing their identities to file fake returns. are you ready for this one? attorney general eric holder recently revealed that he was a victim of tax return identity theft. this came out this week, mr. president. two young adults used his name, his date of birth and social security number to file a fraudulent tax return. they got caught. they were prosecuted. but if you can imagine that this can happen to the attorney general of the united states -- at least we got action there --

think about some guy in circle pines, minnesota, that has it happen to. and like i said it is happening over a million times every year. from a retired man in florida, to the attorney general in the united states, it is clear identity theft can happen to anyone. we also know that this crime can victimize our most vulnerable citizens, victims like seniors living on fixed incomes or people with disabilities depend on tax returns to make ends meet and cannot financially manage having their tax returns stolen. there is a lot at stake here and action is needed. that is why i put forward this bipartisan legislation a few years back with republican senator jeff sessions of alabama to take down this problem and crack down on the criminals committing this crime. there's also significant bipartisan work in the house last year, a very similar bill was passed in the house that did this same thing. not easy to pass bipartisan bills in the house of representatives. it happened and the senate now, as we know, passed 18-0 out of

the judiciary committee this bill. this critical legislation will take important steps to streamline law enforcement resources and strengthen penalties for tax identity theft. the stop identity theft act will direct the justice department to dedicate additional resources to address tax identity theft. it also directs the department to focus on parts of the country with especially high rates of tax return identity theft and to boost protections for vulnerable populations such as seniors, minors and veterans. we also urge the justice department to cooperate fully and coordinate investigations with state and local law enforcement agencies. identity thieves have become more creative and expanded from stealing the identity of individuals to stealing that of businesses and organizations. my bill recognizes this change and broadens the definition of tax identity theft to include businesses, nonprofits and other similar organizations.

this is important because once a company or an organization's tax information is stolen, it can be used to create fraudulent tax returns and claim false refunds. finally, we need to crack down on the criminals committing this crime. this bill would strengthen penalties for tax identity theft by raising the minimum jail -- the maximum jail sentence s from 15 to 20 years. i believe this bill goes a long way in helping law enforcement use their resources more efficiently and effectively, and it is time to bring it to the floor. in recent weeks we have made significant progress, as i said, by passing the bill out of the senate judiciary committee unanimously on an 18-0 vote. it doesn't happen often. i thank all of my colleagues on the committee and all of my friends across the aisle for joining with us to vote for this bill after a long discussion, we had amendments, we got this bill out. every single member of the judiciary committee voted for this bill.

that would include senator cruz. that would include senator schumer. that would include senator feinstein. that would include senator hatch. it was a unanimous 18-0 vote. now, i want to bring this bill to the full senate. i would love to get this done with before tax day. i know there is a hold-up on the other side of the aisle, and it is time for people to understand that this is a bill that passed the house of representatives, that passed on an 18-0 vote out of judiciary and that we simply need to get this done. when the attorney general of the united states of america is having his identity theft stolen -- his identity stolen and used to file fake tax returns, we have a problem. we have a problem, mr. president, that involves a lot of money. we have a problem that involves 1.8 million fraudulent tax returns in 2012 alone, double the number in 2011. we have a problem that also

involves a lot of money, mr. president. we have a problem that involves $3.6 billion in one year alone in 2012, paid out by our u.s. government. what do you think taxpayers think of that when they hear that? that $3.6 billion went to thieves, and we have a bill that passed out of the judiciary committee 18-0. i would like someone explaining why they're holding up this bill. it is time to get this bill done. i would love to see it happen before we go back to our home states so that i can he explain it to my constituents, and i hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with us, because with tax season upon us, the time to pass this bipartisan legislation to crack down on identity thieves and protect the hard-earned tax dollars of innocent americans, the time to do that is now. i again thank senator jeff sessions for being the republican on this bill, and i thank all my colleagues for passing it through the

committee. i thank the house for getting it done over there. it is now the time to pass it on this floor. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. a senator: thank you for recognizing me.

