Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it was a very sad weekend and will be for a long period of time in Aurora, CO. I heard the remarks of the majority and minority leaders today expressing condolence for the victims and their families. I wish to associate myself with those remarks and offer my condolences to all the people of Aurora but particularly to those who have deceased family members and those who are hospitalized because of this tragic event that happened there. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Michael A. Shipp to be U.S. district judge for the District of New Jersey, currently serving as a U.S. magistrate and coming out of committee on voice vote. I am not aware of any controversy regarding this nominee, and I expect he will be confirmed with an overwhelming vote. There has been a bit of discussion regarding whether the cloture vote that had been scheduled on today's nominee was some sort of escalation of Presidential election politics or an indication of a partisan fight over judicial confirmations. Those are raised as speculation or misreading what is happening in the Senate. The fact is that the cloture vote, which is now vitiated, had nothing to do with the judicial confirmation process in general or this nominee in particular. There is, unfortunately, an element of partisan gridlock that is affecting this nomination, but it is not because of a Republican desire to block this nominee or to shut down the Senate floor. Republicans, in fact, have been demanding more access to the Senate floor. That gridlock is the majority leader's tactics to block amendments on the Senate floor. Time after time the majority uses parliamentary procedure to prohibit amendments, block votes, and deny or limit debate. For example, last Thursday the Republican leader asked the majority leader if the anticipated business coming before the Senate, the Stabenow-Obama campaign tax bill, would be open for amendment. The majority leader responded that would be ``very doubtful.'' These actions, although they may be permitted by Senate rules, are contrary to the spirit of the Senate. Certainly we are far from being the world's greatest deliberative body at this time. So when a Senator who seeks a vote on his amendment is stymied time after time, it is not surprising that the Senator would use Senator rules and procedures to bring pressure on the majority leader for a vote--in other words, to do exactly what the Senate was set up under the Constitution to do. There is a bit of sad irony that Senators who are facing obstructionism are the ones who are labeled obstructionist when they are persistent in trying to bring a matter to a vote, which is customary in the Senate. Unfortunately, we are now seeing this obstructionism strategy creep into committee activity as well. Again, last Thursday the Judiciary Committee marked up an important national security bill. The bill was open to amendment but apparently only amendments the chairman agreed with. In the Judiciary Committee, we have a longstanding practice of voting up or down on difficult, controversial issues. What happened last week undermined the responsibility of the committee to debate and address important issues--in this case, national security. The Judiciary Committee is a forum for these debates. The bill that was on the agenda is one of the few vehicles that will likely be passed before the end of the year, so it was an important and appropriate vehicle for addressing such issues once the chairman opened the amendment process by adopting his own substitute amendment. Instead, the partisan gridlock, driven by the majority leader's tactics to block amendments on the Senate floor, has now spread to the committee level with made-up germaneness rules and tabling motions forced on amendments, some of which had received bipartisan support from members of the Judiciary Committee in the past. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Senate majority leadership wants to protect its members at every step of the legislative process from having to make difficult votes, and the majority leadership will employ any procedure it can to duck debates and to govern. Even as we turn to the 154th nominee of this President to be confirmed to the district or circuit courts, we continue to hear unsubstantiated charges of obstructionism. The fact is we have confirmed over 78 percent of President Obama's district nominees. At this point in his Presidency, 75 percent of President Bush's nominees had been confirmed. President Obama, in other words, is running ahead of President Bush on district confirmations as a percentage. I continue to hear some of my colleagues repeatedly ask the question: What is different about this President that he is to be treated differently than all of these other Presidents? I won't speculate as to any inference that might be intended by that question, but I can tell you that this President is not being treated differently than previous Presidents. By any objective measure, this President has been treated fairly and consistently with past Senate practices. As I stated, as a percentage of nominations, this President is running ahead of the previous President with regard to the number of confirmations. Let me put that in perspective for my colleagues with an apples-to-apples comparison. As I mentioned, we have confirmed 153 district and circuit nominees of this President. We have also confirmed two Supreme Court nominees. Everyone understands that the Supreme Court nominations take a great deal of committee time. The last time the Senate confirmed two Supreme Court nominees was during President Bush's second term, and during that term the Senate confirmed a total of 119 district and circuit court nominees. With Judge Shipp's confirmation today--which I support and which I think will be confirmed almost unanimously--we will have confirmed 35 more district and circuit court nominees for President Obama than we did for President Bush in similar circumstances. During the last Presidential election, 2008, the Senate confirmed a total of 28 judges--24 district and 4 circuit. This Presidential election year we have already exceeded those numbers. We have confirmed 5 circuit nominees, and this will be the 27th district judge confirmed. Judge Shipp received his B.S. from Rutgers University in 1987 and his J.D. from the Seton Hall University School of Law in 1994. Upon graduation, he clerked for the Honorable James H. Colman, Jr., a justice on the Supreme Court of New Jersey. After his clerkship, Judge Shipp joined Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP as a litigation associate. There, he worked in general litigation matters, handling labor and employment work. He also developed an expertise in mass tort law and products liability litigation. In 2003, Judge Shipp became an assistant attorney general in charge of consumer protection with the Department of Law and Public Safety of New Jersey. There, he managed five practice groups: consumer fraud prosecution, insurance fraud prosecution (civil), securities fraud prosecution, professional boards prosecution, and debt recovery. He supervised approximately 80 deputy attorneys general. In 2005, he was promoted to the Attorney General's front office. There, he acted as an advisor to the Attorney General on sensitive legal matters related to ethics and appointments. In 2007, Judge Shipp was appointed as a United States magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey. As a magistrate judge he presides over civil and criminal pre-trial proceedings. He also presides over civil trials, with the consent of the parties. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave Judge Shipp a rating of substantial majority ``Qualified,'' minority ``Not Qualified.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to have 1 minute, then, too.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for my 1 minute I will respond simply to that by saying that I am talking about the institution of the Senate and not one single Senator personally.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and service of SGT Michael E. Ristau, a native of Cascade, IA. He was killed on July 13, 2012 in Qalat, Zabul Province, Afghanistan while serving his country as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. He leaves behind his wife, Elizabeth, two sons, Hyle and Bradley, his parents, Randy and Suzanne, and many other family and friends. My prayers go out to them as they grieve his loss. By all accounts, he was a brave soldier who was proud of serving his country. He had a long list of awards and decorations, including the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, with Oak Leaf Cluster, National Defense Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, with Bronze Service Star, Iraq Campaign Medal, with two Bronze Service Stars, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, NATO Medal, Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Valorous Unit Award, Meritorious Unit Commendation, and Combat Infantryman Badge. Our Nation is truly blessed to have patriots like Sergeant Ristau who volunteer to serve their country, prepared to endure the daily sacrifices of a deployment and the horrors of combat, and knowing that they could make the ultimate sacrifice. About his military service, his family said, ``Michael had a passion for the military and was going to re-enlist.'' They also said that ``Michael was always looking out for others and helping them in any way possible.'' There is certainly no more selfless act than to give one's life to ensure that others may live in freedom. We cannot hope to ever fully repay the debt we owe Michael Ristau, but as he joins the illustrious ranks of our fallen patriots from the birth of our Nation to the present day, we have an obligation to honor his life and his sacrifice. We must always remember heroes like Michael Ristau and never take for granted the gift of liberty they have won for us.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that Chairman Leahy and I were able to help with the effort to look at the issue of water contamination at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. In particular, in June, we sent a letter to the Department of Defense, which has resulted in it producing more than 8,500 documents to the Judiciary Committee. I know that Senator Burr and others have been leaders with the effort to look into the situation at Camp Lejeune. Every member of the Senate should be aware of the situation at Camp Lejeune. The drinking water contamination that took place over several decades at the base was one of the worst environmental disasters in American history. Camp Lejeune was designated a Superfund site by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1988 after inspections confirmed contamination of the ground water due to the migration of hazardous chemicals from outside the base and inadequate procedures to contain and dispose of hazardous chemicals on the base. Residents of every State, who previously lived or worked at the base, have been impacted by the contamination. Indeed, more than 180,000 current and former members of the armed services and employees at the base have signed up for the Camp Lejeune Historic Drinking Water Registry. By registering, individuals who lived or worked at the base before 1987 receive notifications about the contamination. The Camp Lejeune registry includes residents from all 50 States. 1,121 Iowans are among them. It's estimated that more than 750,000 people may have been exposed to hazardous chemicals at the base. The numbers don't fully reflect the impact of the disaster at the base. There are real people behind those numbers. In March, as part of the Judiciary Committee's annual oversight hearing on the Freedom of Information Act, we heard the testimony of retired Marine Master Sergeant Jerry Ensminger. He was stationed at Camp Lejeune with his family and told us of the battle his daughter, Janey, fought with leukemia for two-and-a-half years, before she died at the age of nine. He also told us of the difficulties that he and others were having getting information from the Department of Defense. The men and women of the armed services protect us every day. We should never take them or the sacrifices that they and their families make for granted. We in Congress have an obligation to do everything that we can to support them in their mission. That's why I'm a cosponsor of the Caring for Camp Lejeune Veterans Act, which was introduced by Senator Burr in 2011. That bill, a version of which passed by unanimous consent in the Senate yesterday, will help to provide medical treatment and care for servicemembers and their families, who lived at the camp and were injured by the chemical contamination. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has not been forthcoming with information about the contamination at Camp Lejeune. That's troubling, especially coming from the administration that proclaims itself to be the ``most transparent administration ever.'' As we all recall, on his first full day in office, President Obama declared openness and transparency to be touchstones of his administration, and ordered agencies to make it easier for the public to get information about the government. Specifically, he issued two memoranda written in grand language and purportedly designed to usher in a ``new era of open government.'' Based on my experience in trying to pry information out of the Executive Branch and based on investigations I've conducted, and inquiries by the media, I'm disappointed to report that President Obama's statements in memos about transparency are not being put into practice. There's a complete disconnect between the President's grand pronouncements about transparency and the actions of his political appointees. The situation with the Camp Lejeune documents is just another example of that disconnect. The documents should have been produced long ago. The recent letter that Chairman Leahy and I sent from the Judiciary Committee had to be sent because the Defense Department refused to produce documents in response to a March letter signed by six senators and three members of the House of Representatives. Chairman Leahy and I had also signed that March letter. The March letter had to be sent because of complaints that Congressional offices had received about the Navy's refusal to disclose documents needed for scientific studies of the contamination at Camp Lejeune. It was also needed because of claims that the Navy is improperly citing exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold documents related to the contamination. So, while I'm pleased that there was a bipartisan effort to obtain these documents, I'm disappointed by the stonewalling and by the hurdles that were put up by the administration. Transparency and open government must be more than just pleasant sounding words found in memos. They are essential to the functioning of a democratic government. Transparency is about basic good government and accountability--not party politics or ideology. Throughout my career I have actively conducted oversight of the Executive Branch regardless of who controls the Congress or the White House. I'll continue doing what I can to hold this administration's feet to the fire with Camp Lejeune and where ever else I find stonewalling and secrecy. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to address my colleagues about a Federal agency that has forgotten that this Federal agency is supposed to be working for the American people. This is an agency that has gotten too big for its britches. Some of the officials have forgotten who pays their salary. The Food and Drug Administration is supposed to protect the American people, except lately the only thing the FDA bureaucrats seem to have any interest in is protecting themselves. According to whistleblowers and published reports in the Washington Post and in the New York Times, the agency in charge of safeguarding the American public and providing for the public safety has trampled on the privacy of its very own employees. The FDA mounted an aggressive campaign against employees who would dare to question its actions and created what the New York Times termed an ``enemies list'' of people it considered dangerous. It kind of reminds us of President Nixon and the IRS going after enemies. The Food and Drug Administration has been spying on this enemies list. The FDA has been spying on the personal e-mails of these employees and everybody these employees contacted. That includes their protected communications even with those of us in Congress. We would not have known the extent of the spying if internal FDA documents about it had not been released on the Internet, apparently just by accident. We would not have known how the FDA intentionally targeted and captured confidential, personal e-mails between the whistleblowers, their lawyers, and those of us in Congress. In these internal documents, the FDA never wanted the public to see that it referred to whistleblowers as ``collaborators.'' FDA refers to congressional staff as ``ancillary actors.'' FDA refers to newspaper reporters as ``media outlet actors.'' These memos make the FDA sound more like the East German Stasi than a consumer protection agency in a free country. At the beginning of Commissioner Hamburg's term, she said whistleblowers exposed critical issues within the FDA. That seems to be a very approving comment. She vowed to create a culture that values whistleblowers. That appears to be a very approving statement. In fact, in 2009 she said: ``I think whistleblowers serve an important role.'' I wanted to believe Commissioner Hamburg when she testified before the Senate committee during her confirmation. I wanted to believe her when she said she would protect whistleblowers at the Food and Drug Administration. However, the facts now appear very different. In this case, the FDA invaded the privacy of multiple whistleblowers. It hacked into the private e-mail accounts and used sophisticated keystroke logging software to monitor their every move online. When an FDA supervisor was placed under oath in the course of an equal employment opportunity complaint, that employee--that supervisor--testified that the FDA was conducting ``routine security monitoring.'' That is entirely false. This monitoring was anything but routine. It specifically targeted five whistleblowers. It intentionally captured their private e-mails to attorneys, to Members of Congress, and to the Office of Special Counsel. The internal documents showed that this was a unique, highly sophisticated, and highly specialized operation. According to the Office of the Inspector General, the Food and Drug Administration had no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by these whistleblowers. This massive campaign of spying was not just an invasion of privacy; it was specifically designed to intercept communications that are protected by law. The Office of Special Counsel is an agency created by Congress to receive whistleblower complaints and to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. The law protects communications with the special counsel as a way to encourage whistleblowers to report waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and threats to the public safety, and to do that reporting without fear of retaliation. The FDA knew that contacts between whistleblowers and the Office of Special Counsel are privileged and confidential, but the James Bond wannabes at the FDA just didn't seem to care what the law said. In the end, the self-appointed spies turned out to be more like the bumbling Maxwell Smart. Along with their own internal memos about spying, the fruits of their labor were also accidentally posted on the Internet. It is tens of thousands of pages of e-mails and pictures of the whistleblower computer screens containing some of the very same information the FDA bureaucrats were so keen to keep secret. When I started asking questions about this, FDA officials seemed to suffer from a sudden bout of collective amnesia. It took them more than 6 months to answer a letter from last January starting my investigation of this issue. When I pushed for a reply during those 6 months, FDA told my staff that the response would take time to make sure it was accurate and complete. When I finally got the response on Friday, it doesn't even answer the simplest of questions, such as who authorized this targeted spy ring, and isn't it a coincidence that just Friday, before the New York Times article was going to come out, they finally answered a letter going way back to my questions of January. Worse than that, though, it is misleading in its denials about intentionally intercepting communications with Congress. When I asked them why they couldn't just answer some simple questions, they told my staff that the response was under review by the ``appropriate officials in the Administration.'' The nonanswers and the doublespeak would have fit right into some George Orwell novel. Of course, when my staff dug deeper and asked if the response was being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, the Food and Drug Administration responded: No, it wasn't being reviewed by OMB. FDA refused to identify who within the administration was holding up the FDA's response to my letter. Now, that is in an administration that said on January 20, 2009, they are going to be the most transparent in the history of this country. FDA refused to say how long it had been sitting on that person's desk or why it had been approved by the political officials outside the FDA. Who is this shadowy figure conducting some secret review of the FDA's responses to this Senator's questions? Why was there all of a sudden interest in exerting political control over the correspondence of this supposedly independent Federal agency? And when we use the words ``independent Federal agency'' around here, we mean not subject to political control. We need answers, and we need answers now. I have been demanding answers for 6 months. For the past 6 months, FDA has been telling me to just be patient. The FDA has been telling me they have a good story to tell--and those are their words, ``a good story to tell.'' Apparently, though, there is someone in this administration-- President Obama's administration--who didn't want them to say anything for as long as they could possibly get away with not saying anything. I finally got Commissioner Hamburg on the phone in June of this year. Commissioner Hamburg personally assured me the FDA was going to fully cooperate with my investigation. Yet the FDA has provided me with nothing but misleading and incomplete responses. The FDA has failed to measure up to Commissioner Hamburg's pledge of cooperation. The FDA buried its head in the sand in hopes I would lose interest and go away. They don't know me very well. That is not going to happen. I don't care who is in charge of the executive branch--Republican or Democrat--I am going to continue demanding answers. When government bureaucrats obstruct and intercept my communications with protected whistleblowers, I am not going to stop. When government bureaucrats stonewall for months on end, I will not stop. When government bureaucrats try and muddy the waters and mislead, I will not stop. I intend to get to the bottom of it. I will continue to press the FDA until we know who authorized spying. Can my colleagues imagine spying in American government, a transparent government--supposed to be transparent--spying on whistleblowers who are protected by law and who have a special office set up to protect them, and spying on communications between a lawyer and their client? Someone within the FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with my own office and with several other Members of Congress. Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with Congressman Van Hollen's office. Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with the staff of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. Someone at FDA specifically authorized spying on private communications with the lawyers for whistleblowers, and those lawyers are called the Office of Special Counsel. These whistleblowers thought the FDA was approving drugs and treatment it shouldn't. These whistleblowers thought the FDA was caving to pressure from the companies who were applying for FDA approval. They have a right to express those concerns without any fear of retaliation whatsoever, if the law is going to be followed--the law protecting whistleblowers. But after doing so, two of these whistleblowers were fired, two more were forced to leave FDA, and five of them were subjected to an intense spying campaign. Senior FDA officials may have broken the law. They authorized the capturing of personal e-mail passwords through keystroke logging software. That potentially allowed them to log in to the whistleblower's personal e-mail accounts and access e-mails that were never even accessed from a work computer. Without a subpoena or warrant, that would be a criminal violation. After 6 months, FDA finally denied that occurred. However, that denial was based on the word of one unnamed information technology employee involved in the monitoring. We need a more thorough investigation than that. I have asked the FDA to make that person and several other witnesses available for interviews with my staff. We will see how cooperative FDA plans to be now. I will continue to press the FDA to open every window and every door. Eventually enough sunlight on this agency will cleanse it. FDA gets paid to protect the public, not to keep us in the dark. Secret monitoring programs, spying on Congress, and retaliating against whistleblowers--this is a sad commentary on the state of affairs at the FDA. I know there are hard-working and principled rank-and-file employees at the FDA who care very much about their mission to protect the American public from harm. Unfortunately, all too often those rank-and- file employees are unfairly tarnished by others, such as those involved in this spy ring. This is a sad commentary on President Obama's promise to the American people that this would be the most transparent administration in history. The American people cannot lose faith in the FDA. Unfortunately, after this debacle, some of that faith may deteriorate. The FDA has a lot of work to do to restore the public's trust. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last September, President Obama responded to amnesty proponents, denying that he had authority to unilaterally grant special status to individuals who may be eligible under the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act has been around the Senate for discussion for about a decade, and in different forms. It has been voted down several times by this body--mostly because the leader won't allow for an amendment process to improve the bill; otherwise, it probably could have been worked upon. A few months ago when asked by amnesty advocates to push the bill through Executive order, President Obama said this: This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true. We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. But 1 month ago, President Obama continued his ``we can't wait'' campaign and circumvented Congress, again, to significantly change the law all by himself. On June 15, he announced that the Department of Homeland Security would lay out a process by which immigrants who have come here illegally could apply for relief and remain in the United States without the fear of deportation. So what has changed in the last 9 months, when the President of the United States said last September that he could not unilaterally grant amnesty? Before I dive into the details of how poorly planned and implemented the directive of June 15 will be, I have to question the legal authority of the President to institute a plan of this magnitude. I, along with 19 other Senators, sent the President a letter and asked if he consulted with attorneys prior to the June 15 announcement about his legal authority to grant deferred action and work authorizations to a specific class of immigrants who have come here illegally. It is important that we get that question answered, because last September the President said he didn't have the legal authority to do it. We asked the President if he obtained a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel or anyone else within his administration. To date, we have not received any documentation that discusses any authority whatsoever that he has to undertake this massive immigration directive. I know the Secretary of Homeland Security has discretion to determine who is put in removal proceedings. Prosecutorial discretion has been around for a long time, but it hasn't been abused to this extent. The President is claiming the Secretary will implement this directive using prosecutorial discretion. However, millions of immigrants coming here illegally will be instructed to report to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service and proactively apply. This is not being done on a case-by-case basis as they want to make it appear. The President's directive is an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process, and it is an inappropriate use of executive power based upon what he said last September, that he didn't have the authority to do this. The President bypassed Congress because he couldn't lead on immigration reform, and he couldn't work in a bipartisan manner on an issue that involves undocumented young people. The President's directive runs contrary to the principle that American workers must come before foreign nationals. His policies only increase competition for American students and workers who struggle to find employment in today's economy. And that unemployment is 8.2 percent official, 11 or 12 percent unofficial. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate among the age group 16 to 24 has been nearly 17 percent for the last year. According to a Gallup poll conducted in April of this year, 32 percent of the 18-to-29-year-olds in the U.S. workforce, if not unemployed, are underemployed. The President's plan to get people back to work is to grant immigrants who come here illegally a work authorization. He must be seriously out of touch if he doesn't think there is competition already for American workers. Now I wish to talk about how poorly this directive has been thought out. This is the implementation of a directive the President said he didn't have the authority to do in the first place. But if you are going to have an illegal directive, you ought to at least know it will work. It is my understanding the White House informed Homeland Security officials of this plan just days before it was announced on June 15. They were unprepared, and have since been scrambling to figure out how it will be carried out. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service--the agency in charge of all immigration benefits, including work authorizations, visa applications, asylum petitions, and employment verifications for employers--will be the agency tasked with handling millions of new applications for deferred status and work permits. Agents in the field are confused as to how to do their jobs and fear retaliation if they don't do the right thing. So in essence, this White House is telling agents in the field to begin a practice called catch and release. Last Friday, Homeland Security officials briefed the Judiciary Committee on the directive. Staff of the Judiciary Committee were told that agents of the agency would be required to release immigrants who come here illegally if they fell into the criteria laid out. But what are the ramifications if an agent does not release them but instead uses his discretion to say the person was not eligible and puts them in removal proceedings? You will be astounded by the answer we got, because the Department of Homeland Security explained that such an agent would be subject to disciplinary action--disciplinary action if you are doing what your job is required to do. The agent's actions would be considered during their annual personnel review. So there will be no discretion for agents, and they will be forced to give deferred action to anyone who comes close to the criteria laid out, even despite their hesitation to do so, or face retaliation from bureaucratic higher-ups. It is as though Homeland Security forgot their mission which is: To ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards where American interests, aspirations, and way of life can thrive. Once we overcome the question of legal authority and the reality that there was little thinking put into this plan before it was announced on June 15, we are left to oversee the details of the implementation plan. Homeland Security officials say they will have a process laid out by August 15. We have very little details, but Homeland Security officials did give some insight on Friday in this briefing to members of the Judiciary Committee staff. Here is what we learned. We know people under the age of 30, who entered before their 16th birthday, have been here for at least 5 years, and are currently in school may qualify for deferred action. We know there are caveats to the criteria. Some criminal offenses will be OK, and young people can finish their education after they are granted deferred action. We know individuals with final orders of removal will be eligible for deferred action. We know these people will not have to appear for an in-person interview to benefit from this directive of the President of June 15. We know they will be granted this special status for 2 years, and those who are denied will not be put into removal proceedings. We know this is not aimed at helping just youth since the age limit is 30. So who are we going to help over age 30, because we thought from the President's announcement, if people are over 30 years of age nobody is going to benefit. We know people under the age of 30 are not the only people going to be considered for relief. Secretary Napolitano said so