senator merkley, everyone who has worked on this issue. we have to ensure that we have addressed the issue of affordability for these homeowners, affordability for these businesses in terms of the increase of the flood insurance rates caused by the new flood maps and ensure that we put that before we add any additional crippling flood insurance rate increases to go into effect, we have to deal with affordability first. if afford a*bt is not dealt with, there is going to be a devastation felt by millions of homeowners and businesses across this country. climate change is real. it is here. it is dangerous. but the fear of rising flood waters should not be compounded by the fear of an unaffordable speak in insurance premiums for homeowners and businesses across this country.

i thank my colleagues for all of their work on this issue. it is an indispensable part of the business of this congress this year to pass this legislation. we have to find a way to work together before we leave in order to pass this legislation. and i call upon all of my colleagues to work together with us. this is as bipartisan as it gets in the united states senate. we have to find a way. i congratulate the gentlelady from louisiana for all of her great work and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i see other senators on the floor wishing to speak, but i'd like to give concluding remarks on this very important hour that was spent on the floor talking about this important issue. we are down to the wire here, mr. president. we do not have any time left to provide relief to homeowners and business owners all over this

country. now about an hour ago there was objection registered from the republican ranking member of the banking committee. i have a great deal of respect for that particular member. i hope that he will consider the tragic ramifications of his objection for millions of homeowners and businesses around the country and work with us over the next few days to mitigate any of his objections so that we can move this bill to the floor, provide two hours of debate, and we will accept those of us and our coalition, a 60-vote threshold. let me remind these colleagues that a hearing was held in the banking committee by senator merkley, who chairs the subcommittee. this bill has been discussed for hours and hours in committee, in

public. there are hundreds of stakeholder groups led by, i'm very proud, gino, inc., greater new orleans, inc., a coalition of business leaders, parish presidents and they reached out across the country, down the coast, the gulf coast, to the east coast, to the west coast to the good senator here from north carolina, south carolina, reaching out to their areas. and in the midwest and up in the northwest. mr. president, the reason they did that is because there are new flood maps going into effect in all of these places. i call attention to the diagram here, flood maps in the united states. in purple, these were the flood maps that were in effect as of

july 2012. in the green, these are proposed flood maps that have been introduced. you can see how many green designations there are. and in the goldish color here, new flood maps possible. there is no state that is going to escape these new flood maps. but as elizabeth warren said, senator warren, they are inaccurate. they don't have the capability, the finances, the resources to produce, or the technology in some cases, to produce accurate flood maps. there have been record number of mistakes that have been made that we have provided for the public testimony. in addition, i'd like to show a map of where levies -- levees are. there are many, many levees, i was surprised myself having become an expert i thought.

no, i'm not because i did not realize how many levees there are in other states because i had been so focused on mine that broke in 52 places and almost destroyed a great international and american city in new orleans. so because we are on the mouth of the mississippi river, of course i'm well ware of the levee system that was one of the great engineering feats ever in the world, on the planet that keeps the mississippi river in its channel so that we can have the great commerce we have that's helped build this nation. i am well aware of the great story about that. but i was not aware of the tremendous flooding risk in california, in arizona, in new mexico, in montana, of all places. of course i knew about arkansas and illinois, st. louis here because of the mississippi river all the way up to minneapolis. but look at pennsylvania.

i was shocked myself to see so many flooding areas in the state of pennsylvania. so i want to just say about this, this is just a coastal issue. it is not a coastal issue. it is a national issue. we are the national congress. these rates are going up now. it needs to be fixed now. so i hope the republican opposition will think clearly about their objection and the ramifications that it's going to have and find a way to say yes, find a way to say yes. the bill that senator menendez and senator isakson are offering cost zero. and it helps millions of people and ultimately will make the program physically sound because as the senator from new york said so eloquently and so

accurately, if you price people out of the program, there will be no one to support the program. the program will default. taxpayers will still have to pick up the debt associated with that program. and then you will also have millions of people losing their homes and their businesses. it makes no sense. it makes no financial sense. now i am glad -- and i'm not going to talk too much longer, but i do want to state this. i am very happy as an american that there are many newspapers that we can read and now there are lots of blogs and lots of radio shows and all sorts of different opinions, because you have to read a lot and think a lot and get different views to really find the truth. so i'm going to read the first paragraph of the "wall street journal," because they need to listen to a couple of other either bloggers or writers because they are way off base.

"the washington post" said last week -- quote -- "federal flood insurance is a classic example of powerful government aiding the powerful, encouraging the affluent to build mansions near the shore." i mean that statement is so knack rat, it's laugh -- is so inaccurate, it's laughable. laughable. the people that i represent in louisiana, we hardly have a beach. i don't know if anyone has visited louisiana. we don't have beaches. we have marshes, and no one that i know that lives in new orleans or baton rouge is anywhere near a beach. i want to read a letter from a very affluent and powerful person. i am a 66-year-old woman. i have lived in the same house in broadmore since 1974. i would know this letter that arrived at my desk because that's the neighborhood i grew up in and still reside. there is not a beach within

miles of broadmore. she goes on to say i live there with my family, raised a son who also lives and owns a house in broadmore. very middle-class neighborhood that we come from. i plan to stay in my home for the remainder of my life. i live on a very strict budget. i have just this month received my first social security payment after working my whole life. if something is not done to change the law that will potentially raise my flood insurance by the thousands, it will not be possible for me to keep my home or to sell it. i want the "wall street journal" editorial board to hear this. this is not a millionaire in a mansion on a beach. this is a 66-year-old woman who just got her social security check, who if this law is not changed by the 100 members of this body in the next few days,

she can neither stay in her house or sell her house. now, please, do not lecture to us from some high place up in some big corporate office about us on the floor of the united states senate trying to fight for powerful interests, for people in mansions that live on fancy beaches. that is not what this bill is about. and i have hundreds of pictures. if the "wall street journal" or any newspaper wants to editorialize about this, just go check my web site. my story, my home. i have hundreds and other senators have hundreds of pictures. i don't see a mansion on here. all i see are cries of people that say, wait a minute, my house has never flooded. i live in a simple neighborhood. i'm a simple american. i'm just an american that works

hard, and you're running me out of my home. now the bill that passed, biggert-waters, was well intentioned, but it was drafted inappropriately and it has some very pernicious guidelines or rules in it that can only be changed by congress. some people want to think that fema can just wave a magic wand and make it work. fema cannot wave a magic wand. we have to do our job as senators, and i hope this senate will do its job. now, we can't agree on everything that needs to be fixed around here. i understand that. there's lots of arguments about other things that some people think need to be fixed and others don't. but i don't know anyone or have heard anyone -- anyone -- on this floor, walk to the floor and give us one good, solid reason that the menendez bill shouldn't pass. i don't like section 1. i don't like section 2.

i don't like section 10, maybe section 5. not one. it's all just kind of posturing. please, let's get over the posturing and help people that live nowhere near a beach, who are going to lose their homes, who need us to act. i believe that we can do it, as i said. we have great republican leadership on this and great democratic leadership. i have to say in closing, the senator on the floor has my great respect. also senator isakson, who is the lead republican senator on this, is known in this body as an expert on real estate and finance. he is very, very clear in his appreciation and understanding that the real estate market is going to be shaken to its core as well as home builders and commune bankers that are holding mortgages on these five million

properties. we've come too far, we've come too long to restore this housing market to let this bill that was well intentioned but really poorly drafted, stuck into a conference committee report at the last minute, not with as much oversight as we should have given it, we can fix this. let's do it. so i thank the senator for being so generous. it's a very important issue. and i'm prepared to stay here for as long as it takes before christmas, even, i hate to say, up to christmas eve, which i'd really like to try to get home for a little bit of time. but this needs to be fixed before we leave for christmas, and then the house can come back in january, they can take up this bill and we can get it to the president's desk early in february, make it retroactive and give people relief. this is not about helping out powerful interests and millionaires on the beach. this is about helping lots of americans that have done nothing wrong, everything right, they have been in their homes since

the 1960's, 1950's, in some cases from the 1800's, and are going to be priced out of their home and their equity stolen from them by a poorly drafted piece of legislation. we can do better, and we should. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i rise to address the nomination of cornelia pillard for the d.c. circuit. thank you, mr. president. my colleagues, i've enjoyed my time in the senate very much. we live in very difficult times politically with a lot of influences on individual senators and parties and the bodies as a whole, so it is a very difficult time. i can only imagine writing the constitution today. i always thought that would be a good saturday night live skit to go back to philadelphia hall and have all the satellite trucks parked outside and the bloggers

and the talk radio, moveon.org, you just fill in the blank putting pressure on our founding fathers not to do this or not to do that. we live in different times. it's absolutely good that people have a voice and influence and create organizations to advocate their cause. there seems to be an organization for almost every aspect of the economy. so lobbying the government, you know, having a say about legislation, trying to push your representatives to do something you think is good for the country is very much part of democracy. but eventually you have to govern. and democracy is a journey, sort of like when you're on vacation or you're driving to a blase your kids, they'll always ask, "are we there yet?" well, democracy is not and he state; it is a process. democracy is really protecting losers, not so much winners. winners tend to do well in any system. democracy protects the loser by

having a rule of law, a process that says, if you lose the election or you're in the minority in a body, there will be rules there to give you a voice. i think one of the problems in the mideast and throughout the world is that people are afraid to lose. the mideast, it is a winner-take-all environment. the reason you have so many militias is that people don't trust the government to be fair so they arm themselves believing that if i don't take care of myself, nobodyless will. that just leads to an endless state of conflict. so democracy is a -- really a process and it is designed to ensure that losers in a democratic process still have basic rights. you can lose the election and not get fired. it is illegal to fire somebody because you're in the opposite party, unless it is a political job where you expect that to

happen. you don't lose your right to speak up because you lost the election. and when you find yourself in a minority in politics, it's important that you have a say, and it's also important that the majority has the ability, having won the election, to do certain things. to run the plashings for lac pla better word. now, the senate is an unusual body in traditional democracy. parliamentarian systems are different than what we've set up. you have two houses in most places, like the house of lords. i don't know what power is has. but i.t. not too great. -- but it's not too great. the parliamentary system is where you have to form coaliti coalitions, and at the end of the day, it is a completely

different setup than we have here where the party in charge basically the if they can form a big-enough coalition, they can just basically run the place. the house is a winner-take-all body. if you're in the majority in the house, you can decide what bills to bring to the floor, what amendments to be allowed on those bills, how long to debate those bills. you have almost absolute dict dictatorial abilities to run the house. you determine everything. minorities have some say, but not a whole lot. and the house is sort of gang warfare. i've been there. i loved the institution. you'll find majorities will be fighting among themselves a lot in the house because that's where the action is in the house. i've been in the house, and i've

been in the senate. i loved being in the house, and i understood the way the rules worked, that if you were in the minority, what came to the floor was determined by the majority; what amendments were in order was determined by the majority, and that's junior senator the -y it was. now, when i was in the house, we would pass one measure after another that would go to the senate and never be heard from again. and that was frustrating ... until the older you get, the soughsort of realize maybe somef the things you get were not in the best interest of the whole. and the fact that you knew that if it went to the senate there would be a filtering process, unlike the house. over time it's been some point reassuring. house majorities are more partisan, generally speaking.

they're influenced by two-year election cycles. that's a more passionate body, because you're always up for election, and the winnerrer takes all, and when you win in the house, the people that got you there expect you to do things consistent with your party's agenda. nothing wrong with that. the senate, there's been a conscious effort in the sna the to kind of put some brakes on that kind of way of governing. and when you send a bill to the senate, you still to this day have to get 60 votes to be able to bring the legislation to the floor, to get cloture, and the minority has the ability to say, not only we want the bill to come to the floor with a certain a amendments, then you negotiate with our friends in the majority to get the amendments you want and to allow legislation to come

afford. and there are probably a lot of times when republicans in the house voted understanding that maybe this idea won't make it through the senate, and that was probably okay. here's what i fear: ms. pillard, the nomination, a lot of my colleagues have talked about her being a radical judge and kind of being out of the mainstream. i don't want to get into that. all i can say is that my view of a presidential appointment is for the senate to provide advice and consent, constitutionally required, but to recognize that the president won the election. and the senate has advise and consent powers, not the house. i found myself in all kind of judge fights since i've been heemplet i've been a lawyer before i was a politician. i loved the law enforcement the thing i love about the law -- i loved the law. the thing i love about the law

is that in theory it is the place where the poorest gierks the most unpopular person can still get a fair shake -- of course that wouldn't happen in a political environment. flais where the richest guy or -- it is a place where the richest guy or gal in town doesn't have to pay because they can afford to. i just love the idea of an independent judiciary, the jury of one's peers protecting people's interests in a way that politics could never -- never could. i would argue that the strength of the rule of law in the country has been our great saving grace. elections happen all over the mideast. saddam hussein got 9 90-some-percent. i haven't been able to get there yet. and i would argue that electing saddam hussein was a joke. it is the institutions of government that really do provide freedom to people. and an independent judiciary has

been a godsend to our country. iit is not perfect, by any mean. but it was the courts that basically broke the stronghold of segregation, because politically i don't know we've taken far longer to get there. but at the end of the day, bush v. gore -- one of his finest contributions was to accept the ruling of the court. awful your supporters are telling you they did this here, they did that there, the next thunk you know, the supreme court rules 5-4 and he graciously accepted the decision. now, what has happened here is that the rules of the senate have been changed and i think in a very dramatic way, the first time really in 200 years where our colleagues on the other side decided that we would no longer require 60 votes to get a

nomination to the floor or approve a judge. now it's majority rule. majority rule on judicial nominations, except the supreme court in executive appointments, and a lot of average people say, wait a minute. you won the election. why isn't 51 enough? my response is this: i think we all understand the benefit of being able to slow things down that may come out of the house and having to pick up some votes from the other side to get to 60 to pass legislation has probably saved the country a lot of heartache in terms of emotional legislation coming through the house to the senate that would never make it into law. a lot of things i wanted have been killed in the senate. a lot of things that i hoped never would see the light of day have died in the senate.

so it kind of works out. now, when it comes to judges, i've tried very hard to make sure that republican and democratic presidents are treated fairly. i don't believe it is my job as a united states senator from south carolina to vote or block an appointment because i wouldn't have chosen that judge. i remember during the bush presidency there was a petroleum sale filibuster -- there was a wholesale filibuster of bush nominations and we were thinking about doing the nuclear option. seven democrats and seven republicans said, wait a minute. unless there is an extraordinary circumstance, we shouldn't filibuster judges. an extraordinary circumstance reareally is about qualificatios or something unusual. i can say to my democratic colleagues, we've denied two judicial picks by not allowing cloture. if advise and consent means anything, it means, on occasion, you can say "no."

two. now, as to the d.c. circuit court, this dispute about how many judges you should have on the d.c. circuit court has been going on for at least a decade, ever since i've been here. the bush administration wanted to add judges to the d.c. circuit because that's the circuit that all appeals go to where the gas government regulan is challenged by somebody in the private sector, an individual or business. if you want to sue about obamacare regulations or detention policy or the n.s.a. program, it goes to the d.c. circuit, so every president, quite frankly, would like to have an advantage there, because it protects their administrati administration's policies. and i guess what i would say is that change the rules -- changing the rules because we've said "no" to two picks outside of the d.c. circuit, i think,

was just, quite frankly, irresponsible and is going to change the senate forever. as to the d.c. circuit, you can't say this debate hasn't been going on before we all got here. senator grassley has been the most consistent guy in the world about the d.c. circuit, even when republicans were in charge. there are more needs out there. judges -- these are fine people. they could be put in other spots where the need is greater. but we are where we are, so our colleagues decided, after two -- i don't know how many have been approved, two have been denied -- enough is enough on the judge side, along with the d.c. circuit attempt to grow the court there and that we've had disputes about executive nominations. i remember ambassador bolton, mel watts, actually, i like mel.

i just don't think he is the right choice for fanni fannie md freddie mac. there isn't one person in the senate that i would pick for that job because it has a really technical requirement to it, and so here we are. now, very quickly, and i'll turn it over to senator grassley, what does this matter long-term? i think the first casualty of this rules change is going to be the judiciary itself. and here's what i mean by that. now that you don't have to cross the aisle to pick up a few votes to get to 60 when there is a disagreement -- and these are very rare; we don't filibuster everybody; they're fairly require -- you're going to havri had lodge fiscally driven picks in judicial nominations because the filtering device of having to rat least talk to the other

side -- of having to at least talk to the other side, once that is taken off, no longer exists, the pressure in the conference to pick the most ideologically pure, hard-nosed, fire-breathing liberal or conservative is going to be immense. so what you've done is you've changed the face of the judiciary probably forever. and shame on you. i think that's going to be your legacy that will stand out long after all of us have gone because i don't see how you go back and put this jeannie i gene bottle. i just think you'll find that the judicial selections in the future are going to be the ones that the people who are the most rabid partisans are going to pick, the most faithful to the cause, not the most faithful to

the law. and i don't know what it's like on the democratic side, but i can tell you what it will be like on the republican side. there are a lot of people out there who have got a list of judges they want to see on the court yesterday. some of these people are going to be tough for you to swallow. and i'm sure you'll do the same to us. and what you are doing is making the majority self-regulate. there is no longer the excuse, for lack of a better word, i can't push this person through because i have got to get somebody in. those who want to make sure you are picking the best person who is not an ideologue, you are -- you are going to have a hard time of it. so i think the judiciary is the biggest casualty over time only equal to the senate itself. it will not be long -- and i

don't know how long it will be -- before the rules change for a supreme court pick, because there will be a replacement of several members of the supreme court in the next decade. that's just the way life is. and there will be opposition from the party out of power. there will be frustration. somebody will be blocked that makes the party in power mad, and they are just going to change the rules. that's just going to happen. we are now about outcomes. we are not about process. the senate is slowly but surely becoming the house where the winner takes all and the end justifies the means. anything can you do over there, we will do over here. that's just the way it is going to be. and it won't be much longer until you have a senate and a house and a white house and one party fans and that happens every now and then and that is going to be the centerpiece of legislation that has been the

holy grail to that party that is an absolute nightmare to the other side, and it's going to pass the house on a party-line vote and it is going to come to the senate and somebody's going to get frustrated in saying i have got 51-plus votes, i may have 57 votes, i don't have 60, and they are going to change the rule on legislation because the pressure to do it now that we have gone down this road is going to be immense. so what we have done -- and all i can say, i am by no means perfect, but when this happened on our watch, i tried to find a way to avoid it, but we are where we are. finally, about obamacare, let me tell you from a member of congress' point of view, something you should consider. all of us are federal employees,

and we get a subsidy for our health care premiums, like every other federal employee. it's not a unique deal to the congress. if you're a member of the federal government, you get up to 72% of your premium subsidized. other employers do that, but it's a darned good deal. it's available to all federal employees. now, senator grassley -- again, i want to compliment senator grassley. he says if we're going to have obamacare, we ought to be in it, we, the congress and our staffs. well, now under the law that was passed -- i think senator grassley was the -- the originator of this idea -- members of congress and our staffs have to go into the exchanges, but we have the ability to go into the d.c. exchange, the district of columbia exchange, and the law is written such, and every member of congress who takes the

subsidy is entitled to do it. i don't blame you one bit. you have to go into the exchange and your premiums are going to go up but the subsidy will continue. senator vitter believes, and so do i, that because we're leaders, we should take the road less traveled and experience more pain than those who follow, so i have been of the opinion that if you're going to change this law, that the congress should not only go in the exchange, we shouldn't get the subsidy any longer. why? because most americans are going to lose their employer-sponsored health care as it exists today. maybe not in total, but your premiums are going to go up dramatically because your employer cannot afford to pay the increased premium under the old system. so you're either going to lose employer-sponsored health care and become an individual or you're going to have to pay more because your employer is in a bind, they can't afford the subsidies that once existed

because premiums for employers, like individuals, are going to go through the roof. and i just want to give you an example about what i chose to do. i have chosen not to go into the d.c. exchange but to enroll in south carolina, because that's where i live. now, enrolling in the south carolina exchange, i won't get a subsidy. that was my choice. i accept that choice. why am i doing this? to try to give by example what i think is coming to a lot of americans in some form or another. so here's what happens with me. under the old system, i was paying $186 a month. if i went into the d.c. exchange, my premiums would go up but not great -- not a huge amount. but now that i'm enrolling as a 58-year-old short white guy in south carolina, my premiums are based on the county i live in

and my age with no subsidy because i make too much money to get a subsidy, and people at my income level, we don't deserve a subsidy because it would bankrupt the nation more than we're already doing if you did that. so under obamacare in south carolina -- and i chose the bronze plan. why? it's the cheapest one i could find. you know, i'm not independently wealthy. i make a very good living as a member of the senate, $170,000, almost $180,000, but at the end of the day, here is what's coming my way. my premium goes up to $572 a month from $186. that's $400 a month almost, 200% increase. under my old health plan, if i went to the doctor, i paid $20 co-pay. under the new bronze plan, i pay $50. under the old plan, if i saw a

specialist, it was $30. under the new plan, it's $100. my old deductible was $350 a year. my new deductible is $6,350, a $6,000 increase. my old plan had a $5,000 out-of-pocket limit. the new one is $6,350. and you also get rated not just on your age but where you live. i'm paying $70 a month more than a county that's 40 miles away. the bottom line is what's -- what i'm experiencing, a lot of other people are going to experience. i'm paying a lot more for a lot less. now, how can that be? when you're told that you get more and you pay less and a politician tells you that, you ought to be very leery. that doesn't work out a lot in my life.

you're going to get a lot more, but you're going to pay less. the reason that these premiums are going up is that all the uninsured -- and i want to provide coverage to the uninsured as much as anybody else -- they get insurance coverage with a subsidy. well, who's paying those subsidies? the rest of us. so you're seeing, you're going to see next year employers have to back out of employer-sponsored health care, either in total or in part, and what you're going to find throughout this country is that people who had employer-sponsored health care, just like the individual markets, their premiums are going to skyrocket. maybe not as much as mine. maybe not 200%. the deductibles are going to go up, maybe not as much as mine up to $6,000, but everybody in the country doesn't make $176,000. so all i can tell you, every

member of congress should look at what would your life be like if you didn't have a federal government subsidy, if you didn't roll into the d.c. exchange, you went back home and you had to pick a plan like everybody else in your state? you ought to sit down and look at what your individual life would be like. and if you're -- just look. you will be shocked. i sure was. and this is really not about me, even though i'm giving you an example about myself. it's about an idea called obamacare that's going to destroy health care as we know it in the name of saving it and making it better. i think we all agree we need to reform health care. i think most americans believe that their old health care system was working pretty good for them, but it could always be

made better, so i'll turn this over to senator grassley, but i would love to see -- senator sanders, i'm sorry. i would ask every member of congress whether you go into your state exchange if one exists or not, do the math. you're going to be shocked at how it would affect you, and let me tell you, it's going to affect people you represent in similar fashion. so what do you do? why don't we just try to sit down and start over and see if we can do better before it's too late? with that, i yield the floor. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, there is a reason why the favorability rating of the united states congress is somewhere on a good day around 10%, and the reason is, i think, pretty simple. the american people are hurting.

they look to their elected officials to try to do something to address the problems that they have and the crises facing our country, and time after time, they see the united states congress not only responding, -- not only not responding to the needs they face but in many cases doing exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite. in poll after poll, the american people tell us that the most pressing issue that they face, it deals with the economy and high unemployment. mr. president, i know when we look in the newspapers, we are told that the official unemployment rate is 7% -- and by the way, that is a rate that has in recent months gone down, and that's a good thing, but the

truth of the matter is if you include people who have giving up looking for work and people who are working part time when they want to work full time, real unemployment in this country is 13.2%. that is enormously high. the unemployment rate for our young people is close to 20%, and that are parts of the country where it is higher than that. african-american youth unemployment is close to 40%, 40%. so what we are looking at all over this country are millions and millions of people who want jobs, who want to work, who can't find those jobs. we are looking at a younger generation of workers who cannot get into the economy. and if you're a young person and you leave high school, for example, and you can't get a job in your first year out there or

your second year, if you think that this does not have a cataclysmic impact on your confidence, on your self-esteem, you are very, very mistaken. and i fear very much and worry very much about the millions of young people who are out there, who are not in school, who are not working. and tragically, many of those young people will end up on drugs. some of them are going to end up in jail. and these are issues that we have got to deal with. now, what the american people tell us over and over again is yes, the deficit is a serious problem. i believe it is. everybody in the congress believes that it is. but what the american people also say is high unemployment is an even more serious issue. according to a march, 2013,

gallup poll, 75% of the american people, including 56% of republicans, 74% of independents and 93% of the democrats, support, and i quote, a federal job creation law that would spend government money for a program designed to create more than a million new jobs, end of quote. so what the american people are saying is yes, we have made progress in the last four years. we have cut the deficit in half. we have got to do more. but what the american people are saying loudly and clearly is we need to create jobs. and what they also understand -- and poll after poll indicates this -- that when you have an infrastructure which is crumbling, roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, our rail system, when you have an

infrastructure that is crumbling , we need to invest in rebuilding that infrastructure, and when you do that, you create significant numbers of jobs. that is what the american people want us to do. mr. president, when is the last time you even heard that debate here on the floor of the senate? the unemployment crisis, the need to create jobs, that is what the american people want us to do and we're not even talking about that issue. the second issue the american people are very clear about, you know, it's a funny thing. sometimes the media writes about how partisan the congress is, how divisive the congress is. senator grassley and i supposedly hate each other, we don't talk to each other and all that nonsense. that's not the reality. the truth is that among the american people, surprisingly enough, there is a lot of

consensus, a lot of consensus. i mentioned a moment ago that the american people very strongly believe that we should invest in our infrastructure and create jobs. unfortunately that is not what we're doing. now here's another issue, mr. president, that the american people are loud and clear upon. they understand that tragically in today's economy, most of the new jobs that are being created are not good-paying jobs. that is the sad reality. most of the new jobs that are being created in today's economy are low-wage jobs, and many of them are part-time jobs. so if you're making $8, $9 an hour and you're working 30 hours a week, you're going to have a very hard time supporting yourself let alone a family. so what do the american people say?

they say raise the minimum wage. raise the minimum wage. and let me quote from today's "wall street journal," from today's "wall street journal." quote -- "americans strongly favor about boosting the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, but oppose raising it above that an nbc "wall street journal" news poll finds. in the survey 63% supported a rise to $10.10 an hour from the current $7.25 rate." end of quote. 63% of the american people support that. democrats strongly support it. independents support it. many republicans support it. one would think, therefore, when the vast majority of the american people understand that $7.25 an hour is a starvation

wage and that we need to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour that we would be moving on it, that maybe we would get a u.c. on it, unanimous consent, let's get it done. i fear very much that right here in the senate we are going to have a very, very difficult time gaining 60 votes. i hope that i am wrong. i sincerely do, but i'm not aware at this point that there are any republicans prepared to support an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. and i believe that in the republican-controlled house it would be extremely difficult to get legislation widely supported by the american people through that body. but not only will my republican colleagues not do what the american people want in terms of raising the minimum wage, quite incredibly, mr. president, i have to tell you that many of my republican colleagues do not believe in the concept of the

minimum wage. many of them believe we should abolish the concept of the minimum wage. so that if you're in a situation in a high unemployment area where an employer, where workers are desperate for work and an employer says here's $4 an hour, take it or leave it, well, that's okay with some of my republican colleagues. so, again, we are in a situation where the vast majority of the american people want to do something about low wages much they want to raise the minimum wage, and we're going to have a very, very difficult time getting that legislation through. and i hope i'm wrong. but i do know that unless the american people stand up, get on the phone, start calling their senators and members of congress, we probably will not succeed in doing what the american people want. and interestingly enough, mr. president, what the american people also understand is that

raising the minimum wage will help us with the federal deficit in a variety of ways. it may be a surprise to some americans to know that the largest welfare recipient in the united states of america happens coincidentally to be the wealthiest family in america. the walton family, who owns wal-mart, are worth about $100 billion. they are the wealthiest family in america. they own more wealth as one family than the bottom 40% of the american people. extraordinary wealth. and one of the reasons they are so wealthy is the american taxpayer subsidizes wal-mart because wal-mart pays low wages, provides minimal benefits, and many of their workers end up on medicaid. they end up on food stamps, they end up in government-subsidized

housing. i'm not quite sure why the middle class and working families of this country have to subsidize the walton family because they pay wages that are inadequate for their workers to live a dignified life. so my hope is that when the american people are loud and clear about the need to raise the minimum wage, that congress will respond. but i have to tell you, i have my doubts. mr. president, what we also hear, and most recently from pope francis, is an understanding that there is something profoundly wrong about a nation and increasingly a world in which so few have so much and so many have so little. the united states of america today, we have more wealth and

income inequality than at any time since the late 1920's, and we have more wealth and income inequality than any other major country on earth. mr. president, today the top 1% of our population owns 38% of the wealth of america, financial wealth of this country. and the bottom 60% owns 2.3%. top 1% owns 38% of the wealth of america. the bottom 60% owns 2.3%. is that really what america is supposed to be about? i think not. and i think pope francis recently talked about that issue, talked about the moral aspects of that issue. and i think he is exactly right. so, mr. president, those are some of the issues that we have

to talk about. another issue out there that i think we have to be very clear about -- and again, the american people are extraordinarily clear about this. the american people understand that social security has been probably the most successful federal program in the modern history of this country for the last 70-plus years it has kept seniors out of poverty. in fact, before social security, 50% of seniors in this country lived in poverty. today that number, while too high, is about 9.5%. that's a significant improvement. and social security, despite what is going on in the economy in good times and bad times has never once failed to pay out all of the benefits owed to every eligible american. today social security has a 2.7

trillion dollar surplus, to pay out every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 20 years. you know what the american people say about social security? they say it loudly and clearly. republicans say it, democrats say it, independents say it: do not cut social security. do not cut social security. and yet i have to tell you, mr. president, virtually all republicans think we should cut social security. some democrats believe we should cut social security. the president of the united states has talked about a chained c.p.i. -- very bad idea -- about cutting social security. maybe we should listen to the american people and make it very clear, no, we're not going to cut social security. in fact, we're going to take a new look at social security and see not only how we can make it solvent not just for 20 years but for 50 years, and in addition to that increase benefits. and there are pretty easy ways to do that, including lifting

the cap on taxable income that goes into the social security trust fund. as you know, mr. president, today somebody makes $100 million, somebody makes $113,000. they both contribute the same amount into the social security trust fund. lift that cap you can start at a level of $250,000, you will solve the social security solvency issue for the next 50, 60 years. and that is exactly what we should do and that is what the american people want us to do. in terms of medicare, people say medicare has financial problems. it does. but the issue, and interestingly enough it gets back to what senator graham was talking about, talking about his health care plan. south carolina, sounds like a pretty bad plan to me. i agree with him. but what's the issue there? the issue we've got to look at, which we don't for obvious reasons, is how does it happen, mr. president, that in the united states of america before the affordable care act -- things will change a little bit -- before the affordable care act we have 48 million people who are uninsured.

we have tens of millions more people who have high deductibles, like senator graham, $6,000 deductible in comprehensive. high co-payments. and yet at the end of the day 48 million people uninsured, high deductibles, high co-payments, health outcomes that are not particularly good. better than some countries, worse than some countries. infant mortality worse. longevity worse. life expectancy worse. and yet we end up spending twice as much per person on health care as any other nation. how does that happen? how do we spend so much and get so little value? is that an issue we are prepared to discuss? well, i guess not. because the private insurance companies say don't talk about that. we're making a whole lot of money out of the current health care system, including the affordable care act. we make a lot of money. our c.e.o.'s do.

yeah, we're spending 30 cents of every dollar on administrative costs, on bureaucracy, on advertising. don't touch that because that's the american health care system. well, i would suggest that we have to take a hard look at what goes on around the rest of the world. somebody had said, people have said we have the best health care system in the world. that's not what the american people say. the polls that i have seen is that there is less satisfaction with our system than exists in other countries around the world for obvious reasons. we spend a lot. we get relatively little. are we prepared as the congress to stand up to the insurance companies? are we prepared to stand up to the drug companies that charge us far higher prices for prescription drugs than any other country on earth? are we prepared to stand up to the medical equipment suppliers? i don't think so. because that gets us then into the issue of campaign finance, where people get their money to

run for office, because these guys contribute a whole lot of money. are we prepared to stand up to wall street? you've got six financial institutions on wall street that have assets of over $9 trillion, equivalent to two-thirds of the g.d.p. of the united states of america. they write half of the mortgages in this country, two-thirds of the credit cards. well, do you think maybe it's time to break these guys up? are we going to march down the path of too big to fail and have to bail them out again? hear lots of discussion about that, mr. president? no, not too often. let me conclude, and the last point i want to make is we had the president of the world bank here just yesterday talking about global warming. as i think most people know, the entire -- well, virtually the entire scientific community, people who study the issue of global warming, understand that the planet is warming significantly, that it is already causing devastating

problems, that the issue is man-made, and that if we do not address this crisis by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, moving away from fossil fuel, the habitability of this planet for our kids and our grandchildren is very, very much in question. that's what the scientific community says. have you heard, mr. president, any debate on this floor about how we're going to aggressively transform our energy system? we don't do it. mr. president, let me simply conclude by saying this. there is a reason why the united states congress has a favorability rating of about 10%. and that is that the american people are hurting and we are not responding to that pain. we are not addressing the many crises facing this country, and the american people are saying to congress, what world do you live in? how about joining our world? how about paying attention to our needs? so, mr. president, with that, i

would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we are in postcloture debate on the nominee for the district court of the district of columbia -- or, i mean, the circuit court for the district of columbia. i want to speak on that nomination, but i'm also going to take time to speak on issues dealing with the defense department, issues dealing with the farm bill, and issues dealing with the new nominee for the department of homeland security. so you will a tak i'll take a fo discuss the president's ongoing scheme to stack the d.c. circuit with committed ideologues so that the president's regulatory agenda doesn't run into judicial roadblocks. yesterday the senate confirmed the first three -- the first of three nominees to the d.c.

circuit that the court does not need. let me emphasize that -- does not need. of course, the senate denied its consent on these nominees just a few short weeks ago. so then you can ask, what has changed during that time? the vote count certainly hasn't changed. it's not as if democrats persuaded some of the republicans who are their colleagues to change their mind. that's what you would expect in a body that operates based upon rules that guarantee the minority a voice. that's what you'd expect in what is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body on earth. this body is not the house of representatives, where minority views are not given that same consideration. that's what you would expect under normal circumstances. but, as i explained in a speech earlier this week on another nominee for the same court,

these are not normal circumstances. no, today's circumstances are different. today, the president's legislative agenda can't get traction in congress. and, no, it isn't because republicans won't negotiate with the president. it's because the president of the united states is out of step with the american people. today the president's signature health care law, which was passed without a single republican vote, is becoming more and more unpopular with each passing day. and, no, it isn't because the administration has -- hasn't done a good job of messaging obamacare. it's because -- precisely because of that message. today the president can't get climate change legislation passed by congress. and, no, it isn't simply because

of republican opposition. it's because the president's agenda is too extreme, even for some senate democrats. so the president and his agenda are out of step with the american people. and, as a result, he can't get his agenda adopted in this congress. but that doesn't seem to matter to the radical liberal interest groups who support the policy initiatives of the president. they want more, no matter what. these liberal interest groups aren't satisfied with the separation of power. that being the constitutional separation of power. they want the president and his allies in the dismoot whatever it takes -- in the senate to do whatever it takes to get the same results they would if there were 535 members of congress just as liberal as the president. those interest groups want the president to legislate by

executive order and by administrative action. they want the president to suspend the law when it suits his purpose, just as the english kings used to do. in fact, the reason our constitution requires -- and let me emphasize "requires" -- the president of the united states to "quote, unquote -- execute the larks is because the english kings would unilaterally, select tiferl an-- selectively and vern suspend laws passed by the parliament. but none of this matters to the liberal interest groups. they want results, no matter what. in fact, the president made such a practice of legislating by executive order an administrative action that he has created a real expectation among his most faithful support theirs there's nothing -- that

there's nothing he can't do unilaterally. just a week or two, a the presiden-- thepresident was dela speech in california when one of his own supporters interrupted and heckled him for not issu isg an executive order to stop all deportation. the heckler shouted, "use your executive order to halt deportations of 11.5 million downlted immigrants -- undocumented immigrants in this country. you have the power to stop deportations right now. ." end of that constituent's quote. the president responded. "actually, i don't." that's the president's quote. "actually, i don't." the president added, "we're a nation of laws." now, i must say, i understand the confusion. the most extreme elements of the president's supporters have witnessed him pick and choose

which laws he will faithfully execute and which he will suspend, or as the president likes to say, waive. so, it's no wonder that those supporters would say, just issue an executive order; we want results, just like king george iii. it's no wonder that those supporters would say, we don't care that there isn't support in the congress to pass legislation imposing cap-and-trade fee increases. we want results, just like george iii. it's no wonder that those supporters would say, we don't care if democrats block judges to the d.c. circuit based on the standards the republicans are applying today. that was then. this is now. we want results, just like george iii. it's no wonder that those supporters would say, we don't

care about two centuries of senate history and tradition that has been passed down faithfully from one majority leader to the next. we want results, just like george iii. climate change regulations are too important, salvador vajing g obamacare is too important. so, as we all know, the majority buckled to the pressure from these extreme liberal interest groups and broke the rules in the senate to change the rules. they tossed aside two centuries of senate history and tradition, a history and tradition that up until two weeks ago had been jealously guarded and carefully preserved by each succeeding majority leaders, leader whose remembered the history of george iii. they did all of this just so

they could install the president's handpicked judges, to hear challenges to his signature health care law and to the rest of his regulatory agenda like climate change regulation, as another example. but when a president selects a nominee for the specific purpose of rubber-stamping his agenda, an agenda that has proven too extreme for even members of his own party, he needs a judge who can count upon -- who can be counted upon to follow through on approving those regulations. but given that it's inappropriate to ask prospective nominees how they'd rule on particular cases, how would this white house make certain that their nominees would follow through and rubber stamp the president's agenda? well, based upon professor pillard's record -- and that's

the nominee we'll be voting on tomorrow -- apparently, the white house looked out over academia and selected the most liberal nominee that they could find, because professor pillard fits that bill to a t. i have heard my colleagues come to the floor and argue that these nominees to the d.c. circuit are mainstream. professor pillard may be a fine person, but mak make no mistake about it, she isn't maintain stream. that's the furthest from t i'm sure that the white house is confident she can be counted upon to rubber stamp its agenda, but don't confuse her views with the mainstream of american legal tradition. and i have a sampling of things that she has written and said, and i ask you then to determine, is she mainstream? she has written this about

abortion: "casting reproductive rights in terms of equality holds promise to recenter the debate towards the real stakes for women and men of unwanted pregnancies andway from the deceptive images of fetus as autonomous being that the anti-choice movement has popularized." now, think of deceptive images of fetus as autonomous beings. is that mainstream? she argued this about motherhood: "reproductive rights, including the right to contraception and abortion, play a central role in freeing women from historically routine conscription into maternity." now, think about that. historically routine congressscriptioconscription in?

is that mainstream? "anti-abortion -- not only enforce wims incould you baiftion unwanted pregnancies but also prescribe a vision of the woman's role as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection." is that in the mainstream? and what about her views on religious freedom? this really ought to shock. she argued that the supreme court case of hoe sanaa taber evangelical church represented "a substantial threat to the american rule of law." now, the supreme court rejected her view 9-0.

and the court held that -- quote -- "it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church determination of who can act as its ministers." do my colleagues honestly believe that it's within the mainstream to argue churches shouldn't be allowed to choose their own ministers? i don't think so. i asked professor pillard about hosana tabor about religious freedom. she testified, request, and i have to admit, senator grassley, i really called it wrong on that case. i did not predict that the court would rule as it did." in other words, in other words, she tried to dodge the question by leaving the committee members with the impression that she'd merely taken a stab at predict the case outcome and should

she'd gotten it wrong. but of course i wasn't troubled that she had wrongly predicted the outcome. i was troubled because she actually argued that a ruling in favor of the church would represent -- quote -- "a substantial threat to the american rule of law." i don't believe that there is a single member of this body on either side of the aisle who would subscribe to that argument, any more than the nine justices of the supreme court did. if i'm wrong about that then he had i'd like to hear the senator explain how it's mainstream to argue that granting our churches the latitude to choose their own ministers represents a substantial threat to the american rule of law. so these are the so sh so-called mainstream views that the president wants to install ton a court that will her challenges to his most important priorities. is it any wonder that the

president has high confidence in professor pillard rubber-stamping his agenda? before i close on this point, let me make one final point. given the circumstances surrounding these nominees -- how these nominees were selected and nomghted nominated, given ae were nominated and simultaneously for the purpose of changing judicial outcomes and rubber stamping the president's agenda, and given they were nominated and rammed through the process without aer to th -- without regard to the t there isn't enough work for them to do, given the president and certain far-left liberal interest groups then successfully persuaded the majority of the senate to cast aside two centuries of senate history and tradition in order to get them confirmed, given the

extremely liberal record that i discussed, if you were a lit gangt-- if youwere a litigant ce president or one of his administrative actions, and you drew a panel comprised of professor pillard, millett and judge wilkins, can you honestly say that you'd be confident that you would get a fair shake before that panel? of course not. and that, my colleagues, is a sad commentary on the -- and that, my colleagues, is a sad commentary on the damage the president and the senate majority have inflicted, not only on the united states senate but also on our judiciary and fundamental notions of the rule of law, tending towards what our constitution tried to overcome, the actions that were prevalent during colonial times that king

george iii would take. i urge my colleagues to oppose the pillard nomination. mr. president, for several years, i have been trying to get the defense department inspector general to do their job, and i have had several investigations. a lot of them implemented because of information that comes to me from whistle-blowers, and i would speak to that point now to talk about two important audits that were bungled by the department of defense inspector general's office. there is something very important that i need to say right up front. a brand-new inspector general, mr. john reimer, is now in place. the events that i am about to describe happened a few years ago. none reflect on his leadership, which i hope will bring about it big change in the inspector

general's office at the department of defense. when faced with a frontal assault on its audit authority by the target of one of its audits, senior i.g. officials got a bad case of weak knees and caved under pressure. they trashed high-quality audit work that was critical of a certified public accounting firm and its opinions. in doing this, they covered up reportable deficiencies, they allowed the audit target to run roughshod over sacred oversight prerogatives without uttering one word of protest or asking one single question. i'm talking about audits of the financial statements produced by the department's central accounting office. this is what i refer to as dfsa, that stands for defense finance

and accounting services. the audits were conducted by a c.p.a. firm but supposedly under the watchful eye of the inspector general or i.g., but not really his eye. the story of the two bungled audits is told in an oversight report which i have now posted on my web site. while i received the first anonymous emails on this matter in april, 2012, my audit oversight work actually began more than five years ago. it was triggered by a steady stream of tips from whistle-blowers complaining about the quality of these audits. these reports then grabbed my attention. my colleagues may wonder why the senator from iowa's down in the weeds on such arcane issues. the reason is simple -- it's the importance of audits.

audits are probably the primary oversight tool for rooting out fraud and waste in the government. to protect the taxpayers, congress needs to ensure that government audits are as good as they can be. they must produce tangible results. they must be able to detect theft, waste, mismanagement and then recommend corrective action. with mounting pressure for serious belt tightening under sequestration, audits have taken on even greater importance. audits should help senior management separate the wheat from the chaff and apply mandated cuts where they belong. sequestration cuts should be guided by hard-hitting, rock-solid audits. unfortunately, rock-solid audits produced by the inspector general's office are hard to come by, and that's the problem.

after evaluating hundreds of audits, i issued three oversight reports in the years 2010 and 2012. with a few notable exceptions, i found that the inspector general's audits were weak, were ineffective and were wasteful, wasteful when you consider that we spend $100 million a year to produce them. poor leadership is part of the problem. but there is still another driver, and that's the department's broken accounting system. it allows fraud and waste to go undetected and unchecked. that's bad enough, but the lack of credible financial information makes it very difficult to produce hard-hitting audits. auditors are forced to do audit trail reconstruction work to connect the dots on the money trails, and of course that is very labor intensive, very

time-consuming work. although the department continues to spend billions to fix the busted accounting system, i'm sorry to say it is still not working right. the department did not pass the chief financial officer's audit test. it is not able to report on how the taxpayers' money is spent as it is required to do each year under that law. by comparison, every other federal agency has passed that test. why not the department of defense? so long as the accounting system is dysfunctional, audits will remain weak and ineffective, and the probability of rooting out much fraud and waste during sequestration is low and then still continuing to waste $100 million that we spend on the inspector general's office. and while i'm talking about the need for better audits, i would like to offer a word of

encouragement to the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction, general sopkow -- or john sopkow. he is the head of cega r. when they are cranking out aggressive hard-hitting audits -- and i commend cegar for doing that, set ago good example. the examples i am about to talk about for contracts deserve darts, not laurels. mr. president, i first came to the floor to speak on this subject november 14, 2012. at that point, i completed a preliminary view of seven red flags or potential problem areas that popped up on my era screen. since then, i have double checked the facts. i have confirmed my preliminary observations. i did this by examining the official audit records known as

work papers. so i will not walk the same ground again tonight. instead, i will briefly summarize what i did, how i did it, what i found, why it's important and how some -- and offer some fixes for consideration. to conduct this investigation, i had to examine literally thousands of documents. i could not have done it without the help and guidance of c.p.a.-qualified government auditors. evidence uncovered in the work papers was validated with interviews and written inquiries with knowledgeable officials. together, these tell the story of what really happened, and of course it's not a pretty picture. true, my report is nothing more than a snapshot in time, but if this snapshot accurately reflects the work being produced

by the i.g. audit office, then we have big, big problems. in a nutshell, this is what i found out. a c.p.a. firm, erbach, kahn and wurlin, e.k.w., had awarded an unblemished string of seven clean opinions on central accounting agency's financial statements. when the i.g. stepped in and took a two-year snapshot for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, it was supposed to report on whether those statements and opinions met prescribed audit standards, but due to a series of ethical blunders, that job was never finished. a third review was planned for 2010, but after the 2008-2009 fiasco, that was canceled,

allowing dfas, the -- i want to explain, the defense finance and accounting service -- it allowed dfas to rack up another string of clean opinions through last year. although this work probably cost the taxpayers in excess of $20 million altogether. the work performed by dfas in 2008 and 2009 was substandard. the outside audit firm rubber stamped dfas's flawed practices using defective audit methods. for his part, the inspector general was prepared to call foul on the c.p.a. firm for substandard work but got sidetracked and then steam rolled by dfas. the contract gave the i.g. preeminent overnight authority to accept or reject the firm's

opinions. the whole purpose of the contract was to position the auditors to make that determination if the firm's opinions met prescribed standards, they would be endorsed. if not, the i.g. would issue nonendorsement report. on both the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 audits, the record clearly indicates the i.g.'s audit team determined that the firm's opinions did not meet prescribed standards. they did not merit endorsement. although i cannot cite work papers to prove it, whistle-blowers allege that top management ordered them to endorse the 2008 opinion with this caveat. if known deficiencies were not corrected in the 2009 opinion, a nonendorsement was guaranteed.

well, when the very same deficiencies popped up again -- in other words, in 2009 like in 2008 -- the auditors prepared a hard-hitting non endorsement report as promised. it was even signed. the transmittal letter was ready to go to the door, out the door. the nonendorsement decision had been communicated to dfas via email in unmistakable terms. in line with that decision and contract requirements, the i.g. took steps to cut off payment to this c.p.a. firm based on advice of the inspector general's legal counsel. the next step was to issue the nonendorsement report. but this is where the inspector general chickened out. in a power vacuum, dfas moved

swiftly to block the report with a blatant end-run maneuver to bypass independent overnight. so dfas literally neutered independent overnight by the inspector general with two bold moves. on the same day the i.g.'s office notified dfas in writing that a nonendorsement report would be forthcoming, dfas unilaterally and proudly declared that it had earned a clean opinion and ordered that all disputed invoices be paid. this was an act of out and out defiance. next it picked the i.g. off the contract. yes, i can tell my colleagues, you heard me right. the agency being audited literally kicked the inspector general, the overnight agency clean off the overnight contract

in making this end-run maneuver, dfas broke every rule in the audit books. what happened was frontal assault on the inspector general's oversight authority. the frontal assault was mounted by the agency being subjected to the audit and by an agency whose financial reports were found to be grossly deficient. in the face of such outright defiance, i would like to think that any inspector general would have stood up to the offending agency and held its ground and protected and defended its oversight prerogatives. that's the law but not the department of defense inspector general. instead, the i.g.'s knees buckled under pressure, the i.g. retreated before the onslaught, the i.g. caved and trashed the report, the i.g. rolled over and played possum, giving dfas the

green light to proceed full speed ahead. and the i.g. accepted these blatant transgressions without expressing one word of criticism, without expressing one concern, without raising one single question. other than a lone hotline complaint that disappeared down a black hole, no protest was ever lodged. no corrective action was ever proposed. and obviously no corrective action ever taken. the inspector general's silence appeared to signal total acquiescence to a series of actions that undermine the integrity of the audit process which is the basis for ferreting out waste, fraud and mismanagement and illegal activity. for a senator who watches the watchdogs, what i see here is a

disgrace to the entire inspector general community. the i.g. allowed dfas to run roughshod over the contract. the i.g. act, audit standards and independent oversight. and the audit firm probably got paid for the work that was never performed, payments that were alleged to be improper. instead of exposing poor practices and improper actions by both accounting agencies and the cpa firm, the office of inspector general allowed sacred principles to be trampled. it just kept quiet. it turned a blind eye to what was going on. it hunkered down. it tried to cover its tracks. two misguided acts set the stage for the collapse of oversight of these audits. the problem began with a contract.

at the insistence of the department's chief financial officer and accounting agency, the i.g. agreed to a contractual arrangement that put dfas, the target of the audit, in the driver's seat. this contract allegedly violated the i.g. act and standing audit policies according to the assistant i.g. who spoke out at that particular time. to address this issue, a fragile waiver arrangement was crafted. it was supposed to address the legal issues and protect the office of the inspector general's interest under the dfas contract. all the parties involved agreed to abide by this questionable setup. but being nothing more than an informal trust, it came unglued under the pressure and controversy generated by the nonendorsement decision. even the office of inspector general legal counsel voiced

grave concerns about the fragile waiver arrangement. in his opinion, the terms of the contract transferred -- those words come from the office of legal counsel -- transferred the office of inspector general oversight function to dfas, the very component whose financial data were being subjected to the oversight. in his words, meaning the office of legal counsel's words, the contract terms will leave the office of inspector general -- quote -- "open to criticism on the hill. in two years some senator will yell at this -- at us about this. if i had known about this arrangement, he said, i would have advised against it." counsel's concerns were well-founded.

and like a modern-day know extra extra -- modern day nostradamus, this prediction has come to pass. the second was leadership at the top. when the inspector general reached the conclusion that the cpa's firm didn't reach prescribed standard, the i.d. audit drove the final nail into the coffin. the official audit records make it crystal clear the department i.g. gave the fateful order -- quote -- "there will be no written report." end of quote. this was a lethal blow. this is how the report got bottled up. true, it disappeared from public view. it got buried. and dfas was promised it would never see the light of day. that is until one of my investigators came along and dug it out of the pile of work

papers and -- for the benefit of my colleagues, here it is in my hand. i hold it up. it didn't get buried like they thought it would get buried. once the deputy i.g. had smothered the report, dfas knew it had the green light to bypass oversight with impunity. all of this bungling could have harmful consequences. first, compelling audit evidence which undermined the credibility of the financial statements prepared by the department's flagship accounting agency was shielded from public exposure. the suppression of that evidence has helped to immortalize the myth of dfas clean opinions. it is so bad now that the myth is an inside joke. it's laughable according to a former accountant. here's what he said on the record in the press on november 22, 2013. i quote -- "when i was there,

dfas would brag about getting a clean opinion. we accountants would just laugh out loud. their systems were so screwed up." end of quote. if the output of the defense department's flagship accounting agency, which disburses over $600 billion a year, is indeed laughable, then the pentagon money managers have another big problem. as that famous whistle-blower ernie fitzgerald liked to say, "it's time to lock the doors and to call the law." since the myth involves the reliability data reported by the department's central accounting agency, it has the potential of putting the secretary of defense audit readiness initiative in jeopardy. dfas's apparent inability to

accurately report on its own internal housekeeping accounts for $1.5 billion -- it is $1.5 billion that they have cast out its ability to accurately report on hundreds of billions d.o.d. spends each year if the department's central accounting agency cannot earn a clean opinion, then who in the department can? second, the integrity and independence of the inspector general's audit process may have been compromised. if the independence of the audit process was in fact compromised as my report suggests, then the department's primary tool for rooting out waste and fraud could be disabled. at least it was in these cases. and if that did indeed happen, then it probably happened with

the knowledge and silence acquiescence of senior officials in the i.g.'s office and the institution that exists to root out fraud, waste and abuse. in simple terms, the watchdog appointed to expose waste and -- not only expose but stop tpraupbd -- fraud and waste may have been doing some of it himself or herself. if it demonstrates a lack of commitment on the part of senior management to exercise due diligence in performing its core mission. almost all of the key players allegedly responsible for the bungled audits will occupy top posts in the i.g.'s audit office today. surely these officials did not act alone. this was a concerted effort. according to recent news reports, other higher ups were

allegedly involved, and senior i.g. officials must bear primary responsibility for this unacceptable and inexplicable failure of oversight. they could have in fact stopped it. to address and resolve these issues, i made four recommendations in a letter recently sent to secretary hagel and the new inspector general. first, the department of defense c.f.o. should pull the dfas financial statements for the years 2008 and 2009 and remove those audit opinions from official records. second, the old i.g. needs to undertake an independent audit of dfas's financial statements for fiscal year 2012 and determine whether those statements and the cpa's firm's opinions meet prescribed audit standards. fiscal year 2012 beginning account balances must also be

verified in response to my oversight, the inspector general has initiated what he calls a postaudit review of dfas fiscal year 2012 financial statements. this is in fact a good move. but to ensure that it is done right at this time, i ask the the u.s. g.a.o. to watchdog the inspector general's work. i want independent verification because last time there was none. this process will be completed next year, and, third, the inspector general should address and resolve any allegations of misconduct involving dfas's officials and make appropriate recommendations for corrective action. fourth, i'm referring unresolved concerns concerning the conduct of i.g. officials to the integrity committee of the council of inspector generals on

integrity and efficiency for further review as provided under the i.g. reform act of 2008. what happened here, mr. president, is almost beyond comprehension. all of it happened under the i.g.'s watchful office -- watchful eye. all of it probably happened with top-level knowledge. most of it probably happened with top-level approval. some of it was probably allowed to happen through tacit approval or silent acquiescence. all of it was bad for the integrity and independence of audit process and the accuracy of financial information in the government's largest agency. as i said a moment ago, the department has a new i.g.. john rhymer. i hope he is a genuine junkyard dog who likes aggressive, hard-hitting audits and i hope mr. rhimer will take a long,

hard look at what happened here and work with secretary hagel and others to find a good way to right the wrongs and get audits back on track. i know that he can do it, and i stand ready to help him in any way i can. i want mr. rhimer to know that my door is open to him. on another matter, mr. president, i rise to talk about the farm bill, specifically, about reforming payment limits for farm workers, something that this senate agreed to in a bipartisan way. beyond saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payment go to those for whom they were originally intended. small and medium-size farmers. in addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so nonfarmers can't game the system. supporters of the farm bill need

to take a hard look at what challenges were presented last year to getting a bill done. we need to forge ahead, knowing some tough decisions need to be made. there are more reforms that we need to make in programs such as food stamps, and they are reforms that can cut down on waste, fraud and abuse in the program, but also safeguard assistance to the people who actually need it. and while i support closing loopholes in the food stamp program, i believe the farm bill should also close loopholes for farm programs that are so absurd that they're just so obvious. as we move forward on finalizing a new farm bill, i want to state clearly that section 1603 and 1604 relating to the farm payments which are in both the house bill and the senate farm bill should stay in that bill. there should be a do not stand on those provisions under

negotiation now between the house and senate. and most importantly, for house conferees to remember that these provisions were put on the floor of the house of representatives and amendments sponsored by congressman for thenberry of nebraska with an overwhelming vote in the house of representatives. this is a case where the majorities of both bodies support these provisions and yet they're under attack by house conferees. these farm payment reforms strike a needed balance of recognizing the need for a farm safety net while making sure that we have a defensible and responsible safety net. in case there's any doubt, we do need a farm program safety net. for those who argue we do not need a safety net for farmers, i argue they do not understand the dangers to a nation which does not produce its own food.