the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: i'd like to ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i would like to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i was not able to be here a while ago. the senator from virginia, mr. warner was able to introduce the data act, something he had been working on over the past couple of years. it is a good bill, about good government. i'm delighted we were able to pass it this afternoon in the senate. i now hope it will go to the house for passage and we can get it to the president's desk because it will help to give all of us as taxpayers a better view into our government. specifically it improves federal financial transparency and data quality, both of which are going to help identify and eliminate wasteful spending, certainly something we should be focused on given our huge debts and deficits and the pressure on our spending. it will ease the compliance burden on those people who are working with the federal government, recipients of federal funds. at the same time it improves the

data they send to the federal government. so it is a win-win for the taxpayer, for good government, for getting at this issue of waste, fraud and abuse. it's an issue that transcends party lines. i want to thank my friend, senator tom coburn because he has been a leader on this in the governmental affairs committee where i serve. and also the chairman of the committee, tom carper. without their help, senator warner and i would not have been able to get this bill to the floor today. we have a number of other cosponsors on a bipartisan basis. we all know that the federal government spends a lot of money, over $3 trillion a year. and the goal is that we know more about how that money is spent so we can be ensure it is being spent on the right things. this legislation, the data act, picks up on things we've learned, how to make it more accountable, more transparent. this has to do with grants. it is something that will help to ensure that we're not just spending the money right but we're also eliminating fraud and

abuse that we otherwise would not find. i first got involved in this issue when i was at the office of mapght and budget -- management and budget. i support it and then was tasked with implementing a 2006 bill. it was actually introduced by senator coburn and senator obama at the time. it was called the federal funding accountability and transparency act, ffata. it worked in the sense that it led to something which is calledder u.scalled-- somethingd usspending.gov. a lot thought this was something we couldn't do. we approved them wrong. it was because of a lot of hard work bay lot of folks in the agencies and at the office of management and budget where i served as director and it ended up with the ability for taxpayers to get a wealth of information online, again, about federal grants, federal contracts, to understand better how their tax dollars were being spent.

it helped us learn some lessons how to improve fiscal data quality and transparency even more. we learned that the data on u.s. government spend -- on usgovernmentspending.gov. i recommend going on this web sievment if we pass this legislation, you will like going on it even more because the dhat you will be seeing will be more understandable, will be more uniform across the are agencies and will enable us all as taxpayers to get a better view of the govment. it makes it easier to compare spending across the fed federal agencies by comparing establishment of these governmengovernment-wide standa. as to financial data standards, a very difficult thing to do as i learned when i was at the office of management and budget. it really pays off and does promote consistency and reliability in data. second, it strengthens the federal financial transparency by reforming and improving the web site itself.

it requires now more frequent updates so monthly financial updisaits of spending by each federal agency on their programs and at the object class level basis. it is more data, more specific data, more up-to-date data. so it refreshes the web site to make it more available. it empowers the inspector general and the g.a.o. to hold agencies accountable. putting the i.g. nigeria this is a good -- putting the inspector general into this is a good idea. this will be making them more accountable for quality and accuracicy of the data they're submitting. this is new and is going to make the web site work even better. it eliminates unnecessary duplication and burdensome regulations, streamlines basically what people have to provide to the federal government. so this will actually make it easier for us to understand what's going on with these contractors, again, as taxpayers, doing oversight, but

it also headaches it easier to do business with the federal government. makes it less complicated for them, more transparency for taxpayers. another good aspect of this legislation. i think each of these reforms is going to enhance federal accountability allowing agencies to more easily identify improper payments, unnecessary spending. we have a big issue around here with spending. weird spending more than we take in every year to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. we have a disebt tha debt that t least $17 trillion. it is time to make sure that we're not wasting money that could be aplayed to the debt, or could be applied to programs that are top priorities. this legislation will help us get there. i am really pleased we were able to get it passed today. i am going to be working hard to ensure that we can get this through the house, to the president's deck for his signature so we can indeed begin to help all of us as citizens have a better view in your federal government. with that, mr. president, i

would yield and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: