Floor Statements

Mr. President, on Wednesday, the inspector general of the Department of Justice issued his report on ATF's Operation Fast and Furious. This report is a significant milestone for the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. He was killed in a firefight with illegal aliens who were armed with illegal guns from Fast and Furious.

Attorney General Holder delayed any discipline for the officials responsible for Fast and Furious until after this report was released. The time for accountability has come. There are no more excuses for inaction.

The inspector general's nonpartisan review confirmed virtually everything I heard from whistleblowers over the last year and a half. The Justice Department tried to push all the blame on the ATF and officials down in Phoenix, AZ, but the inspector general confirmed that senior officials in Washington ignored red flag after red flag.

Senior officials in both the Justice Department and ATF knew or should have known that Operation Fast and Furious was putting guns into the hands of criminals. But they ignored the risk and failed to take steps to protect the public safety. The Inspector General also confirmed that there were major information-sharing failures between law enforcement agencies.

We are still going through the nearly 500-page report, as well as 309 pages of new documents the Justice Department produced late Wednesday. However, I was surprised to learn from the report that Attorney General Holder testified that he doesn't remember the conversation with me about Fast and Furious in my office on January 31, 2011. That is when I handed the first letters to the Attorney General opening the investigation of Fast and Furious.

I happen to remember that conversation. My staff told the Attorney General that day what whistleblowers had told us. Remember, whistleblowers got involved in coming to Congress because for months they were sending reports up from Phoenix to main Justice that selling guns illegally or encouraging our gun dealers to sell guns illegally was not a very smart thing for our Justice Department to do. And when they weren't listened to, these whistleblowers started coming to this Senator.

Specifically, at that meeting with Holder, we discussed that two weapons the ATF let go in Fast and Furious were found at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Terry. I emphasized I was personally bringing it to his attention--meaning the attention of the Attorney General--because these were very serious and credible allegations, not just some run-of-the-mill letter that I send to departments generally.

Yet even after that meeting, the Department didn't take this case seriously. The inspector general's independent report says so explicitly.

We do not believe that the gravity of this allegation was

met with an equally serious effort by the Department to

determine whether ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office had

allowed the sale of hundreds of weapons to straw purchasers.

The Justice Department claimed its process for writing letters to Congress was sound. But its response to me, in its February 4, 2011, letter, was false. That letter came back only 4 or 5 days after I first handed the letter to the Attorney General. The February 4, 2011, letter was false because DOJ later withdrew it and claimed it relied on bad information from the ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office. However, the inspector general agreed with me that the Justice Department's response was seriously flawed--and not just the initial response. The inspector general also found that the Justice Department knew its initial reply wasn't true when it reaffirmed the denial of the whistleblower allegations in a May 2, 2011 letter to me.

Instead of acknowledging it was wrong, the Department repeatedly doubled down on its denials.

For example, Attorney General Holder said on multiple occasions since November 2011 that the wiretap evidence authorized by the Justice Department headquarters did not put senior leadership on notice that the ATF was walking guns.

Most recently, on June 7 of this year, the Attorney General went before the House Judiciary Committee. At this point, many Members of Congress had obtained and read the affidavits, even though the Justice Department did not want us to see them. Members who reviewed them said that the affidavits contained evidence of gunwalking. But Attorney General Holder testified:

I've looked at these affidavits, I've looked at these

summaries. There's nothing in those affidavits as I've

reviewed them that indicates gunwalking was allowed.

The inspector general has read these same wiretap affidavits. Since the inspector general is independent and nonpartisan, that independent, nonpartisan conclusion is at odds with the quote I just gave you from the Attorney General, and that quote from the Attorney General comes from testimony before the other body.

I quote from his report:

[T]he affidavits described specific incidents that would

suggest . . . ATF was employing a strategy of not

interdicting weapons or arresting known straw purchasers.

In fact, much of the inspector general's report is redacted because those affidavits are still under seal. Chairman Issa and I asked the Justice Department months ago to move to unseal them so the public could decide for themselves. Now the inspector general has joined Congressman Issa and this Senator, and is also calling for the Department to ask for permission of the court to release the affidavits. The Justice Department should have filed that motion months ago. Unsealing the affidavits will allow the American people and the Terry family to see the whole story.

The details of those affidavits show that senior officials knew, or should have known, about gunwalking in Fast and Furious. The inspector general independently confirmed this point, quite contrary to Attorney General Holder's denials. Those denials by the Attorney General show either incompetence or lack of truthfulness. Congress created an explicit statutory duty for certain senior Justice Department officials to authorize all wiretap applications, not just those involved with Fast and Furious.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, who served directly under criminal division head Lanny Breuer, was one of the officials who approved some of these affidavits. Senior officials such as Mr. Weinstein tried to claim that they shouldn't be held accountable because they only read memos summarizing the wiretaps, not the full wiretap applications, as I think is required under law. But the inspector general found that Justice Department officials should review more than just the cover memo. He said that under the statute, they have the responsibility to be fully informed before authorizing wiretap applications.

Yet the inspector general also found that even

. . . a reader of the . . . cover memorandum would infer from

the facts that ATF agents did not take enforcement action to

interdict the weapons or arrest [straw purchasers].

So the memo Mr. Weinstein admits he did read indicated that ATF had walked guns, according to the inspector general.

Back in September of last year, Attorney General Holder said at a press conference:

The notion that somehow or other this thing reaches the

upper levels of the Justice Department is something that . .

. I don't think is supported by the facts.

Maybe the Attorney General doesn't think someone who reports directly to the head of the criminal division is a senior official, but this Senator does.

As a result of the inspector general's findings, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Weinstein has resigned. Mr. Weinstein should be held accountable, but he shouldn't take the fall for more senior officials who are also culpable.

Mr. Weinstein reported directly to Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer. When the Justice Department sent its letter to me denying ATF ever walked guns, Breuer knew otherwise. He knew in 2010 about gunwalking in another case, Operation Wide Receiver. That was long before the allegations in Fast and Furious; yet he waited 9 months before e-mails about Wide Receiver were about to be produced to Congress before he publicly apologized for not doing more about gunwalking in the previous gun walking Wide Receiver.

I asked Breuer whether he had seen the draft of the February 4 false letter to me. Breuer testified:

I cannot say for sure whether I saw a draft of the letter

that was sent to you.

Now I will explain why that was a false statement that he made to me.

A month after Breuer's testimony, the Justice Department released more documents showing that Breuer was sent five drafts of the letter before it was sent to me. He forwarded three of them to his personal e- mail account. Breuer still maintained in written responses that it was ``highly unlikely'' he had read the letter because he was in Mexico when it was sent. On this matter, the inspector general report contained a significant factual error.

By the way, there aren't many errors in this inspector general's report. I compliment him for a very good job that he did.

The report read:

The OIG found no e-mail messages from Breuer in which he

proposed edits, commented on the drafts, or otherwise

indicated he had read them.

That statement of the inspector general is not true. In response to one of the drafts that Breuer received, he commented to Weinstein that it was ``great work.''

That may not be a proposed edit, but it is certainly a comment. Thus, Breuer's statement to Congress is simply not credible. E-mails show that Breuer was very engaged in the process, asking for and receiving updates from Weinstein at every stage of the drafting of that letter of February 4, 2011 that 8 or 9 months later they withdrew because it was false. Breuer and Weinstein sent multiple e-mails to each other on the matter each day, with Breuer asking after a quiet period, ``Jason, let me know what's happening with this.''

So, quite obviously, he was involved before the letter was ever sent to me. Rather than holding him accountable for this evidence, the inspector general's report gives him a pass.

Worse, new e-mails produced Wednesday show that Breuer was in the weeds about his deputy Jason Weinstein coming to brief the Senate Judiciary Committee staff a week after the Justice Department's false letter was sent to me.

On February 13, 2011, Breuer sent an e-mail about such details as what specific questions my staff asked of Weinstein at this briefing. Breuer wrote:

The goal--and by all accounts it seems to have worked--was

to communicate that ATF's work in the AZ case and others like

it reflected sound judgment and investigative work.

It is clear that Breuer was in the weeds enough to know what the Justice Department was communicating to me was undermined by the gunwalking he knew about in Wide Receiver. He should have come forward in February 2011 and told Congress that he knew ATF had in fact walked guns. His failure to do so, coupled with his attempt to mislead Congress, is why I have called for him to resign or be fired. I made that request last fall on the floor of this Senate.

The Attorney General has been saying for months that he would hold off on any personnel action until the inspector general's report was released. We have been hearing that for almost a year, ``Let the inspector general finish his work, and then we will decide what to do.'' So, Mr. Attorney General, it is time to hold people accountable.

I wish to close with language from a statement that the family of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry issued. Agent Terry is the person where two guns that were walked were found at his murder scene.

From the family of Brian Terry:

The Department's failure chronicled in the report had

deadly and tragic consequences for hundreds of innocent

American and Mexican victims of violent crimes.

And our son, friend, relative and hero, Brian Terry, is

dead.

Questions and concerns should have been raised before the

weapons purchased in this failed government sting wound up in

the hands of drug dealers and killers, including those who

killed Brian.

The focus today should not be on political spin control nor

on praise for the Department of Justice supervisors who chose

to resign in light of the report's findings, but rather on

the gross negligence of the Department documented in the

report and the tragic consequences of that negligence.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act has put the brakes on Medicaid expansion for now.

The Federal Government can no longer force States to expand their Medicaid programs.

With the expansion and the billions of dollars that States would have had to spend on hold, and as we look at solutions to address our 16 trillion dollar national debt, now is a good time for us to step back and ask what role health care should play for States in our Federal system.

Mr. President, as of today, the primary function of a state is health administration--not primary and secondary education, not public safety, not roads and bridges.

According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, Medicaid is the single largest spending line in state budgets at 23.6 percent.

The economic downturn and high unemployment have resulted in an increase in Medicaid enrollment as individuals lose job-based coverage and incomes decline.

Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.1 percent during fiscal 2011 and is estimated to increase by 3.3 percent in fiscal 2012.

In governors' recommended budgets for fiscal 2013, Medicaid enrollment would rise by an additional 3.6 percent.

This would represent a 12.5 percent increase in Medicaid enrollment over this three year period.

Medicaid enrollment surged during the economic downturn with enrollment rising by 7.2 percent from June 2009 to June 2010.

Although Medicaid enrollment is easing for now, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act would have greatly increased the individuals served in the Medicaid program in 2014 and thereafter.

The Affordable Care Act, as passed, required States to cover all childless adults beginning in 2014 under Medicaid that heretofore had not been covered.

The expansion to 138 percent of the poverty level was expected to cover 16 million people.

States would get 100 percent of the cost of new individuals enrolled paid for by the Federal Government for the first several years before the Federal payment levels for those new individuals would fall to approximately 92 percent.

The Supreme Court rejected the mandatory expansion.

Quoting from the Supreme Court ruling

The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State's overall

budget is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no

real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.

The Government claims that the expansion is properly viewed as only a modification of the existing program, and that this modification is permissible because Congress reserved the ``right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision'' of Medicaid.

But the expansion accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree.

The original program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals.

Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level.

A State could hardly anticipate that Congress's reservation of the right to alter or amend the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically.

The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.

As a result of the Supreme Court ruling, the Federal Government can no longer threaten the States with withdrawal of all Federal Medicaid funding if States do not expand their Medicaid programs.

States now have the option to expand coverage.

Several States have now suggested they will not expand in 2014.

The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that only one-third of the potential newly eligible population will reside in States that choose to fully extend coverage.

According to CBO, about one-half of the potential newly eligible population will reside in States that only partially extend Medicaid coverage.

The remainder, about one-sixth of the potential newly eligible population, will reside in States that do not extend Medicaid coverage at all in the next decade.

CBO's predicted Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act has been reduced by 35 percent.

Clearly CBO accepts the proposition that if States are not forced to extend coverage to the ACA mandatory population, they will not.

Mr. President, right before the August recess my office released a report from the Government Accountability Office on State capacity to meet the Medicaid requirements under the ACA.

It shows why CBO's skepticism is appropriate.

The report discusses challenges States are facing with information technology, guidance from CMS, and the budgetary uncertainty of increased enrollment of those currently eligible for Medicaid.

The GAO surveyed the States and found that the vast majority expect to have additional costs related to administering their current program, developing eligibility systems, enrolling newly eligible individuals and enrolling additional individuals who are currently eligible.

The GAO focused particularly on the challenges faced by States in updating their eligibility systems.

In the report, GAO found four main deterrents to States as they consider the challenge of expanding their eligibility systems to meet the goal of Medicaid expansion.

First, many States face a lengthy procurement process as they look to upgrade their technology to handle expansion.

Second, designing new eligibility systems is complex and may involve the replacement of existing, outdated systems.

Third, States often have systems that operate across multiple programs further increasing the cost and complexity of upgrading.

Fourth, as States have fought against their own budgetary problems, many have reduced personnel resources to manage projects as complex as Medicaid expansion.

The GAO further found problems with the guidance CMS has been providing the States.

30 of the 36 responding to the GAO survey found that CMS guidance was only slightly useful or not useful at all.

Mr. President, many outside observers have treated the expansion of Medicaid as a foregone conclusion, that States couldn't possibly turn down so much supposedly ``free money.''

The evidence from CBO and GAO is crystal clear.

When the Federal Government is involved, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

States absolutely can turn down the option to expand and every State faces a difficult decision in how they choose to move forward.

However, Mr. President, the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act is not the only fiscal pressure States face from the health care administration.

One of the most expensive and complex populations receiving Federal health care services are those dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, commonly referred to as DUALS.

They are poorer, sicker and often in need of more extensive and expensive coordinated care.

The inefficiency created in the misaligned incentives of the Medicare and Medicaid programs is frequently cited as one of the areas in health care in greatest need of reform.

The Affordable Care Act created an office in CMS charged with creating demonstration projects to allow for greater coordination of dual eligibles.

Those demonstration projects have been moving forward at breakneck pace with as many as 26 States looking to participate.

Essentially all the demonstrations seek to give States greater control of the acute care of dual eligibles.

CMS has legal authority under the ACA to take these demonstrations nationally if they are successful.

Many outside groups are concerned about the size, scope and pace at which demonstrations are proceeding citing California's initial proposal to take control of one million dual eligibles as an example of the outsized nature of the demonstrations.

In July, Senator Rockefeller wrote a strongly worded letter to CMS suggesting they should halt the demonstrations for similar reasons.

Mr. President, no one argues that the way Medicare and Medicaid coordinate for dual eligibles works.

Coordination today is akin to asking my wife and me to compose a letter with her writing the consonants and my writing the vowels.

Giving the States greater control of duals may be the right answer, but when you consider the fiscal challenges faced by States, this should be a decision considered by Congress examining all possible alternatives rather than something occurring through regulatory action.

Finally, the Affordable Care Act gives States broad leeway in creating State-based Exchanges.

These State exchanges are the mechanism where people with incomes above Medicaid eligibility will go to get health insurance.

It would be an understatement to say the States haven't moved very rapidly to get these Exchanges up and running.

I do acknowledge that many States may have been waiting for the Supreme Court ruling before moving ahead with their Exchanges.

However, I do think it remains equally plausible that States are moving cautiously as they look at one more role in health care where they are being asked to expand.

Mr. President, for the States, health care is a chaotic mess.

The Federal Government is asking the States to take greater roles in administering coverage for the uninsured in Medicaid, the dually eligible and the uninsured in the private sector.

As we move forward in 2013, we will revisit, perhaps repeal, the Affordable Care Act.

We will examine proposals to reign in the cost of our heath care entitlements.

Mr. President, as we do so, I strongly recommend we step back and reconsider what is the appropriate role for health care in our Federal system.

In July, Robert Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post about a proposal often associated with my friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, known as the ``grand swap.''

In this proposal, the Federal Government would assume all responsibility for Medicaid and the States would assume all responsibility for education.

Samuelson raises the proposal because, in his words,

Only the federal government can devise a solution to

control health costs; concentrating government health

spending at the federal level would intensify pressures to do

so.

States have tried mightily to control spending with at best

partial success.

For example, Medicaid reimbursement rates average only 72

percent of Medicare levels.

The low rates have caused some doctors not to accept

Medicaid patients.

Mr. President, Samuelson raises a significant question, which Congress needs to consider in entitlement reform.

Congress should consider what States should do in health care and what are reasonable expectations.

If Congress wants States to administer benefits for the aged, blind and disabled, and low income individuals along with managing the exchanges for individuals with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty, Congress can do so.

If health care is the primary responsibility of States, it is because of decisions made by Congress.

If States are being asked to do so while also overseeing education, public safety, roads and bridges and meet in most cases a balanced budget requirement, Congress should temper its expectations regarding the resources States will be able to devote to health care.

With significant restructuring of Medicare and Medicaid possible in 2013, we should use this as an opportunity to reconsider the role of the States in providing health care coverage inclusive of populations and services.

What we ask of the States should be thoughtfully considered in any reform discussion.

Mr. President, as a matter of senatorial courtesy, since I am referring to some things that the majority leader has said previously, not recently but previously, I have informed him of what I was going to say.

On August 2, the majority leader decided that the valuable time of this body would be best employed by speculating on the contents of the tax returns of Presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney. These remarks also touched on the vetting process of the Senate Finance Committee. It is that aspect of this to which I want to refer.

As a senior member of the Finance Committee as well as former chairman and ranking member, I have come to familiarize my colleagues with the committee's vetting process.

On Thursday, August 2, the majority leader exclaimed:

As we know, he has refused to release his tax returns. If a

person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet

officer, he couldn't be if he had the same refusal Mitt

Romney does about tax returns.

This statement demonstrates a misunderstanding of the confirmation process for Cabinet officials and the Finance Committee vetting process in particular. The fact is, most prospective Cabinet officers do not need to disclose their tax returns. Actually, no prospective Cabinet officer is required to make their returns public in ordinary circumstances. To my knowledge, the Finance Committee is the only committee that asks nominees to provide copies of tax returns. Specifically, the Finance Committee asks that nominees provide copies of their last three Federal tax returns. The committee may request further returns if it is warranted by the circumstances of that particular time.

The committee asks for this information for a few reasons. To begin with, many nominees referred to the Finance Committee, such as the Secretary of Treasury and the Commissioner of the IRS, will be able to exercise significant influence over tax policy and administration. Additionally, the examination of a nominee's tax return sheds light on the nominee's character. Over the last few years, several high flyers in the Obama administration have come up short when measured by their tax returns. Therefore, the vetting process utilized by the Finance Committee has received a lot of attention.

Only two Cabinet officers and one position with the status of Cabinet rank are referred to the Finance Committee. These are the Secretaries of Treasury and the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as the U.S. Trade Representative. As I said before, to my knowledge, the Finance Committee is the only committee of the Senate to request copies of actual tax returns. This means that not counting the Vice President, there are 19 members of the Cabinet who do not release their tax returns during the Senate confirmation process.

As I said, no Cabinet official is required to make his or her tax returns public. This goes to the details of the Finance Committee's vetting process. All nominees referred to the committee are required to submit copies of their last three filed tax returns. These copies, along with other financial data, are shared with a very limited number of staff, specifically designated by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.

While being reviewed, the returns themselves are kept under a very tight control. Most staff for the committee and ranking member do not have access to the tax returns. Neither the chairman nor the ranking member may unilaterally release the tax returns or information obtained from those tax returns. This means that even when I was chairman of the committee, rules prohibited me from unilaterally releasing a nominee's tax return or even making public that nominee's specific tax information.

When an issue is identified pertaining to a nominee's tax information, the chairman and the ranking member jointly determine how to proceed. Information is only released under bipartisan agreement and after consultation with the nominee.

For example, Secretary Geithner was given the opportunity to withdraw his nomination before the world learned of his failure to pay all his taxes. He was also provided an opportunity to review the bipartisan memo the committee eventually released.

In sum then, no nominee vetted by the Finance Committee needs to make their tax returns public, and in the majority of the cases no information is released. Additionally, the purpose of the vetting is not to damage the credibility of the nominee. I bet those seeking Governor Romney's tax returns are operating under a completely different standard. I especially find it interesting that the majority leader compared Governor Romney to Cabinet officials when speculating as to the contents of Governor Romney's returns. There seems to be an implication that a discovery of unsatisfied tax obligations would be problematic to the leader. While the majority leader may want to speculate as to whether Governor Romney has paid his taxes, there are nominees and officials of the current administration we know did not completely satisfy their tax obligations.

I will start this trip down memory lane with our current Treasury Secretary. Due in large part to his failure to pay self-employment taxes, irregularities in Mr. Geithner's returns added up to his owing a total of $48,268 in taxes and interest to the IRS. Those seeking a full accounting of the episode may read the bipartisan memorandum prepared by the Finance Committee, which is part of the record of his January 2009 nomination hearing. As I said, we don't need to speculate whether Secretary Geithner completely paid his taxes. We know as a fact he did not, to the tune of over $48,000.

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius disclosed that in preparation of her confirmation she filed amended tax returns for 2005, 2006, and 2007. She voluntarily made this information public in the form of a letter to Chairman Baucus and me. This letter was printed in the record of her nomination hearing. The result of those amended returns was that she paid a total of $7,040 in additional taxes and $878 in interest to the Internal Revenue Service.

Finally, I wish to mention former Senator Tom Daschle, who was the administration's nominee to be Secretary of HHS for a brief period of time in 2009. Although Mr. Daschle withdrew his nomination before the committee held a hearing on his nomination, it was widely reported, including in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, that he failed to pay more than $128,000 in taxes in the 3 years prior to his nomination.

In mentioning Secretaries Geithner and Sebelius and Mr. Daschle, I am not suggesting anything beyond the reported facts of their circumstances or that their tax errors were intentional. I just want to remind the majority leader of these situations where it is not necessary to speculate on whether taxes were owed.

While I appreciate the leader's newfound attention to the Finance Committee's vetting process, I wish to assure everyone has clear understanding of how this vetting process in the Senate Finance Committee works. I will be happy to discuss the committee's procedure with any interested colleague. I am sure Ranking Member Hatch and his staff would also be happy to discuss the process with anyone who was interested.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I come to the floor to discuss the State of our economy and to give suggestions on how to improve it. But before I go to the main purpose of why I came here, I wish to say to the Senator from Maryland that I agree with him. The House of Representatives ought to take up a farm bill. I hope they will, and that is my urging.

I also wish to take advantage of the opportunity to explain a little bit about ethanol and how that works in with the situation he brought up about increasing feed for chickens or any other animals.

This year, farmers planted 96 million acres of corn. There were more acres of corn planted than in any other year since 1938. Most of that is because of the ethanol industry. If we didn't have the ethanol industry, we would normally plant somewhere between 80 and 85 million acres of corn.

Let's assume we never heard of the word ``ethanol'' or the product ethanol, that it didn't even exist, and farmers planted the usual 80 to 85 million acres of corn. Let's also assume we had the same drought we had this year--over about two-thirds of the United States--and the corn crop is going to be reduced because of it. If we planted 80 to 85 million acres of corn and we had the same drought, we would still have the high price of grain we have right now, but we wouldn't have ethanol to blame for it.

So the marketplace is bringing about the increased production of corn because of feed, fuel, and fiber. We should not be scapegoating ethanol, because if we didn't have ethanol to blame, we wouldn't be planting 95 or 96 million acres of corn. We would be planting about 80 to 85 million acres of corn and we would still have the same high price and the same problem for the poultry producers.

Economic Leadership

Now to the point that I came to the Senate floor. We all recognize our Nation faces challenging times. We have had years with unemployment at unacceptable levels and anemic economic growth that shows no sign of lifting us out of the situation. Meanwhile, rampant government spending, which we were promised would jump-start the economy and create jobs, has instead displaced private sector investment and choked off job creation. More and more Americans are starting to doubt that their children and grandchildren will have better opportunities than they had, not to mention the fact that they will be forced to pay for all that spending.

We keep being told by President Obama and members of his party that change is just around the corner. If we just keep doing what we are doing, things will get better. After almost 4 years of failed policy and dashed hopes, that line is wearing thin. Fortunately, our problems are not insurmountable and the solutions are common sense. All that is needed is sufficient leadership to make the tough decisions.

In fact, this is the same situation Great Britain faced in the 1970s. Britain was mired in debt and even had to go to the IMF for a bailout. Successive British Prime Ministers had recognized the looming financial problem for years but failed to get the budget under control. At that time, in the 1970s, Britain was known as the ``sick man of Europe.'' Still, as in this country, interest groups that benefited from public spending threatened to bring down any British Government that even considered measures to control spending.

We see those same forces in the Congress of the United States telling us we can't cut anyplace. In fact, Britain did face massive strikes in the winter of 1978 to 1979, better known as the winter of discontent.

As a result of the inability of several different Prime Ministers to take the difficult steps necessary to turn things around, many pundits started to speculate Britain had become ungovernable. There were even many British politicians who had decided the best they could accomplish was to manage the economic and political decline of Britain. We hear the term in the United States of a ``new norm.'' I hope we aren't getting into that same attitude the British had in the 1970s.

But they had a leader who came along by the name of Margaret Thatcher. She utterly rejected the notion that decline was an option. In fact, she was famous for repeating the phrase: ``There is no alternative.'' So I would like to take those words, ``there is no alternative,'' as a guiding point for us in the Congress, Republican or Democrat, that we have to do something.

``There is no alternative.'' Prime Minister Thatcher meant that control of the policy based on uncontrolled spending had failed. If economic recovery was the goal, the only alternative was the free market. This meant cutting spending, reducing growth-inhibiting income taxes, and reining in government micromanagement of business--things we hear from the private sector in the United States today.

Despite the hard lessons of experience, the prevailing economic theory of the day still held: that government

spending was good for the economy and that government central planners could operate more efficiently than private business left alone.

That is the situation she was describing in Britain. However, for us in the United States, whether it is government or the private sector, it is like asking: Are 535 Members of Congress smarter to determine the direction of the economy or are the 308 million people outside of the Congress in the United States better prepared to do it, and which will do the most good?

Now, Thatcher faced intense opposition both from true believers in the stimulus ideology and from those with a vested interest in the status quo, but having rejected national decline, as she did, as an option, there really was no alternative. She explained to the British public why her course of action was necessary and stood up to the special interests that stood in the way of prosperity. We hear from our constituents we ought to do something about those special interests, but we don't seem to do much about it.

When the media began speculating she would fail to follow through and that she would lose her spine and make a U-turn as so many of her predecessors had done, Mrs. Thatcher's response was: ``You turn if you want to . . . The lady's not for turning.''

What Prime Minister Thatcher provided for Britain is very simple: Leadership. That is what the United States needs today.

Most Americans I talk to believe in our opportunity society and refuse to accept that the American dream of a better life for our children is dead or that there is a new norm or that America is in decline. For those of us who feel that way, restoring the dynamic American free market economy is essential. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, there is no alternative. We must reduce spending. There is no alternative. We must have low, simple, and stable taxes. There is no alternative. And there is no alternative to reducing and reforming the growing regulatory burden.

During the last 3\1/2\ years, the national debt has grown by more than $5 trillion--an increase of 50 percent. This year will be the fourth consecutive year with trillion-dollar annual deficits. These deficits and a Federal debt that now totals $16 trillion are, in fact, dampers on private sector job creation.

When Washington takes and spends the wealth created in the private sector, it crowds out new investments that would have been made by businesses and entrepreneurs, investments that would have resulted in the creation of new wealth and job opportunities for more Americans. The out-of-control spending has created a stagnant economy with unemployment stuck above 8 percent now for 42 consecutive months.

Economic freedom must replace bigger government. Economic growth must be our top priority, and fiscal discipline in Washington is a prerequisite to sustainable economic growth. In the words of Prime Minister Thatcher, there is no alternative.

The 4-year experiment attempting to increase economic prosperity by growing government and managing the economy through government intervention has failed. To address the anemic economic recovery and get America back to work, we must reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. In the words of Prime Minister Thatcher, there is no alternative.

Again, our Nation is $16 trillion in debt. How much is $16 trillion? Well, if we started counting to 16 trillion one second at a time, it would take a person over 500,000 years to reach that level.

The Federal Government will spend more than $11 trillion just on Medicare and Medicaid over the next 10 years. Medicare and Medicaid serve a vital role in providing health care services to individuals who are poor, elderly, or disabled. But just because those programs have operated a certain way for 47 years doesn't mean they operate efficiently, even though we all agree they are part of the social fabric of America and must be maintained. If we want to save those programs for future generations, the current path of just saying no to every proposal and every special interest is not an option. In the words of Prime Minister Thatcher, there is no alternative. There is no alternative but to look at their very structure and ask the question: Can we do better?

As we begin to take the steps to pull ourselves out of this fiscal mess, we also need to reform how Washington does business so we don't find ourselves in this situation again. One major step that could produce long-term fiscal discipline is a balanced budget amendment, but if we passed that today it would not get us out of the hole we are in. However, once we get out of the hole, it is going to keep us from getting into it again.

The national debt now is reaching a point where if we do not intervene with a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, it is going to become unsustainable. Mere laws have not controlled deficit spending because Congress can always change a law when it becomes politically expedient. I went through this one time because I was an author with a former Senator in this body by the name of Harry Byrd from the State of Virginia, not West Virginia. He and I worked together when I was a Member of the House. We got legislation passed requiring a balanced budget. For 15 years that law was on the books and never in those 15 years was there ever a balanced budget.

So it makes it very clear that statutes will not control deficit spending. I concluded a long time ago that a constitutional amendment is a ``must'' to provide Congress with necessary discipline. The example right now of Europe's debt situation is sobering. Nations that allow debt to grow out of control risk default.

Think of Greece as an example. If we do not take effective, corrective action, the European future could be ours, and maybe sooner than we think. The time for tinkering around the edges of the budget is over. We must take bold action to address the debt crisis before it is too late. In the words of Prime Minister Thatcher, there is no alternative.

Another area crying out for decisive action is our voluminous Tax Code. Uncertainty in our Tax Code and the threat of higher taxes is like an anchor preventing our economy from setting sail. At the end of the year, the across-the-board tax relief first enacted in 2001 and 2003 will expire. Its expiration will lead to a higher tax bill for virtually every taxpayer, representing one of the largest tax increases in the history of the country, and, as my colleagues know, that can happen without even a vote of Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has testified about the negative impact of higher taxes on a fragile economy.

More importantly, I hear from employers that uncertainty about the future makes it difficult to plan, take risks, and make decisions to expand and hire. Tax certainty must be a priority in creating a progrowth environment. In the words of Prime Minister Thatcher, there is no alternative.

Even President Obama has acknowledged the negative impact of tax increases on economic growth saying we shouldn't raise taxes in a recession. We remember because he campaigned on tax increases in 2008, but before he was even sworn in he warned people we can't have that tax increase now because we are in a recession. Nevertheless, nearly every day our President is on the campaign trail in 2012 talking about tax increases on the so-called rich claiming them to pay their fair share. But I have never had a definition from the President of the United States of what a fair share is.

However, the so-called rich already pay the overwhelming majority of Federal taxes. Do my colleagues know that the top 20 percent of households currently account for 95 percent of Federal income taxes? Moreover, the top 1 percent we hear so much about bears nearly 40 percent of the Federal income tax burden. It is no wonder our job sector, especially the nearly 1 million small businesses targeted by the President's tax increase, are reluctant to make business decisions and invest in this climate when taxes are going to go so high at the end of this year. There are businesses ready to expand and create jobs. There are millions of dollars in private sector investment waiting to be invested and to create jobs. But businesses are holding back, waiting for the heavy boot of higher taxes to drop. It is time we replaced divisiveness and demagoguery with a progrowth tax policy.

This country does not need more taxes; we need more taxpayers. The way to get more taxpayers is to get

more people working. The way to get more people working is to encourage that investment. We need to take the uncertainty out of the present political environment here that has an impact on the economy.

When businesses and entrepreneurs are willing to put everything on the line by opening a new business or expanding an existing business, we must assure them that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their success, not punish them with a higher tax bill which takes money out of their cashflow. When a business operates on cashflow, they cannot hire people if they don't have the cash.

So we must act decisively to stop job-killing taxes from going up. In the words of Prime Minister Thatcher, there is no alternative.

It isn't just the threat, though, of taxes that has caused uncertainty and held back private sector investment. The threat of costly new regulations has paralyzed many industries. In fact, I hear more complaints from small businesses about regulation than I do this biggest tax increase in the history of the country coming before us this December.

During the past few years, thousands of new Federal rules were finalized. Those who view government intervention into private enterprise as positive might say: So what.

All of these rules come with real costs. This administration has issued about 200 major rules that each have an impact of $100 million or more. A Gallup poll taken at the end of last year found that compliance with government regulations is the single biggest issue facing small business owners today. When 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small business, we ought to be concerned about what these small businesspeople are saying is their No. 1 problem.

On top of the outright cost of new regulation and the compliance burden, the uncertainty about when a new regulation might come down makes businesses reluctant to expand. In recent years we have seen regulation on top of regulation. No one knows when the next one will appear or how much it will cost.

During the Great Depression, the avalanche of new agencies with newfound regulatory powers led to businesses sitting on large amounts of cash, even in industries that were not yet affected by the new regulations because the uncertainty about who would be targeted next froze private sector investment. Now we are seeing pretty much the same thing today.

It would be one thing if these were essential protections for the environment or public health as proponents often claim, but for many of these new regulations the cost of compliance outweighs the public benefit.

It doesn't make any sense to try to regulate dust on farms when there is no practical way to stop the wind blowing. Still, I don't know how many years the EPA has been working on what they call a ``fugitive dust rule.'' Does it make any sense to make a dairy farmer fill out pages of documents to prove they have a plan in place in the case of an accidental milk spill? Well, they considered that regulation, but it was too outlandish that they made a public announcement they were not going to do that. Then why was EPA wasting time considering these regulations in the first place? There are legitimate forms of pollution that need attention, but even then the EPA seems intent on overkill.

Did the Utility MACT rule, which was intended to limit mercury emissions from powerplants, really need to be the single most expensive regulation in EPA history?

In addition to this rule, powerplants that rely on coal, like most of those in my State of Iowa, are facing a whole new string of overlapping rules with their own compliance deadlines and paperwork.

These include the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, cooling water intake regulations, clean water effluent guidelines, and coal ash regulations.

Taken separately, each of these may have some justification, but when you put them all together, the cost and compliance burden is enormous, especially on small utilities.

Yesterday there was a delegation of Iowa rural electric cooperatives in my office explaining exactly how costly this was to them and their consumers.

That leads many people to suspect that the real motivation for this burst of regulation is an ideological drive to artificially raise the cost of electricity generation using coal, which would hurt the economy in places such as Iowa that rely on coal for cost-effective energy. A regulatory approach that imposes excessive costs for little or no benefit does not do anyone any good.

Regulatory agencies should be held accountable for meeting the cost- benefit test and also--a little more difficult to measure--the commonsense test. The deluge of regulations in recent years and the uncertainty--there is that word again: ``uncertainty''--about what is coming next is acting like a wet blanket on our economy. We must put an immediate stop to unnecessary, costly new regulations. In the words of Prime Minister Thatcher, there is no alternative.

In the long run, we need comprehensive regulatory reform. The Constitution vests all legislative powers in the Congress, which is directly accountable to the American people. However, over the years, Congress has delegated more and more authority to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. And once delegated, it is difficult to take back. As a result, then, we have a massive administrative state full of well-meaning but unelected government officials who have great power to write regulations with the force of law, with little or no democratic accountability.

This has led to the implementation of major policy decisions that impact the economy and the lives of the American people that likely would never have been approved if they would have had to have been voted on by the Congress.

That is why I am an original cosponsor of the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. REINS is the acronym. The REINS Act would require every major Federal regulation to come before both Houses of Congress for a vote and be signed by the President before it can be implemented. This will allow voters to hold their Members of Congress accountable for ill-conceived regulations. It would be a check on the mistake that Congress makes by delegating so much power in the first place. It would also provide more transparency and predictability to the regulatory process, thus reducing job-killing uncertainty.

Reforms such as the REINS Act would be a major change in how Washington does business, and that upsets a lot of apple carts. In the words of Prime Minister Thatcher, there is no alternative.

If we want economic growth and jobs, if we want a brighter future for America, we cannot afford to dither any longer. We need leadership like Britain had under Margaret Thatcher that is willing to tell all the special interests and all the political power players, there is no alternative.

We must take steps I have outlined to reinvigorate the free market economy. Just like Britain in 1979, there is no alternative.

We have tried President Obama's theory on economic stimulus. It was supposed to keep unemployment under 8 percent, and it has never been under 8 percent since the day he signed it. We saw a massive expansion of government and deficit spending as a result. More than $800 billion was spent on a failed economic stimulus bill that was supposed to keep unemployment down. We all know how that turned out.

Government spending in the process has reached unprecedented levels. Today, the size of government--if you combine local, State, and Federal--is 40 percent of our gross domestic product. One hundred years ago, it was 8 percent. If it were true that government spending creates economic growth, then we should be living high off the hog today, but it is not.

The private sector creates jobs. It is the responsibility of the government to merely create an environment that leads to job growth. Remember a very basic premise: Government consumes well. It does not create well. Through economic freedom, entrepreneurs are free to innovate and prosper. This economic success leads to higher standards of living and a better quality of life. Importantly, these gains do not then come at the expense of others. Because, contrary to what some around

here would have you believe, when someone produces a product or a service that others want, they are creating new wealth and everyone is better off. But too often around here, we think matters of the economy are a zero-sum game.

One person's prosperity, then, does not come at the expense of another's. In fact, business success and economic growth lift all boats through employment gains, higher wages, and greater value to the consumer.

We sometimes hear it implied that individual success cannot be achieved without government involvement or intervention. Some people seem to believe that an individual's success must come at somebody else being deprived or that the success was only achieved collectively and with the help of government. This line of thinking concludes that government and society is, therefore, entitled to some of the fruits of that individual's labor. This line of thinking is in stark contradiction to our country's founding principles that government exists to protect the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not found in a government paycheck redistributing what somebody else earned. In fact, government dependence leads to resentment.

By contrast, this great American dream of ours is based on individual Americans working hard and earning their own success.

A country with an increasing number of citizens dependent on a government that lives beyond its means and redistributes what remains of a once great economy would, then, cease to be the great America that we have had for 225 years. Such a future is unacceptable to most Americans, just as it was unacceptable to Prime Minister Thatcher, who said, there is no alternative.

The American dream is our birthright and our obligation to posterity. We must return to progrowth policies and an opportunity society. There is no alternative.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Franken, the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012. This bill addresses the recent United States Supreme Court case Hall v. United States. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the provision I inserted into the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not accomplish what we intended. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012 corrects this and clarifies that bankrupt family farmers reorganizing their debts are able to treat capital gains taxes owed to a governmental unit, arising from the sale of farm assets during a bankruptcy, as general unsecured claims. This bill will remove the Internal Revenue Service's veto power over a bankruptcy reorganization plan's confirmation, giving the family farmer a chance to reorganize successfully.

In 1986 Congress enacted Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a specialized bankruptcy process for family farmers. In 2005 Chapter 12 was made permanent. Between 1986 and 2005 we learned what aspects worked and did not work for family farmers reorganizing in bankruptcy. One problematic area was where a family farmer needed to sell assets in order to generate cash for the reorganization. Specifically, a family farmer would have to sell portions of the farm to generate cash to fund a reorganization plan so that the creditors could receive payment. Unfortunately, in situations like this, the family farmer is selling land that has been owned for a very long time, with a very low cost basis. Thus, when the land is sold, the family farmer is hit with a substantial capital gains tax, which is owed to the Internal Revenue Service.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service receive priority treatment. Holders of priority claims must receive payment in full, unless the claim holder agrees to be treated differently. This creates problems for the family farmer who needs the cash to pay creditors to reorganize. However, since the Internal Revenue Service has the ability to require full payment, they hold veto power over a plan's confirmation, which means in many instances the plan will not be confirmed. This does not make sense if the goal is to give the family farmer a fresh start. Thus, in 2005 Congress said that in these limited situations, the taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service could be treated as general, unsecured debt. This removed the government's veto power over plan confirmation and paved the way for family farmers to reorganize successfully.

However, in Hall v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that despite Congress's express goal of helping family farmers, the language inserted into the Bankruptcy Code in 2005 conflicted with the Tax Code. The Hall case was one of statutory interpretation. There is no question what Congress was trying to do; rather, did Congress use the

correct language? My goal, along with others at the time, was to relieve family farmers from having their reorganization plans fail because of huge tax liabilities to the federal government. Justice Breyer noted this in the dissent: ``Congress was concerned about the effect on the farmer of collecting capital gains tax debts that arose during (and were connected with) the Chapter 12 proceedings themselves. . . . The majority does not deny the importance of Congress' objective. Rather, it feels compelled to hold that Congress put the Amendment in the wrong place.'' Hall v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 1882, 1897, 2012, Breyer, J., dissenting, internal citations and quotations omitted.

As a result of the Hall case, family farmers facing bankruptcy now find themselves caught in an unfortunate situation. The rules have changed and must be corrected in order to provide certainty and clarity in the law. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012 will provide the clarity needed to help family farmers reorganize in bankruptcy.

This bill strikes the current language in the Bankruptcy Code, which the Supreme Court said does not work, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1222(a)(2)(A) and inserts a new 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1222(a)(5). The new provision transforms all government claims arising as a result of the sale or transfer of post-petition farm assets into unsecured, non-priority claims, notwithstanding any language in the Internal Revenue Code to the contrary. The bill also provides new sections for treatment of these claims during the bankruptcy process. The bill recognizes that some asset sales may occur post-confirmation. As a result, we also provide a mechanism for plan modification as a result of these sales, if used for the specified purpose of reorganization, to assist in reorganization. Finally, we make a technical change to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1228(a), which practitioners and commentators have long argued is needed. This technical change is within the limited scope of this clarification bill, as it provides greater certainty and clarity that has troubled courts and practitioners alike.

I recognize the end of this session of Congress is near and the time to do something is short. However, we have been fine tuning this legislation to ensure it properly corrects the Hall case. We will seek to do what we can during the remaining Congressional calendar to fix the problem this year. Should we run out of time, then we will maintain our focus on this problem into the next year. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012 ensures that what Congress sought to do in 2005 actually occurs. In the wake of the Hall decision, clarification is needed to help ensure family farmers facing bankruptcy will have a chance to reorganize successfully.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Franken, the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012. This bill addresses the recent United States Supreme Court case Hall v. United States. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the provision I inserted into the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not accomplish what we intended. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012 corrects this and clarifies that bankrupt family farmers reorganizing their debts are able to treat capital gains taxes owed to a governmental unit, arising from the sale of farm assets during a bankruptcy, as general unsecured claims. This bill will remove the Internal Revenue Service's veto power over a bankruptcy reorganization plan's confirmation, giving the family farmer a chance to reorganize successfully.

In 1986 Congress enacted Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code to provide a specialized bankruptcy process for family farmers. In 2005 Chapter 12 was made permanent. Between 1986 and 2005 we learned what aspects worked and did not work for family farmers reorganizing in bankruptcy. One problematic area was where a family farmer needed to sell assets in order to generate cash for the reorganization. Specifically, a family farmer would have to sell portions of the farm to generate cash to fund a reorganization plan so that the creditors could receive payment. Unfortunately, in situations like this, the family farmer is selling land that has been owned for a very long time, with a very low cost basis. Thus, when the land is sold, the family farmer is hit with a substantial capital gains tax, which is owed to the Internal Revenue Service.

Under the Bankruptcy Code, taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service receive priority treatment. Holders of priority claims must receive payment in full, unless the claim holder agrees to be treated differently. This creates problems for the family farmer who needs the cash to pay creditors to reorganize. However, since the Internal Revenue Service has the ability to require full payment, they hold veto power over a plan's confirmation, which means in many instances the plan will not be confirmed. This does not make sense if the goal is to give the family farmer a fresh start. Thus, in 2005 Congress said that in these limited situations, the taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service could be treated as general, unsecured debt. This removed the government's veto power over plan confirmation and paved the way for family farmers to reorganize successfully.

However, in Hall v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that despite Congress's express goal of helping family farmers, the language inserted into the Bankruptcy Code in 2005 conflicted with the Tax Code. The Hall case was one of statutory interpretation. There is no question what Congress was trying to do; rather, did Congress use the

correct language? My goal, along with others at the time, was to relieve family farmers from having their reorganization plans fail because of huge tax liabilities to the federal government. Justice Breyer noted this in the dissent: ``Congress was concerned about the effect on the farmer of collecting capital gains tax debts that arose during (and were connected with) the Chapter 12 proceedings themselves. . . . The majority does not deny the importance of Congress' objective. Rather, it feels compelled to hold that Congress put the Amendment in the wrong place.'' Hall v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 1882, 1897, 2012, Breyer, J., dissenting, internal citations and quotations omitted.

As a result of the Hall case, family farmers facing bankruptcy now find themselves caught in an unfortunate situation. The rules have changed and must be corrected in order to provide certainty and clarity in the law. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012 will provide the clarity needed to help family farmers reorganize in bankruptcy.

This bill strikes the current language in the Bankruptcy Code, which the Supreme Court said does not work, 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1222(a)(2)(A) and inserts a new 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1222(a)(5). The new provision transforms all government claims arising as a result of the sale or transfer of post-petition farm assets into unsecured, non-priority claims, notwithstanding any language in the Internal Revenue Code to the contrary. The bill also provides new sections for treatment of these claims during the bankruptcy process. The bill recognizes that some asset sales may occur post-confirmation. As a result, we also provide a mechanism for plan modification as a result of these sales, if used for the specified purpose of reorganization, to assist in reorganization. Finally, we make a technical change to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1228(a), which practitioners and commentators have long argued is needed. This technical change is within the limited scope of this clarification bill, as it provides greater certainty and clarity that has troubled courts and practitioners alike.

I recognize the end of this session of Congress is near and the time to do something is short. However, we have been fine tuning this legislation to ensure it properly corrects the Hall case. We will seek to do what we can during the remaining Congressional calendar to fix the problem this year. Should we run out of time, then we will maintain our focus on this problem into the next year. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Tax Clarification Act of 2012 ensures that what Congress sought to do in 2005 actually occurs. In the wake of the Hall decision, clarification is needed to help ensure family farmers facing bankruptcy will have a chance to reorganize successfully.

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

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Leahy, for his courtesies.

I rise in support of the nomination of Stephanie Marie Rose to be U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Iowa. In addition, she has the support of Senator Harkin and is well regarded throughout my home State of Iowa. She was reported out of our committee on voice vote. She was previously confirmed by this Senate for her current position, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa.

Ms. Rose is a Hawkeye through and through, receiving two degrees from the University of Iowa--her B.A. in 1994 and her J.D. in 1996. Obviously, Ms. Rose was on the fast track through law school.

After graduation from law school, she wisely chose to remain in Iowa--and Iowa is fortunate for that decision. She first served as a law clerk in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Iowa. In 1997, she was hired as a full-time attorney in that same office, where she has risen through the ranks and now heads that office.

She served as a special assistant U.S. attorney from 1997 to 1999 and as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1999 to 2009. During this time, she was lead counsel in the prosecution of more than 250 cases. These cases spanned a wide range of legal issues from violent crimes and drug offense to immigration violations and money laundering. Additionally, she has handled approximately 45 Federal civil cases. These cases have included postconviction relief and asset forfeiture matters, as well as Freedom of Information Act and property return lawsuits.

In 2009, Ms. Rose was nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. In this role, she oversees most every aspect of the office. This includes overseeing the civil and criminal work completed by office staff and making final determinations regarding charging decisions, plea offers, and civil settlements.

The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. Rose as ``well qualified'' for this position of district judge.

In addition, she is supported by the legal community and judges throughout our State. Newspaper articles published in the Cedar Rapids Gazette on February 2 and February 20, 2012, captured some of that support.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these two articles.

Assistant U.S. attorney C.J. Williams described Ms. Rose's ability to quickly comprehend complex issues. Former assistant U.S. attorney Bob Teig, who retired last year after 31 years, said Thursday that Rose will make an ``excellent'' Federal judge. He went on to say:

She has experience in the courtroom and as an

administrator. She has a broad view of the federal legal

system and she's very intelligent. Stephanie will make a

great addition to the federal bench.

U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett said:

She is very skilled. She doesn't have a personal agenda.

She goes by the law.

U.S. District Judge John Jarvey of the Southern District said her prosecution record is impressive, noting ``Stephanie has won the respect of prosecutors and defense lawyers.''

Ms. Rose is also a member of the Iowa Academy of Trial Lawyers. Membership in the academy is limited to just 250 attorneys whose primary focus is on trial advocacy. Membership in this distinguished group is by invitation only, with unanimous approval by the Board of Governors. So Ms. Rose is 1 of only 15 women on the academy.

Mr. Leon Spies, the gentleman who nominated Ms. Rose for the academy, said he nominated her because she exhibited exactly what the organization strives for, ``the highest quality of trial advocacy and ethical responsibilities to clients and the law.''

If confirmed--and I am sure she will be confirmed--Ms. Rose will be the first woman to serve as Federal judge in the Southern District and only the second woman to serve on the Federal bench in Iowa's history. I congratulate Ms. Rose and wish her well as she assumes her duties as a U.S. district judge.

With her confirmation today the Senate will have confirmed 156 of President Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts. The fact is we have

confirmed over 80 percent of President Obama's district nominees. During the last Presidential election year, the year 2008, the Senate confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. This Presidential election year we will have exceeded those numbers. We have confirmed five circuit nominees, and Judge Rose will be the 29th district judge confirmed. That is a total of 34 judges this year versus 28 in the last Presidential election year. Yet even as we make consistent progress in filling judicial vacancies, there are still voices out there claiming otherwise.

For example, early last month the Des Moines Register of my State ran an editorial titled ``Judges Remain Hostages in the Senate.'' They stated in that editorial, in reference to the nomination of Ms. Rose, ``She will be lucky to come up for confirmation when the Senate reconvenes.'' Of course the vote had already been scheduled at that point, but they overlooked that fact.

The Register and other critics who erroneously blame vacancy rates in the Federal judiciary on Republican obstructionism overlook other facts as well. You have heard me say on the Senate floor that the Senate can only confirm judges who have been sent here from the White House. So if the White House has not sent judges here, we cannot, obviously, confirm judges who have not been submitted to the Senate.

In that regard, I would like to point out something from the New York Times--because a lot of times I think the New York Times would not do much to give us a basis for our position that we have done a pretty good job of confirming judges, and why aren't judges up here. An article dated August 17, 2012, sheds some light on this very subject. In that article, ``Obama Lags on Judicial Picks, Limiting His Mark on Courts,'' this newspaper, the Times, points out how President Obama made judicial nominations a lower political priority. The article discusses how two Supreme Court nominations, personnel upheavals, and the President's emphasis upon diversity also slowed the nominations process for lower court judges. In fact, even as we continue to confirm judges, the President continues to lag in nominations, including nominations to so-called judicial emergencies.

Today only 32 of the 78 current vacancies have a nominee here from the White House. Stated differently, nearly 60 percent of the current vacancies are without nominees. That has been the pattern for most of this administration.

Once again, I wanted to set the record straight, and I hope I have set it straight. Republicans have been more than fair to this President and his judicial nominees, considering the fact that we have so many vacancies that have not had a nominee submitted to the Senate for our consideration.

Again, I congratulate Ms. Rose.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago the president of the ABA a--purportedly nonpartisan organization--wrote a letter to the majority and Republican leaders regarding nominations and the Leahy-Thurmond rule. I noticed that my good friend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee entered a copy of that letter in the Record.

That letter failed to mention quite a few pertinent facts. The Republican leader and I sent the ABA a letter which highlighted some of those facts. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the president and CEO of Smithfield Foods, Larry Pope, took to the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal again to blame all that ails him on the renewable fuels standard for ethanol.

Some may recall he did the same thing back in April 2010 when commodity prices were rising. At that time, he perpetuated a smear campaign and blamed ethanol in an attempt to deflect blame for rising food prices while boosting Smithfield's profits. With this newspaper article, he is back at it again.

I start by referring to Mr. Pope as Henny Penny from the children's folktale ``Chicken Little.'' Every time Smithfield has to pay a little more to America's corn farmers to feed his hogs, Mr. Pope starts with the same argument that the sky is falling, and it is all ethanol's fault.

Mr. Pope's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal might lead some to believe he is very knowledgeable about the ethanol industry. But there are many areas of ethanol he doesn't know much about.

He continues to perpetuate the myth that ethanol production consumes 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop. Mr. Pope states: ``Ethanol now consumes more corn than animal agriculture does.''

Everyone with a basic understanding of a livestock farm--even a kernel of corn--or of an ethanol plant knows that is not a true statement. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 37 percent of the corn crop is used in producing ethanol. But--and a very important but--the value of corn does not simply vanish when ethanol is produced.

One-third of the corn--that is, 18 pounds out of every 56-pound bushel--reenters the market as a high-value animal feed called dried distillers grain. I would imagine millions of hogs raised by our farms every year are fed a diet containing this ethanol coproduct. For sure it is a very big feed product for cattle. Of course, Mr. Pope appears to be unaware of its existence.

When the distillers grains are factored in; that is, 18 pounds out of the 56 pounds that is left over after you make ethanol, 43 percent of the corn supply is available for animal feed. Only 28 percent is used for ethanol--unlike the 40 percent Mr. Pope says. This is the inconvenient truth of ethanol detractors. They prefer to live in a bubble where they believe ethanol is diverting corn from livestock use. That is just not the case.

Mr. Pope also proclaims that ``ironically, if the ethanol mandate did not exist, even this year's drought-depleted corn crop would have been more than enough to meet the requirements for livestock feed and food production at decent prices.''

I would like to ask Mr. Pope why he thinks that is the case. Why did farmers plant 96 million acres of corn this year when normally they would plant between 86 and 88 million acres of corn? Why have seed producers spent millions to develop better yielding and drought- resistant traits so we can produce more corn on less acres? The answer is simple: Because this gigantic industry of ethanol is there to consume more corn and more production on each acre.

If not for ethanol, it is very clear farmers wouldn't have planted 96 million acres of corn this year because those are more acres of corn than farmers have planted in this country since 1938. Without ethanol, I doubt we would have seen investment in higher yielding and more drought-tolerant corn plants by our seed corn companies.

I happen to think Mr. Pope is an intelligent man, but he is woefully uninformed on the issue of what the ethanol industry and the demand for corn has done for the size and genetic improvement of the corn crop. It is easy to understand Smithfield's motives. They benefit from an abundant supply of corn, just not the competing demand for it.

What is Smithfield's primary problem? Again, the answer is simple: cost and profit. They still want to pay $2 for a bushel for corn. This is an important point that I hope people understand. For nearly 30 years, until about 2005, companies such as Smithfield had the luxury of buying corn below the cost of production. Corn prices remained for about 30 years between $1.50 a bushel and $3 a bushel. Farmers routinely lost money. The Federal Government then provided economic support for the farmers. Producers such as Smithfield had the best of both worlds. They were able to buy corn below the cost of production, and they were able to let the Federal Government subsidize their business by guaranteeing a cheap supply of corn.

In the view of corporate livestock producers, subsidies are fine--if they allow them to buy corn below the cost of production. Anybody could look like a genius with that sort of a business model.

Mr. Pope also continues to overstate the impact of corn prices on the consumer. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack recently stated that farmers receive about 14 cents of every dollar spent on food at the grocery store. Farmers get 14 percent and everybody else gets 86 percent, yet the farmers of America are the problem? It happens that that 14 cents works out to be about 3 cents of that 14 cents is because of corn.

A research economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently stated that a 50-percent increase in the price of corn will raise the total grocery shopping bill by about 1 percent. To put it in perspective, the value of corn in a $4 box of corn flakes is about 10 cents.

Mr. Pope also exaggerated the impact of ethanol on food prices in 2010, and he is doing it again. He is using the devastating drought that we now have--over 62 percent of the country and worse in the Midwest, of Iowa where I live--to once again undermine our Nation's food, feed, and fuel producers,

and he is doing it--why? To make more money.

Repealing the renewable fuel standard will not bolster Smithfield's profits. Because of the flexibility built into the renewable fuels mandate, a waiver will not significantly reduce corn prices. A recent study by Professor Bruce Babcock, Iowa State University, found that a complete waiver of the renewable fuel standard--that is what the mandate is called--might reduce the corn prices by only 4.6 percent. That report goes on to state:

The desire by livestock groups to see the additional

flexibility in ethanol mandates may not result in as large a

drop in feed costs as hoped.

They continue:

. . . the flexibility built into the Renewable Fuels Standard

allowing obligated parties to carry over blending credits

from previous years, significantly lowers the economic impact

of a short crop, because it introduces flexibility into that

mandate.

The drought is enormous in both scale and severity. But we will not know the true impact until September when harvest begins. The latest estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicate an average yield of 146 bushels per acre. That would result in a harvest of 13 billion bushels. This would still be one of the largest corn harvests.

I suggest those claiming that the sky is falling withhold their call for waiving or repealing the renewable fuel standard. It is a premature action that will not produce desired results and it would increase our dependence upon foreign oil and it would drive up prices at the pump for consumers.

On another point with regard to taxes and the proposals around the Hill to increase taxes, I want to say that over the past few years my colleagues on the other side have come to the floor repeatedly to present a revisionist story regarding the fiscal history of the last two decades. On several occasions I have come to the floor to refute this history. Yet, again and again, the other side continues to present the same distorted facts, including lots of speeches last week.

The general misguided argument is that all of the economic and fiscal success of the 1990s is thanks to big tax increases by the Clinton administration and the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan tax relief is responsible for all of our economic ills and fiscal problems.

Neither of these claims is supported by facts or a basic understanding of economics. I will begin with the Clinton tax increase to which people are giving so much credit. Many on the other side of the aisle argue that the Clinton tax increases are proof that tax increases will not harm our economy today--when they have even heard their own President say otherwise several times, until recently, that you should not increase taxes when you have a depression. These people frequently ask, ``If our economy grew in the 1990s with higher marginal tax rates, how can it be bad to raise marginal taxes to these former levels?'' Engrained in this argument is the assertion that tax hikes can actually be good for our economy.

This assertion fails to take into account numerous economic factors that occurred alongside the Clinton tax increases. The fact is that the economy grew not because of the 1993 tax increases but despite them.

The economy of the mid-1990s is a result of economic conditions that we may never see again. It was a time of great economic expansion due in large part to the advent of the Internet economy. The Internet spawned new technologies and created efficiencies in our economy that have never been matched. In turn, these new technologies and efficiencies spurred startup businesses and new industries. Many seem to forget the huge Y2K fear that gripped the Nation, causing billions and billions in spending that helped prop up what became the infamous Internet bubble that blew up on all of us. Nevertheless, before the bubble burst these factors led to historically low unemployment and high workforce participation. Claiming that this was due to Clinton tax increases is equal to Vice President Gore claiming that he invented the Internet.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would be hard-pressed to find many economic studies indicating tax increases are stimulative. The focus of economic research in this area is not about whether tax increases are harmful or beneficial to the economy. Rather, the focus seems to be on the degree to which tax increases are very harmful to the economy. Admittedly, there are wide variations in views of economists on the responsiveness of individuals and businesses to taxes. However, even studies by economists who can hardly be labeled as conservative have concluded that tax increases have a significant negative effect on the economy.

For instance, a 2007 study by Christina Romer, President Obama's former chief economist, found ``tax increases are highly contractionary,'' and ``have very large effects on output.''

In fact, this study found that a tax increase of 1 percent of gross domestic product could lower real GDP by at least 3 percent.

Another likely contributor to the growth of the 1990s was a peace dividend we reaped from the end of the Cold War. We have Ronald Reagan's staredown of the Soviet Union to thank for that phenomenon. The end of the Cold War allowed for a reduction of government spending as a percent of GDP. Coupled with priorities pushed by the Republican- led Congress to reach a balanced budget and to reform welfare, spending as a percentage of GDP dropped to its lowest point in 30 years. With the Government spending less of the people's money, more was left in the hands of the private sector. This allowed the private sector to innovate, to invest, and eventually create jobs. The peace dividend is also the largest contributor to reining in deficits in the 1990s.

The biggest source of deficit reduction, 35 percent, came from the reduction of defense spending. The next biggest source of deficit reduction, 32 percent, came from other revenue because of a growing economy. Another 15 percent came from interest savings.

Let's get to the Clinton tax increase in reducing deficits. The Clinton tax increase, on the other hand, only accounted for 13 percent of the deficit reduction--only 13 percent.

There are further factors that contributed to the economic growth of the 1990s, including the expansion of free trade in the 1997 reduction in the capital gains tax rate. However, in the interest of time I am going to go on to other issues. One thing is clear, though, from this period of the 1990s. The economic growth of that time was not thanks to the Clinton tax increase nor was it a major player in bringing our deficit into balance.

Today we cannot rely on the unique economic conditions we experienced during that decade of the 1990s, some of which were artificial, to buttress the negative effects of the tax increase. In fact, we are in the middle of one of the worst economic eras since the Great Depression. Unemployment has remained above 8 percent now for over 41 straight months, almost 3\1/2\ years, in other words. Economic growth has been anemic.

Each passing day economic indicators are pointing more and more to the chance of a double-dip worldwide recession. Last Wednesday it was reported that Great Britain's economy contracted at the rate of .7 percent. Then on Friday it was reported that our own economy is stalling. Real GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.5 percent, continuing its downward trend for three straight quarters. In a recent blog post, Nobel Laureate economist Gary Becker addressed the question of whether raising taxes on high-income earners is a very good idea. In his post, Professor Becker entertained arguments--these were arguments by the supporters of the tax increases--by hypothesizing that there is a 50-50 chance that higher taxes on the so-called rich would damage the economy.

Of course I believe, as does Professor Becker, that in reality this chance is much higher than 50-50. However, even granting the other side this generous assumption he concluded the benefit of raising taxes was outweighed by the potential damage they would cause. According to Professor Becker, even if richer individuals only slightly reduce their work hours and reduce their effort at work, the gain in tax revenue from these individuals would not be great. In contrast, ``the costs to the economy in the chance that higher taxes greatly discourage their efforts is likely to be substantial in terms of fewer hours worked and less work effort by high-income individuals, reduced incentives to start businesses,

less investment in their human capital, investing abroad rather than in [this country] . . . and even migration abroad.''

Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are pushing billions of dollars in tax increases. Last week they voted to increase taxes on nearly 1 million flowthrough businesses. Their vote to increase taxes on job creators came on the heels of an Ernst and Young study detailing its ramifications. This study concluded that these proposed tax hikes-- on top of the 3.8-percent tax increase on dividends, interest, and capital gains that was added to pay for the health care reform bill-- would reduce our economic output by 1.3 percent. The Ernst and Young study also found that real aftertax wages would fall by 1.8 percent as a result of President Obama's policies.

Even in the face of this information, my colleagues on the other side seem all too willing to gamble with the chance that our stalling economy can withstand such a hit. By doing this, they are playing Russian roulette with our economy.

To my colleagues I ask: How certain are you that tax increases on job creators will not be damaging the economy? If you have any doubt, I suggest don't pull the trigger.

I wish to shift gears a little bit to address the record of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief. Just as a perfect storm of good economic conditions blew at the back of the Clinton administration, a perfect storm of bad economic conditions and unpredictable events blew in the face of the Bush administration.

It is undisputed that at the end of the Clinton administration, the Congressional Budget Office was projecting a 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 billion. Keep in mind, though, that CBO's projection was based on assumptions that did not pan out.

The CBO failed to predict the bursting of the tech bubble that was so beneficial in the previous years. CBO also did not predict the September 11, 2001 tragedy that wreaked havoc on our economy.

In reaction to the economic recession from these events, Congress enacted the bipartisan 2001 tax relief that cut tax rates across the board, providing tax relief to virtually all taxpayers. Then in 2003, Congress expedited this relief so the benefit of lower rates would take effect more quickly. This resulted in one of the shortest and shallowest economic recessions yet on record. The economy grew for 25 straight quarters, making it the fourth longest period of economic expansion since 1930. Additionally, we had 47 straight months of private sector job gain.

Moreover, the expanding economy led to higher than expected revenues. That is a fact. Revenue actually rose in the years following the tax relief bill, peaking at 18.5 percent of GDP in 2007, well above the historical average of around 18 percent.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office projects that if we extended all the 2001 and 2003 tax relief today, revenues would once again exceed the historical average. Under this scenario, the CBO projects that by 2022 revenues will reach 18.5 percent of GDP.

From 2004 to 2007, the deficit also shrank from a high of $412 billion to a low of $160 billion. That means the budget deficit was cut by more than half in 3 years. Given the trillion dollar deficits we are experiencing under President Obama, a deficit below $200 billion would be very welcome news. Yet CBO projects that even if all the tax increases in President Obama's budget were enacted, deficits would never drop below $500 billion in the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022.

I will give President Obama credit when he says he took office in very tough economic times. The bursting of the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis gave him a very high hill to climb, but any assertion the 2001 and 2003 tax relief is related to these events is without merit. There is plenty of blame to go around for the housing bubble. It was the culmination of housing policies spanning administrations of both parties. It was further fueled by the Federal Reserve providing historically low interest rates and cheap credit.

However, the President's policies have failed at getting us out of this mess. The President's party passed the President's nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. He claimed this would keep the unemployment rate below 8 percent. However, the unemployment climbed to a high of 10.1 percent and has never dropped below 8 percent during his almost 4 years in office.

The President's party also passed the health care bill, which the President sold as a job creator, and the financial reform bill that was supposed to fix our financial system. However, both of these bills, which the President signed, have actually turned out to be costly to our economy and a hindrance to job creation.

Now President Obama appears ready to gamble with the economy. He appears to go all in on raising taxes on our Nation's job creators. In doing so, he is betting that raising taxes on the so-called wealthy will result in a political payoff exceeding the chance his actions will throw us back into recession. It is not so long ago that I remember the President saying what I have already referred to in this speech: ``You don't raise taxes in a recession.'' The President's statement is as true now it was then.

Let's end the political theater of holding votes for the purpose of campaign ads. Let's instead actually do what the people sent us here to do. Let us not drive the American economy head long off the fiscal cliff.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, rather than doing the usual thing and reserving the right to object, I will object, and then I would appreciate the courtesy, before I offer a parallel UC, to make my remarks.

Madam President, I am going to make a unanimous consent request dealing with the same subject.

Before I do that, I am astounded that it took 100 days for the majority to decide that the bill they wanted to send to the House would be blue-slipped because they kept saying it really wasn't subject to a blue slip. Obviously, the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to make that decision, and they made the decision that the fee in this bill would keep it from being accepted by the House of Representatives.

They have obviously overcome that problem. But they have not overcome some other problems with the legislation. My reason for objecting for people on my side who voted against this bill is because of some unconstitutional provisions that it contains, and issues that don't have to be brought up to guarantee there is adequate legislation for fighting violence against women.

By the way, I believe this act, which has been on the books for more than a decade and a half, is going to be carried on. So there is not going to be a situation where, whether or not we go through this process, there is not going to be legislation protecting women on the books. It is just a question whether it will be expanded in a way that was intended to make the bill controversial so, presumably, it could be made a political issue in an election year.

What bothers me about this whole process--besides the fact it has taken 100 days to get to the point of offering it for conference--is it fits into a pattern of doing things at the last minute. We are 2 days away from a recess, and this is brought up at this particular time. I have to ask why. Why not sometime during the last 100 days?

I also see a pattern of this maneuver fitting into the maneuvers that have been going on ever since, I believe, the spring break we had in the Senate. Ever since then--as reported in an article published in the newspaper we know as Politico a couple of months ago about a strategy between the White House reelection effort and things that go on in the Senate--we seem to have a crisis every week.

We came back from the spring break, and we had the Buffett tax rule. That was carried on for a week. Everybody knew that wasn't going to pass, but we wasted a whole week on the Buffett tax rule.

Then this issue was brought up before and passed about that time as part of a strategy of having a war on women come up as an issue. That ended in this legislation being passed through the Senate but in a way where everybody knew it wasn't going to get through the House of Representatives. But it was a very convenient political issue.

Later on, we had the equal wages for women legislation that came up for about a week. Once again, everybody knew that wasn't going to go anyplace, but it was debated in this assembly, taking up time from a lot of important issues that ought to be dealt with--the economy and creating jobs. We spent a week on that.

Then we spent a week on taxing the rich, and everybody knew that wasn't going to go anywhere.

I think we spent a month on interest rates on student loans. Everybody knew there was a bipartisan solution to that, but nobody wanted to go there until the President had a whole month of going to university campuses to blame Republicans for not passing a bill that would keep interest rates low on student loans.

Then we spent last week on the DISCLOSE Act. Everybody knew that wasn't going to go anyplace.

So we have had a whole spring and summer in this body of accomplishing nothing because there is a strategy between the White House and the leadership of the Senate to help this President get reelected. And to keep away from issues the people of this country are concerned about, which are the economy and creating jobs and the fact that this White House and this Senate aren't going to do anything to work through those issues.

Here in the Senate it is an issue of politics and not an issue of process. I think the American people know the games being played, and they are sick and tired of it.

So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 406, H.R. 4970, the House-passed Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; provided further that all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of the Senate-passed violence against women bill, S. 1925, with a modification that strikes sections 805 and 810 related to the immigration provisions; that the bill be read three times and passed, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate with a ratio agreed to by both leaders.

Mr. President, over the last few days we have been lectured numerous times that we must protect cyber critical infrastructure; otherwise, our country is in jeopardy. Everybody agrees with that statement. Enhancing cyber security is important to our national security. I support efforts to strengthen our Nation against critical cyber attacks.

However, I take issue with those who have come to the floor and argued that those who don't support this bill are against strengthening our Nation's cyber security. Disagreements over how to address policy matters shouldn't evolve into accusations about a Member's willingness to tackle tough issues. The debate over cyber security legislation has turned from a substantive analysis of the merits into a political blame game as to which side supports defending our Nation more. If we want to tackle big issues such as cyber security, we need to rise above disagreements and work in a constructive manner. Disagreements over policy should be openly and freely debated.

Unfortunately, this isn't how the debate on cyber security proceeded. Instead, before a real debate began, the majority leader cut that debate off. As the discussion of cyber security began on the floor this week, Senators stated that a failure to grant broad new powers to the Federal Government will lead to a cyber 9/11. I agree that if we fail to take action on cyber security, there could be a national security consequence. However, I don't believe giving the Federal Government more regulatory authority over business and industry, as supporters of this bill propose, is the answer to strengthening cyber security.

Chief among my concerns with the pending bill is the role played by the Department of Homeland Security. These concerns stem from oversight that I have conducted on the implementation of a law called the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Standards Program. That acronym would be CFATS. CFATS was the Department's first major foray into regulation of the chemical sector.

The Department of Homeland Security spent nearly $\1/2\ billion on that program. Now, 5 years later, they have just begun to approve site security plans for the more than 4,000 facilities designated under the rule.

I have continued to conduct oversight on this matter. Despite assurances from the Department of Homeland Security that they fixed all the problems with CFATS, I keep discovering more problems. So now I am baffled why we would take an agency that has proven problems with overseeing a critical infrastructure and give them chief responsibility for our country's cyber security.

Additionally, I am concerned with provisions that restrict the way information is shared. The restrictions imposed under title VII of the bill are a step backward from other information-sharing proposals. This includes the bill I have cosponsored, the SECURE IT bill. The bill before us places the Department of Homeland Security in the role of gatekeeper of cyber threat information. The bill calls for the Department of Homeland Security to share the information in ``as close to real time as possible'' with other agencies. However, this surely will create a bottleneck for information coming into the government.

Further, title VII includes restrictions on what types of information can be shared, limiting the use of it for criminal prosecution, except those that cause imminent harm.

This is exactly the type of restriction on information sharing that the 9/11 Commission warned us about. In fact, the 9/11 Commission said, ``the [wall] resulted in far less information sharing and coordination.'' The 9/11 Commission further added, ``the removal of the wall that existed before 9/11 between intelligence and law enforcement has opened up new opportunities for cooperative action.''

Why would we even consider legislation that could rebuild these walls that threaten our national security? How much of a real debate have we had on those issues I have raised? The lack of a real process in the Senate on this very bill amplifies my substantive concerns.

In fact, this is eerily reminiscent of the debate surrounding the health care reform bill. During that time, then-Speaker of the House Pelosi declared, ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'' Well, we all know how well that worked out. Years of litigation later, the public is still learning what surprises the majority and President Obama had in store for the Nation's health care system.

Now here we are, once again, in the last week before our August summer break, tackling a serious problem that hasn't been given full process.

I do not want cyber security legislation to become another health care reform bill. If we are serious about our

Nation's security, then shouldn't we treat it as serious as it really is? We all agree how serious it is.

We are told that the Senate has been working on cyber security for 3 to 5 years. However, we have not been working on this bill before us for that long. The bill before us was introduced 13 days ago, and it was only pending on the floor for 4 days before the motion for cloture was filed. It did not go through the normal committee process. It was not debated or amended. Instead, it was brought straight to the floor, and we are being forced to consider it under a very rushed schedule.

Talking about the danger of cyber attacks for years is not the same as discussing the impact of the actual text of the bill which could become law. The words on the 212 pages of the bill are what must be analyzed, and analyzed in detail.

In fact, no one, except a handful of Senators, actually knows what the bill says or might say. And, of course, that is a process that debate in the U.S. Senate accomplishes or at least tries to accomplish.

We need full process and, unfortunately, that has not happened, and it does not look as if it will happen. Why won't it happen? Because the majority leader has limited debate. This week we were told that a group of Senators and their staff were working on a compromise.

Again, that is something all of us as a body do not know much about. We need an open debate in order to process this, as opposed to huddled, backroom meetings.

I do not think this is the way we are supposed to legislate. The people who elected us expect more. They expect transparency because they know when you get transparency, you have accountability.

How many Senators are prepared to vote on something this important without knowing its impact because we have not followed regular order? Are we to once again pass a bill so that the American public can then, at that time, find out what is in it a la Speaker Pelosi's statement on health care reform?

These are questions that all Senators should consider. And our citizens should know in advance what we are actually considering.

Yesterday, we heard claims that the amendments offered by Republicans were part of some obstructionist tactic. Why isn't the same statement made about the 77 or so amendments filed by Democrats? Somehow, are they acceptable and not obstructionist?

I had three amendments that addressed specific provisions in the bill, and I wanted to have a debate on them.

For example, I have an amendment to strike the provision in the bill that creates a cause of action against the Federal Government. What does that cause of action do? That provision waives sovereign immunity, provides for automatic damages, and provides for an award of attorney's fees.

This provision is, obviously, a gift to the trial lawyers lobby, which American taxpayers should not have to pay for. And I do not think class action lawsuits against the government will help with cyber security.

Another amendment of mine would have removed industry-specific carve- outs from the bill. This is another example of how backroom deal making takes place so as to get support and build support for a bill. We saw this happen with the health care reform bill. You know the famous ``Cornhusker Kickback'' that was agreed to in order to pass ObamaCare, and this process reminds me of that.

Here, to get support from companies in the information technology industry, the bill clearly states those companies cannot be identified as critical cyber infrastructure. So to build support for this bill-- but without people knowing what is in the bill--the authors carved out these companies from having to comply with the bill.

For example, under this carve-out, say an information technology company builds a router that has a flaw that is exploited by hackers. That router is purchased by every sector of the critical infrastructure, including power, water, and probably a lot of others that I ought to be able to name.

If that router flaw is exploited, and if that is attacked, the companies that bought the router are held responsible. However, the company that made the faulty router is not.

It is obvious how absurd this is. It is obvious how much of a major giveaway to a key industry it is, just to give the appearance of private sector support. This is not how we should handle cyber security, and I have an amendment to strike this provision. We should openly debate this issue and discuss whether this is the right course of action to give a carve-out to a specific segment of industry.

Again, the carve-out was a deal cut with one purpose: to limit opposition to the bill. Well, that was not good policy in 2009 on the ``Cornhusker Kickback'' in the health care reform debate, and we should learn from that lesson that it is, obviously, not good policy in 2012.

I also know that Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin had an amendment that the Congressional Budget Office issued a score on the cost of the bill before it could take effect.

Why were the supporters of the bill opposed to doing that? Do they believe they have a right to spend millions or billions of taxpayers' dollars at will without making the amount public? Are the supporters of the bill really prepared to vote for this bill without revealing how much it will cost?

But I will not get a chance to debate my amendments or Senator Johnson's amendment before the cloture vote because that is how the majority leader runs the U.S. Senate.

There are serious questions about this bill. It needs to be amended. We need to discuss changes. Unfortunately, it does not look as though that is going to happen.

I know some will, again, say that this has been a long process. The only thing true about that statement is that the issue and problem has been discussed for a long time--but not discussed for a long time on this bill.

If we are serious about addressing this problem, then let's deal with it appropriately. Rushing something through that will impact the country in such a massive way is not the way the most deliberative body in the world, the U.S. Senate, should do its business. It is not good for the country, and it is, obviously, not good for the reputation of the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on June 27, I provided notice of my intent to object to proceeding to the nominations of Mark J. Mazur, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and Matthew S. Rutherford, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. My support for the final confirmation of these nominees depended on receiving information from both the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service regarding their implementation of the tax whistleblower program. Since I have received the responses, I no longer object to proceeding to these nominations.

The IRS is making progress in paying whistleblower awards under the old statute over 90 awards paid from October 1, 2011, until now. However, I want to make clear that the responses do not alleviate my concerns about these agencies' implementation of changes to the tax whistleblower statute I authored almost 6 years ago. Regulations to implement the new reward program have yet to be issued and only a handful of awards are expected to be paid out before the end of this year.

I began asking questions about the program's implementation in 2010. I wrote again in 2011 and then again on April 30 of this year. Unfortunately, I did not get complete answers until I objected to proceeding to the nominations of Mr. Mazur and Mr. Rutherford.

If I hadn't objected to proceeding to these nominations, Congress would not have received the most recent annual report on the whistleblower program that is mandated by law. It was provided to Congress on June 13, 2012, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011. That is almost 9 months from the end of the year for which it contains data.

If I hadn't objected to proceeding to these nominations, the IRS likely would not have acknowledged that there is, in fact, a problem with timely processing whistleblower claims. IRS Deputy Commissioner Miller's June 20, 2012, directive to IRS executives and

senior managers is a good first step toward correcting this problem.

However, more needs to be done. IRS still has not committed to prioritizing claims raised by whistleblowers. In addition, the important protections afforded to taxpayers, including the right to appeal IRS decisions, delay IRS from actually collecting the taxes for years and, as the law is currently written, the taxes must be collected first before a whistleblower can be paid any money.

From my long history of oversight of the IRS, I know that it is essential that taxpayers be protected from sometimes overeager IRS employees. Yet there must be a way to ensure that the process and procedures that exist to protect taxpayers don't deter whistleblowers from coming forward. The Treasury Department and the IRS have agreed to participate in a roundtable discussion that I hope will help identify solutions.

It is unfortunate that objecting to these nominees, both of whom were approved by the Finance Committee by unanimous, bipartisan votes, was the only way I could get information about the whistleblower program. At least there is now more information than ever before about the IRS whistleblower program.

Mr. President, it is my privilege to introduce Pastor John Fuller to my fellow Senators, and I thank Pastor Fuller for opening the Senate with prayer. It is my privilege to highlight my home pastor and church.

Pastor Fuller and his wife Kay are visiting the Nation's Capital this week.

Since 1998 Pastor Fuller has been the senior pastor at Prairie Lakes Church in Cedar Falls, IA. Pastor Fuller is a native of Iowa. He was born in Onawa and grew up in Sloan. His family moved to Sheridan, WY, when he was in the eighth grade. He graduated from high school in Sheridan. He played both high school and college football. He is to this day obviously a die-hard Broncos fan. You won't know that, but I sure know it. He is a 1986 graduate of the University of Sioux Falls and a 1990 graduate of Denver Seminary with a master's of divinity degree.

He was an associate and preaching pastor at First Baptist Church in Forest City, IA, before coming to Cedar Falls in 1998, to Prairie Lakes Church, and has been senior pastor. I have been worshipping at Prairie Lakes Church for 58 years come this August 29. The church has changed its name and increased its congregation over the years, but its heart has remained the same and very constant.

In 1855 a small group known as the Baptist Society started this church. In 1862 it became the First Baptist Church. The first 45 years that I worshipped at First Baptist Church, at various times the congregation numbered 200 to 300 people. Under Pastor Fuller's leadership, the number of worshipers has grown to about 2,000, with worship centers in Osage, Waterloo, and soon in Grennell, IA, besides the main campus in Cedar Falls, IA. In 2005 a new building was constructed, and the name of the congregation then became Prairie Lakes Church.

The worship service is very informal. That has changed in the 58 years I have attended there, but the service has always been Christ- centered, and that has not changed. Prairie Lakes Church

is multigenerational, with an extraordinary vision for the future. Worship services are heartfelt, creative, practical, Bible-based, and here to serve Christ and here to serve all--those who just stepped over the faith line as well as those who have been longtime followers of Jesus Christ.

Prairie Lakes Church is affiliated with the Baptist General Conference. Prairie Lakes Church is all about loving God, loving people, and influencing the world. Everyone is invited to worship with us--including anybody here in Washington, DC--through streaming online at prairielakeschurch.org.

In closing, I would remind all, according to the Scriptures, in Corinthians, we are all called to be ambassadors of Christ, and that is how I see Pastor Fuller.

I am also grateful to Pastor Fuller for his leadership and faithfulness to this congregation. After 58 years, in my looking back, I know God's word has been preached faithfully at this congregation. Pastor Fuller has contributed significantly during his tenure and continues to do so.

This is what Pastor Fuller had to say about our church:

There are a lot of good churches around the valley. We're

lucky to have that. I think people get attracted here because

we just stick with the Bible. We're authentic. We're

invitational, and we try to keep things simple.

These attributes have attracted many, and I believe they will continue to attract many more and the church will continue to grow.

Lastly, I pray that God will continue to shine His light through Pastor Fuller, his family, and the Prairie Lakes congregation. It is my privilege once again to introduce Pastor Fuller to this Senate.

I yield the floor.

I didn't come to the floor to speak about the farm bill because I did that yesterday. I want to assure the Senator from Colorado that I listened to everything he said, and I agree with him. That was my plea in maybe a little broader context yesterday in asking that the House of Representatives take up the bill. Also, the House brags, legitimately so, about being fiscally conservative, so I agree with what the Senator from Colorado said. This may be the only opportunity--presumably the only opportunity--to pass a farm bill or any bill that saves money from previous programs of previous years. I compliment the Senator from Colorado.

Freedom of Speech

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss what I consider a disturbing trend that is occurring in this country. A vicious attack is underway on the right to freedom of speech that is protected by the first amendment. It needs to be highlighted, and hopefully it will stop. Free speech is one of the most important rights that Americans enjoy.

Speech on public issues is the way democracy discusses and debates the important questions of the day. Many great political movements in this country's history depended upon this first amendment right, freedom of speech. Even when Martin Luther King was jailed and his supporters subjected to violence, free speech enabled him to change the views and practices of an entire nation. Today too many government officials seek to shut up people who disagree with them rather than debate those people and debate those issues.

There have been a series of recent incidents to which I want to refer. Consider recently that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the past month has held two hearings that prove my point. A hearing was held on a bill that would criminalize supposedly deceptive statements in advance of elections. It would allow the government to criminalize political speech based on its content. It would risk government selectively choosing to prosecute its political opponents. t would allow political candidates to make accusations against their political opponents. So it would chill candidates from speaking.

A few days after our hearing, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Alvarez case confirmed all the free speech problems with that bill. But even after that decision, the Justice Department, to my disappointment, issued a letter in support of the bill. That letter made no mention of any first amendment considerations. I have heard no indication that the committee will not mark up this bill which represents a grave threat to freedom of speech.

This week, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the legislative responses to the Citizens United case. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment's free speech guarantee protects the rights of corporations and unions to make independent expenditures in support of candidates or on any particular policy issue that they want to speak out on. The ruling has no effect on campaign contributions. There are proposals in this body to amend the Bill of Rights, the first amendment, for the very first time, to allow the government to limit how much candidates can spend on speech and, therefore, the amount of speech that the government will permit. And there are proposed constitutional amendments to prevent corporations and labor unions from spending in elections. To me, this is very serious business that we ought to be raising a red flag about.

It is worth remembering what rule the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to adopt in Citizens United. The Justice Department argued that the government should be able to ban books that contained even one sentence that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate if those books were published or distributed by a corporation or a union. This administration argued in favor of banning books. In light of the practice of totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, this administration's position on free speech is very astonishing. The Supreme Court quite rightly rejected the argument of the administration on that particular point.

It reminded the news media, which is organized in corporate form for the most part, that the exemption from campaign finance laws is by statute, and one which Congress could remove at any time, threatening freedom of the press. If that were to happen and the Constitution were to allow restrictions on corporate independent expenditures, the guarantee of freedom of the press would be as threatened as freedom of speech.

Then there is another situation, and this deals with the restaurant chain of Chick-fil-A. The owner of that chain is a Christian who has spoken in favor of the value of traditional marriage. The chain has not discriminated against anyone so far as has been reported. The restaurant seeks to expand in Boston and Chicago where presumably it would create new jobs, and in order to get there, it has to meet the permit requirements. However, Mayor Menino of Boston wrote a letter to the company president. He said that because of the owner's ``prejudice statements,'' there would be no place in Boston for the discrimination the company represented. The mayor notified the property owners where the restaurant was to open of his views.

In Chicago, an alderman seeks to deny Chick-fil-A from opening in his ward for the same reason. It is reported that President Obama's former Chief of Staff, now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, is sympathetic to the alderman's point of view.

Once again, this is a gross violation of first amendment free speech. Government cannot deny a benefit to someone because it disagrees with the applicant's views. This is the fundamental principle of our constitutional democracy.

Voicing support for traditional marriage is not discrimination. That speech is not hate speech. Even if it were, the first amendment protects speech that is unpopular with the government. There is no constitutional speech code that allows banning a hate speech any more than government can ban speech in books.

Finally, the Alvarez decision a few weeks ago affects another first amendment issue pending before this body right now. In the Alvarez case, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act which criminalizes lies concerning winning military medals. It did

so on free speech grounds. I know many of my colleagues desire to pass a new law that will accomplish that goal, and if that law is constitutional, I will probably join them in that effort.

Two bills on this subject are now pending in the Senate. Senator Brown of Massachusetts introduced the first bill and then Senator Webb did so after the Alvarez decision. There have been efforts to pass both bills by voice vote.

When the Republicans were asked to move the Webb bill, we were told that all Democrats supported the bill. This is a problem. The Webb bill is clearly unconstitutional based upon the Alvarez decision. It criminalizes some lies about medals that the Supreme Court says Congress cannot criminalize.

For instance, it would prohibit lies in campaigns and in employment, even when those lies would not produce the tangible, material benefit that is necessary to punish them. Yet no Democrat objected to passing the bill without debate. Of course, Republicans could not agree to such a request.

Since he did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court decision when Senator Brown wrote the bill, right now, because of the decision, and he didn't know about it, Senator Brown's bill is also unconstitutional. The difference between his bill and Senator Webb's bill, however, is that Senator Brown now has a substitute amendment that seems to address the problem in a fully constitutional way. But although Democrats want to pass without debate a clearly unconstitutional bill, somehow they object to a clearly constitutional Brown bill.

These games should stop. I am sure all the Members of this body should be willing to support a single constitutional bill that would reenact the prohibition on lying about whether one is entitled to certain military medals.

In short, this country is facing a disturbing increase in government actions that violate the freedom of speech. That is a vital right of our democracy.

Anyone can stand up for speech with which they agree. The test for government officials and the test for free speech is whether they will allow speech with which they might disagree. They may criticize speech, debate the speech, and seek to change minds. But shutting people up, denying them benefits, passing bills that would put people in jail for exercising free speech rights--these are never allowable under our Constitution. It is time for elected officials to pay greater heed to the oath to support the Constitution.

Report by Former FBI Director William Webster on Fort Hood Attack

Recently, former FBI Director William Webster was asked to investigate how the FBI performed regarding the attack at Fort Hood by MAJ Nidal Hasan.

Major Hasan's attack killed 12 U.S. soldiers, a Defense Department employee, and wounded 42 others. Following the attack, the FBI conducted an internal review and determined that it had information on Major Hasan prior to that attack. As a result, the FBI Director asked Judge Webster to conduct an independent review and investigation of the FBI's handling of the matter. In short, Judge Webster's commission found that the FBI made mistakes that resulted from a number of problems--some operational, some technological.

Some of these mistakes are extremely concerning given that they are basic management failures. For example, the unclassified report states:

Many agents and most [task force officers] did not receive

training on [FBI computer systems] and other FBI databases

until after the FBI's internal investigation of the Fort Hood

shootings.

This is clearly unacceptable.

Other problems highlighted include failing to issue Intelligence Information Reports on Major Hasan to the Defense Department; confusion about which FBI office was investigating the lead; failure to interview Major Hasan; along with information technology limitations.

All in all, the Webster report paints a disturbing picture of the FBI. It shows lack of training, failure to follow leads, and continued computer problems. These are the types of problems that, quite frankly, we thought were corrected following the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Ultimately, Judge Webster issued 18 recommendations for the FBI to implement to prevent future problems such as these. The FBI agreed with these recommendations and has stated they will take action to implement those recommendations.

That is good news, of course. The FBI must implement these recommendations and do it immediately. However, we have a duty to make sure the FBI implements these recommendations and holds people accountable--in fact, hold the FBI accountable--if they don't. The FBI's failure in this case is inexcusable and shakes public confidence in the FBI's ability to combat homegrown terrorism. Basic management problems and investigative failures can't happen, particularly if national security is at stake. If failures of this magnitude occur on high profile national security cases, it makes one wonder what the FBI is doing on other investigations.

Those responsible for these failures should be held accountable. I intend to follow up with Director Mueller to determine what action was taken against those people who didn't do the job in the right and correct way.

Justice Department Inspector General Report

One more report that can't go ignored is a report released this morning by the Justice Department Office of Inspector General. This report examined improper hiring practices within the Justice Department's Justice Management Division. Shockingly, the inspector general found the Justice Department employees openly and flagrantly violated Federal law.

Let me repeat that these employees violated Federal law and the Department of Justice regulations prohibiting employment of relatives, granting illegal preferences in employment, conflict of interest, and misuse of position. Further, employees who were interviewed by the Office of Inspector General were also found to have made false statements to investigators.

This is an example of the Justice Department run wild. It is troubling to me how employees within the Department colluded and schemed to hire one another's relatives in order to avoid rules against nepotism. It is inexcusable, and I can assure my colleagues that we will be looking into this matter.

This wasn't a one-time event, by the way. In fact, the Office of Inspector General pointed out that similar problems existed in 2008. Despite what the Department called ``aggressive action'' to stop this type of behavior back in 2008, it appears nothing has changed.

At the very least, the Attorney General needs to hold these employees accountable with more than just disciplinary action. Laws were broken and false statements were made. The Department can't simply sweep this under the rug. Employees need to be punished because in this town, if heads don't roll, nothing changes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate passed a farm bill a few weeks ago--a pretty good farm bill. The House Agriculture Committee has reported out of its committee a farm bill, and now the discussion of whether we have a farm bill is a decision to be made by the leadership of the House, of whether a farm bill should come up. So I wish to speak about the necessity of a farm and nutrition bill being passed.