for all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject to conditions out of their control. while farmers need a safety net, there does not come a point where a farmer gets their -- there does come a point where a farmer get get cannot -- >> there's developed this perverse scenario where big farmers are receiving the largest share of the farm program payments. we noi have the largest 10 purr of the farmers receiving 70% of those farm payments coming out of the federal treasury. there's nothing wrong with farmers growing an operation bigger. but the taxpayers should not be subsidizing large farming operations to grow even larger making it hard to get into the

operation. by having a reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any one farmer can receive it helps ensure the program meets the intent of assisting small and medium-sized farmers through tough times. my faiment reforms say it will help farmers up to $250,000 per year but then the government training wheels come off. these new caps will also help encourage the next generation of rural americans to take up farming. i am approached time and again about how to help young people get into farming. when large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting those that they're intended to help. it's simply good follows have a hard cap on the amount a farm or farm entity can receive in farm program payments.

while both bodies of congress have decided to cap farm payments, crop insurance is still available to large operations, no limits on indemnities. sections 1603 and 16 40erbgs which i you a thowrd and which congressman foreten berry offered set the overall payment caps at $250 th,000 for married couples. many people say that's still too high. on the other hand, there's other farmers in other parts of the country that say it's way too loavment but i recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, so this is a compromise. just as important, however to setting a hard cap on payments is closing loopholes that have allowed nonfarmers to game the farm program. the house and senate farm bills also end the ability of nonfarmers to abuse what is known as the actively engaged

test. in essence, the law says, one has to be actively engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments. now, isn't this scengs? -- now, isn't this common sense? this has been exploited by people who have virtually nothing to do with farming, with a farming operation, and yet receive payments from the farm program. now, not citing myself, but the congressional accountability office issued a report, a report that i released october outlining how the current actively engaged regulations are so broad that they essentially are unenforceable and those comments came from the usda employees who administer the program. the report illustrated that one farming entity had 22 total members of which 16 were deemed -- quote -- "contributing actively personal management

only to the farm." what does "active personal management only" mean? that means they are becoming eligible for farm programs because one of the eight overly broad and unenforceable eligibility requirements that currently exist. more sumly put, they likely aren't doing any labor and are nothing more than a participant on paper to allow theent toy get more -- to allow the entity to get more government payments. our nation has over a $17 trillion debt. we cannot afford to simply look the other way and let the people abuse the farm safety net. i am i mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas of farm policy as we look to pass a five-year farm bill and some tough decisions need to be made. however, my reforms to payment limits do not pose a tough

decision. they are common sense. they are necessary reforms that are included in bodge th both te and senate versions of the farm bism i want to thank senator stabenow, the chairman of the our senate committee, for fighting for these senate provisions. you see, these provisions were part of the senate bill. so representing a majority of the united states senate. more importantly, these same provisions were added on the house floor by congressman fortenbury. so senator stabenow has the high moral ground in conference with the house conferees in fighting for payment limitations. she represents a majority of the united states senate whereas the house conferees in opposing her represent the minority of the house of representatives. and now on the last issue i am going to speak about, then i'll

yield the floor, deals with some correspondence i'm trying to have with the nominee to be head of secretary of homeland security. on july 12, secretary napolitano announced that she would be leaving the department of homeland security after four years heading up one of the largest departments of the federal government. on october 17, the obama administration announced that it had finally found a replacement. the committee on homeland security moved quickly on jeh johnson's nomination approving him by voice vote. on november 15 before the committee approved him, i sent a letter to mr. johnson along with several colleagues on the judiciary committee. we on the judiciary committee asked for his views on a number of important matters, including our nation's immigration policies and the fair treatment of whistle-blowers. we asked if he would cooperate

with us on oversight matters and work with us to improve immigration policies going afford. because the judiciary committee has primary responsibility on immigration matters, it is necessary for us to know any nominee's position on almost any issue. it has been nearly a month and there's been no response to our letter and no indication that he might respond. in fact, i would be surprised that any nominee would respond to congress anymore, given the majority only needs a simple majority to vote for confirmation, thanks to a rule change done unilaterally by the majority. there will no longer be a proper vetting of executive branch nominees. the rule change essentially takes away the senate's constitutional role of advise and consent allowing nominees to ignore congress on issues of extreme importance such as immigration. but i'm still going to pursue these questions, even though we don't have the leverage we used

to have when the 60-vote majority was necessary, because congress has a responsibility to know how laws are going to be enforced by the president's appointees. president obama promised that this would be the most transparent administration in history. yet getting answers from thew president or his -- from this president or his administration on congressional oversight has been like pulling teeth. they have stonewalled congress at every turn. over the last five years the administration has gone around congress and pushed the envelope with their authority. he has ignored his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws by picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce. congressional oversight and important responsibility that holds the government accountable for its people has been nearly impossible. in other words, the checks and balances of government don't work the way the constitution writers intended. now it is going to get worse. it will be more blatant disrespect for checks and balances than we've ever seen.

so i would like to take a time to read some of the questions -- just some of the questions that we asked mr. johnson. i hope you think that these would be reasonable questions, that any secretary ought to tell wheys going to do if he gets sworn into that office. i think they underscore how important it is that we have answers before we move afford on the nomination. first and foremost, we asked mr. johnson about his commitment to uphold the laws on the books. we asked if he would continue the lawless policies created by the former secretary and deputies. we asked about what he would do to improve the morale of immigration officials and agents concerned about their nonenforcement protocols and we want to know how he would strengthen cooperation between the fed and local law enforcement entities. second, we asked mr. johnson will what he would do to improve border security. we want to know what specific measures he will implement to ensure the department -- that the department will comply with the secure fence act of 2006.

in 2010 secretary napolitano suspended our nation's only comprehensive border security measurements known as "operational control metric." more than three years have passed and the department of homeland security has failed to replace that metric. will mr. johnson then hold the department accountable by regularly releasing a comprehensive border security metric? will he commit to achieving operational control of the borders, as required by our law? we do not know that. we would expect him to answer that he's going to enforce the laws, but will he? will he answer? individuals who overstay their visas account for 40% of the undocumented population of this country. this presents a national security risk. without a biometric exit system, this country will have no clue who remains on our soil here

undocumented. will mr. johnson make it a priority to finally implement the entry-exit system that congress mandated in 1996, still not being enforced? third, will -- we asked about the culture of the u.s. citizenship and immigration senior senator's service. in january of 2012 the department of homeland security inspector general released a report cri crit criticizing ther pressuring its employees to rubber stamp applications for benefits. in that report, nearly 25% of the uscis officers surveyed and supervisors had pressured them to improve applications that should have been denied. we want to know if he'll take measures to better screen applicants and do away with the get-to-yes fil philosophy.

that philosophy is a gigantic risk to our national security. luke at the eb-5 program. we asked about whether he'd make it a priority to improve that program. we asked mr. johnson about his position on immigration reform, especially since the bill passed the senate and the house could act sending a bill to the president. we asked if people who are in the country illegally in removing proceedings are subject to a offered removal should be eligible for immigration benefits, including legal status. we asked whether illegal immigrants convicted of a felony or convicted of multiple misdemeanors should be eligible for benefits, including legal status. we want to know if gang members, drunk drivers, domestic abusers and other criminals should be allowed to stay in the country. it's important for noise from mr. johnson because the senate bill provides a provide for these lawbreakers to gain citizenship, and mr. johnson may

be responsible for implementing that. finally, we asked mr. johnson to comment on issues generally impacting the department. we asked if he would pledge the cooperation -- pledge to cooperate with congressional oversight efforts and be responsible to all congressional requests for information and do it in a timely manner. we asked that because we have received very little cooperation in the last five years from that department. we asked if he believed whistle-blowers who know of the problems with matters of national security should be prevented from bringing that information to congress. we asked if he would comment to ensuring -- commit to ensuring that every whistle-blower is treated fairly and that those who retaliate against whistle-blowers be held accountable. no matter what department one manages, the answers to these questions are very important and should be simple to answer.

we need a secretary that will -- is well-versed on these issues. we need a secretary who will implement policies that truly protect the homeland. we need cooperation, transparency, we need answers. the in other words, what's wrong to expect answers to these questions i just gave to you before we advise and consent to this nomination? majority leader reid has indicated through his cloture petition on mr. johnson that answers to these critically important issues are not war ranted. but senators cannot subsequent -- but senators should is not fail our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent. this body should not move afford with this nomination and i encourage my colleagues to consider these issues when the cloture vote ripeance. i yield the floor..

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without