herself. She told CNN's Wolf Blitzer the following: We have internally set it up so that the parents are not referred for immigration enforcement if the young person comes in for deferred action. I was not born yesterday. This administration is not going to give a benefit to immigrants here illegally and then force his or her parents to leave the country, which begs the question, What will they do if the young people are eligible and receive deferred action, but the parent is a criminal, a gang member, or a sex offender? Because this program has not been well thought out and because it is being rushed to benefit people by the end of the year, there is no doubt that fraud will be a problem. How will Federal officials who process the applications ensure that information provided by the individual is accurate? How will they verify that one truly entered the country before the age of 16 or is currently under the age of 30? Homeland Security officials act as though they are prepared to handle the influx of counterfeit documents that will be presented. The department officials are going to rely on their small fraud detection unit--who already happen to be very busy working every day on other types of immigration benefits--to determine if people are truly eligible. What will be the consequences for individuals who intentionally defraud the government? They need a fraud and abuse prevention plan. Without one they will likely legalize every single immigrant who came here illegally, who is already on U.S. soil. The administration will announce more details about this plan in the next few weeks. I am anxious to see if they plan to only provide deferred action to this population. Department officials refuse to elaborate on whether some of these individuals will be able to get advanced parole. That is a special status that allows an immigrant coming here illegally to adjust to permanent residence and then gain citizenship. This administration wants people to believe this is not amnesty and that these people will not have lawful status, but I am watching to see if they try to pull the wool over our eyes and provide a status that allows these people to adjust and remain here permanently. Finally, a major flaw in the President's plan is how this is going to be paid for. A massive amnesty program is going to cost a lot of money. So what are the taxpayers going to have to cough up out of their hard- earned dollars to pay for it? Department officials said on Friday that illegal immigrants may not be charged for their special status. The individual would be charged $380 if they choose to apply for a work authorization. They could not assure us that funding would not be redirected from other programs to this initiative. To reprogram funds within the Department, the Secretary must notify and gain consent of the majority and minority leaders on the Appropriations Committee. However, when pressed, Department officials could not assure us that they would not bypass the longstanding process and reprogram dollars on their own. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service will be forced to concentrate on this program, leaving employers, foreign workers, and legal immigrants without the service they need to work, visit, or remain in the United States. If the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service adjudication staff will be diverted from their normal duties to handle the millions of potential deferred action applications, this can only have a devastating impact on other programs within the Department. I fear this plan will bankrupt the agency that oversees immigration benefits and affect all legal immigration for years to come. I fear the President has overstepped his authority again. The President, time and again, has shown no leadership or refused to work with Congress on issues that directly impact the American people. And when it comes to the immigration issue he promised the people in the 2008 election, that in his first year in office he would have an immigration bill before Congress, he has not even presented an immigration bill yet. He insisted he was coming here to change Washington, but he changed it for the worse. He insisted he was going to make this the most transparent administration ever, but Congress and the American people are left in the dark. No matter where one stands on immigration, we should all be appalled at how this plan has been carried out. Whether it is legal or illegal is one thing. But when it is not thoroughly thought out, how it is going to be implemented, that is not how the chief executive of a major operation such as the U.S. Government ought to be acting. We should all be concerned that our votes are rendered meaningless as a result of the assumption of power on June 15 that the President said last September he did not have. Until we can end this plan, I encourage my colleagues to watch over its implementation for the future of our country. The integrity of our whole immigration system is hanging in the balance. This immigration system is very important because the United States has opened doors for more people than any other country in the world to come here legally. About 1 million people come here legally. So we are a welcoming nation. We are a nation built upon immigrants bringing new ideas to this country, making this a very not only colorful country but a dynamic society. We ought to leave it that way. But this change to our immigration system for people to come here legally jeopardizes a lot of people who want to abide by our laws and come here and make our country even richer. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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