It is called a farm and nutrition bill because about 80 percent of a farm bill's expenditures are related to the food stamp program. If we can get this bill completed and to the President's desk, it will be the eighth farm bill I have had a chance to participate in.

Every 5 years or so, Congress debates, changes, argues over, and ultimately passes a farm and nutrition bill--not always of that title but pretty much of that content. This time should be no different. We need to get the job done. I understand there are folks who want to see more cuts here or there, and there are folks who want to spend more here or there. Those are very important discussions to have. We should have a healthy debate on how to tweak, reform, and reshape the policies in the bill, whether it is in regard to programs affecting farmers or the portion of the bill that receives the overwhelming share of the dollars, as I said, the nutrition title.

We had those debates in the Senate Agriculture Committee. We had those debates on the Senate floor. The House Agriculture Committee has had those debates. Now I hope their product can be brought up on the Senate floor. In fact, I am more than happy to debate these various issues with some of my friends on the House Agriculture Committee--why setting high target prices, as they did, is the wrong direction for Congress to take and how the House should adopt the payment limit reforms the Senate has embraced, provisions of the farm bill in the Senate that I got included. I am sure many on the House Agriculture Committee would be more than happy to debate with me the merits of having a more balanced approach to where we find savings in the bill by taking an equal portion from the nutrition title and the farm-related titles. We should find more savings for sure than what is contained in the Senate-passed farm bill, including saving more out of the nutrition title, as the House Agriculture Committee has been able to do.

But the fact is we have to keep moving the ball forward, regardless of how we feel about all these separate parts of a farm bill. We need to get to finality. We have a drought gripping this Nation and that is going to be tough on Americans. It is going to affect every American, not just the 2 percent of the people who are farmers, because it is going to cause food prices to go up. But the drought has drawn into focus just how important our farmers are to our food supply.

Americans enjoy a safe and abundant food supply. That is because of the hard work and dedication of so many farming families throughout our country. Sometimes weather conditions or other events outside farmers' control can make it difficult to keep farming. Farmers aren't looking for a handout, but when faced with conditions such as a near-historic drought, many farmers may need assistance to get through. Men and women go into farming for all sorts of reasons, but at the heart of farming is the desire to be successful at producing an abundant crop to feed the Nation and the world.

Farmers have many tools to manage their risks so they can keep producing food. They have adopted advanced

technology such as drought-resistant crops. Farmers buy crop insurance. In my State of Iowa, about 92 percent of the farmers have crop insurance. Livestock farmers help animals manage heat by building climate-controlled buildings. But when faced with weather conditions such as we are currently dealing with, even the best laid plans may not keep the farming operation afloat. That is where the Federal Government comes in. We help provide a safety net.

Let me say just how that drought affects crops. I just read in the newspaper something put out by some government agency that said about 55 percent of the landmass of the United States is in a drought condition right now. In my State of Iowa and many other Midwestern States, on an average of about 22 years, we face drought situations that are catastrophic for crops. Actually, the last one was in 1988, so now we are having one in my State of Iowa and that is 24 years. But, on average, it happens about that long. So we see the need for something that is beyond farmers' control. We can't do anything if it doesn't rain when it is supposed to rain, and right now is one of those most important times when crops need rain. So why do we provide the safety net? Because the American people understand how important the production of food is to our food supply and farmers doing that production.

It is a matter of national security. It has been said we are only nine meals away from a revolution. If people were without food, this argument goes, they would do whatever it takes to get food for themselves and their families. It has only been 3 years, I believe, in some places in the world where they had riots that were national problems--not just local problems but national problems--because of a shortage of rice. That is a staple in many countries; I suppose particularly of Asia. So we have to have a stable food supply if we are not going to have social upheaval.

The need for food can also be illustrated by looking at military history. In other words, a food supply is very important for our national security. It may be a joke, but Napoleon supposedly said ``an army marches on its stomachs.'' But we also know from modern history, if we consider World War II on this very day, 60 or 70 years after World War II, why the Japanese and the Germans protect their farmers so much with safety nets of various sorts. Because they know what it was like during wartime not to have adequate food as a part of national security. A well-fed military is one ready to fight and to defend.

There is nothing more basic than making sure the Nation's food supply is secure, whether it is to prevent social upheaval or for our national security or maybe for a lot of other reasons. In order to have stability in our food system, we need to have the safety net available to assist farmers through the tough times so they can keep producing food.

I have not always agreed with the policies set in each and every farm bill Congress has passed--of the eight I have been involved in. In fact, there have been times in which I voted against individual farm bills because I didn't agree with the policy being set. However, I support, to a large extent, what we accomplished in the Senate-passed farm bill last month. Obviously, I didn't agree with everything, particularly with the lack of savings we captured from the nutrition title. But, for the most part, we passed a bill that embraced real reform in the farm program that still provides an effective safety net.

Whether it is the Senate bill that cut back $23 billion from the present farm program or whether it is the House bill that seems to cut back $35 billion, I will bet this is the only piece of legislation that can possibly get to the President's desk this year that is going to save money rather than if it had just been simply extended. I would think people who want to set a record of fiscal conservatism for the upcoming election would be very anxious to take up a bill the Congressional Budget Office says saves either $23 billion or $35 billion.

So I say mostly to the other body, because right now that is where the action is and where we hope it will take place, we should not delay any longer. The farm bill is too important to all Americans to leave it in limbo. We need to get a farm bill to the President. The farm bill is approximately 80 percent nutrition programs. Most of the people who benefit are not farmers. Then, the other 20 percent is a safety net for farmers but also for all the programs the Department of Agriculture administers.

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

Mr. President, I wish to express my support for S. 285, a private relief bill for Soptuuchi ``Victor'' Chukwueke.

Mr. Chukwueke has a compelling story. He has suffered a serious medical condition, was abandoned by his parents, and was brought to the U.S. at a young age. He has endured several surgeries as a result of his serious medical condition, and has overcome many barriers to get where he is today.

Despite his personal story and achievements, members of the Judiciary Committee were informed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that he was an orphan and had no family in the U.S. or in Nigeria, his home country. We were led to believe that he had no family because that is how he represented himself during interviews with Federal agents. We found out later, however, that he still had a mother and father, and six siblings in Nigeria. Upon learning of this discrepancy, I immediately asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement to clear up these conflicting statements, and to provide any other background information or paper in his files, including interview notes to understand the line of questioning that took place between ICE and Mr. Chukwueke. ICE rejected sharing the file with members of the Judiciary Committee. After weeks of a standstill, ICE agreed to show committee staff what was in his alien file. The file was helpful because we could review interview notes, visa applications, pictures, and other notes on Mr. Chukwueke.

Upon completing the review of the file, committee staff held a conference call with Mr. Chukwueke. During that interview, Mr. Chukwueke stated that he told investigators that he believed he was an orphan and that he had no intention of lying. For the record, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the sworn affidavit that was provided by Mr. Chukwueke to ICE and to members of the Judiciary committee.

The committee reported S. 285 out of committee on July 19. The committee-reported bill includes a provision that prohibits Mr. Chukwueke from using his status to sponsor immediate family for benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The language in my amendment is identical to language used in other private relief bills. Similar language was included in bills in 1999 and 2000. Senator Levin, the sponsor of this private relief bill, supported the amendment.

We always consider private relief bills on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Mr. Chukwueke, we were told that he did not have parents or family in the U.S. or in Nigeria. It turned out that was not the case. Those statements were inaccurate. He says he did not mean to mislead ICE agents about his family, but the fact is that he did. He did not tell the whole truth.

As I said, in previous private relief bills, we have excluded private bill recipients from sponsoring immediate family members. That is not to say that the family members are barred from ever entering the country. It simply means they cannot use the private bill recipient's special status to provide them a benefit or to gain derivative status.

There are many worthwhile people who want to come or remain in the United States. However, there are bad actors and people who will perpetuate fraud in order to do so. People will go to great lengths to come to the United States. We need to be worried about individuals who will take advantage of our open door policies and manipulate the system to get a benefit. We need to be watchful for potential fraud and abuse of the system.

If S. 285 passes the House and is sent to the President, Mr. Chukwueke may be able to attend medical school in the fall. He has the support of many upstanding individuals, including Senator

Levin. Mr. chukwueke is also supported by a number of people in his community. We received letters of recommendation from Wayne State University and the Daughters of Mary Mother of Mercy.

I wish Mr. Chukwueke the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Exhibit #1

Affidavit of Sopuruchi Victor Chukwueke

I, Sopuruchi Victor Chukwueke, swear under penalty of

perjury that the following is true and accurate to the best

of my knowledge and belief:

1. My name is Sopuruchi Victor Chukwueke. I write this

statement in support of S.B. 285, a private bill introduced

on my behalf by U.S. Senator Carl Levin.

2. I was born in Nigeria on February 10, 1986. During my

early childhood, I developed a benign tumor caused by

Neurofibromatosis, which grew on my frontal and right facial

area, subsequently resulting in a very significant facial

deformity.

3. My mother took me to different hospitals for treatment

but we were unable to find a facility or surgeon to treat my

condition. At some point, she heard of a Catholic nun called

Rev. Mother Paul Offiah who ran a handicap (orphanage) center

for orphans, abandoned and neglected disabled children. The

name of the center is called St. Vincent de Paul Handicap

Center located in Umuahia, Abia, Nigeria. My mother took me

there, explained the situation to Mother Offiah, and left me.

I do not remember how old I was at that point, but I felt

abandoned.

4. Rev. Mother Paul Offiah took me in, fed and clothed me

and became my sole parental figure, offering both emotional

and financial support. My mother kept in contact with Mother

Paul Offiah and came a few times to visit me at the center. I

spent all my time there and Mother Paul Offiah started making

arrangements for me to come to United States for life-saving

treatment.

5. Dr. Ian Jackson at Providence Hospital in Michigan

agreed to perform the surgery free of charge. Several

generous Nigerians assisted with the effort to raise funds to

that I could travel to the U.S. for treatment.

6. On August 21, 2001, when I was 15, Mother Offiah brought

me to the United States on a B-2 visa and left me in the care

of Sister Immaculata Osueke and other nuns in Lansing,

Michigan. She then went back to Nigeria. I was authorized to

stay in the U.S. until August 29, 2002.

7. My application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status was

rejected twice, because I could not afford the visa fee at

the time. Also, the evidence submitted was signed by a

clinical social worker instead of a licensed physician. The

delay in filing for the third time was in part because I was

having surgery during that time. I had my second major

surgery on January 14, 2003. That period was a very difficult

and stressful time in my life, because I had to prepare for

surgery, undergo the painful surgery and post-operative

recovery, and at the same time worry about my visa status. I

was just 16 years old at the time.

8. In February 2003, my mother and father signed sworn

affidavits to give up their parental rights, so I could be

adopted here in the United States.

9. In November 2003, I began to study for the GED at home

while receiving treatment for Neurofibromatosis. In January

2004, I took the GED and passed it.

10. A few years later, in 2006, Mother Offiah died of a

brain tumor, leaving me with no parental figure in Nigeria

who could provide for and support me with my medical

condition.

11. In May 2006, I enrolled at the Oakland Community

College in Southfield, Michigan. My education was paid for by

a Catholic benefactor, Mr. Jerry Burns.

12. In August 2008, I graduated from Oakland Community

College with an AA in Science and in September 2008, I

transferred to Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan to

pursue a Bachelor's Degree.

13. I had been abandoned by my family in an orphanage in

Nigeria, and I felt I have no one to care for me there,

especially after Mother Paul Offiah passed away. As I grew up

in the United States and received medical treatment for my

condition, I realized that my mother knew she could not

provide for me and so she had entrusted me to the people who

could take care of me. I realized that she had done the right

thing at the time, given the circumstances. So I decided to

reach out to my family again, especially my mother.

14. Sister Immaculata Osueke reached out to other nuns at

the orphanage in Nigeria to get my mother's telephone number,

so that I could try to reconnect with my family.

15. I was chosen to give the commencement speech at the

Wayne State University graduation in 2011. Dr. Kenneth Honn,

my research professor, said that he want to bring my mother

to witness ``her son's graduation.'' He wrote an invitation

letter for my mother to come visit me, but all of the travel

arrangements were done by a Wayne State administrator, Mr.

Christopher Harris. With the help of Dr. Honn, Mr. Harris,

and Senator Levin's letter to the U.S. Consulate in Nigeria,

my mother came to visit me at my graduation from Wayne State

last year. It was the first time I had seen her in more than

ten years. She arrived a few hours before my graduation and

returned to Nigeria on May 16, 2011.

16. Since my arrival in Michigan in 2001, 1 have been in

and out of the hospital, and ahve had seven major surgeries

between 2002 and 2011 to remove the Neurofibromatosis and

reconstruct my face.

17. In November 2011, I applied and was accepted by the

University of Toledo, College of Medicine, conditioned on

receiving lawful permanent residence in the United States on

or before August 1, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

Sopurucki Victor Chukwueke.

Mr. President, when my colleagues come over to vote, I hope they will take note of a constituent of mine and wish him well.

Taylor Morris, a Navy wounded person from Afghanistan, who is an explosives expert, lost parts of four limbs. He is at the bottom of the escalator as you go to the subway. He is one of our wounded heroes, and I would like to have my colleagues recognize him.