Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are continuing to debate the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said that this is an important moment for the Senate. I couldn't agree more. I think it is important to reflect on why we are here and how we got here. Before I turn to the Supreme Court and the current debate, let me take just a few minutes to talk about lower court nominees and provide a little bit of history and context, especially for the benefit of some of the Senators who weren't here over the last few years. I am going to start way back in the spring of 2001. President George W. Bush had just been elected President. As we all know, it was a close election, and it was hard fought. The Senate was closely divided, with the Republicans in control. Given how close the Presidential election was, there were elements of the hard left who refused to accept the results of that election. Some blamed Ralph Nader, others blamed Governor Jeb Bush, and still others blamed the Supreme Court. Many on the hard left claimed that President George W. Bush wasn't a ``legitimate'' President. Liberal interest groups were egging on the Democratic leadership to fight the new President at every turn. That still sounds very familiar for this year we are in. At the same time, one major concern for the hard-left liberal interest groups was that President Bush, who they claimed wasn't legitimate, would be able to nominate conservative judges. Again, doesn't that sound familiar? Senator Cornyn went over some of this same subject yesterday, but it deserves discussion now, and it serves as a reminder of where we have been before because sometimes the past predicts the future. So in the spring of 2001, the hard-left interest groups went to the Senate Democratic leadership with a plan. According to the New York Times, ``42 of the Senate's 50 Democrats attended a private retreat . . . where a principal topic was forging a unified party strategy to combat the White House on judicial nominees.'' Thinking about 2017, doesn't that sound a little familiar? At that meeting--Cass Sunstein, Marcia Greenberger, and Laurence Tribe spoke at the retreat and pitched to the Democrats who were present their idea of how this crusade could proceed. According to one attendee, ``They said it was important for the Senate to change the ground rules, and there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly and erudite.'' Well, let's think about that for a moment. Why do you suppose they believed they needed to ``change the ground rules'' for confirming judges? It is because up to that point you didn't filibuster judges. You just didn't. You heard the majority leader speak to that point in his short remarks this morning about how things have changed after more than 200 years. Well, as it happened, less than a month after the caucus retreat, Senator Jeffords from Vermont switched parties and began caucusing with the Democrats. That threw the majority to the Democrats for the next 18 months. Then they lost the election of 2002, and in the spring of 2003, Republicans were back in the majority. Now back in the minority, Senate Democrats went ahead with the plans that were enunciated at that retreat to ``change the ground rules.'' For the first time in the history of the Senate, they began to systematically filibuster circuit court nominees--not because they believed the nominees weren't qualified. The nominees were qualified. And it was not because they believed the nominees didn't have the necessary experience. The nominees did have the necessary experience. They filibustered those nominees because they believed they were conservative judges. So with respect to appellate court nominees, Senate Democrats, at the behest of the far left, took the unprecedented step of using the filibuster in a very systematic way for the first time in Senate history. At the time, there was a lot of debate about changing the rules, dubbed the so-called nuclear option, so that nominees would be afforded an up-or-down vote, consistent with the Senate's history and practice. Well, Republicans exercised restraint and agreed to step back. Then President Obama became President. Our side didn't like the use of a filibuster for judges, but we also didn't think there should be two sets of rules--one for a Republican President and one for a Democratic President. Common sense tells you that is a legitimate position to take. We defeated two circuit court nominees, one to the Ninth Circuit and one to the DC Circuit. Then President Obama nominated three individuals to the DC Circuit. Our side denied cloture on those three nominees to the DC Circuit. Well, at that point, their side didn't like playing by the rules they wrote, so then-Majority Leader Reid took another unprecedented step. In November of 2013, he utilized the so-called nuclear option to eliminate the very tactic they pioneered. The nuclear option becomes effectively the regroup. So that is how the filibuster was first used on lower court nominees and later eliminated. Senate Democrats took the unprecedented step to utilize that. Then when it no longer benefited them, they used unprecedented means to eliminate it. This brings me back to where we are today and the rest of this week-- talking about a Supreme Court nominee, Judge Gorsuch. Everyone knows we had a big debate last year about whether to proceed with the Garland nomination. There were 52 Republicans who believed we should follow Senate history and tradition and not proceed with the nomination in the middle of a heated election year. I know it frustrates my colleagues to hear me say it, but fact is that in 1992, when then-Senator Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he announced that he wouldn't hold a hearing to fill a vacancy in the last year of President Bush's term. So last year, we followed the precedent that then-Senator Biden described in 1992 for all of the same reasons he discussed. You get back to this commonsense principle: Can you have one rule for Republican Presidents and another rule for Democratic Presidents? We didn't feel you could. And, of course, everyone in this Chamber knows that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would have done the same thing, because they said they would. In fact, President Obama's former White House Counsel admitted as much. She said she would have recommended the same course of action if the tables were turned. So now here we are, April 2017, with the nominee before us. Just as in 2001, we have just had a very contentious Presidential election. It was close. It was hard fought, and frankly, some on the hard left refused to accept the results of the election. Once again, leftwing groups are egging on the minority leader to take another unprecedented step with respect to judicial nominations. Only this time they want him to lead the very first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nomination in U.S. history. Based on the vote we had yesterday, it appears 44 Democrats are prepared to follow the minority leader on this fool's errand. No Supreme Court nomination in our country's entire history has ever failed because of a partisan filibuster. There is no getting around that fact. Abe Fortas, whom I have referred to, was subjected to a bipartisan filibuster over ethical concerns when President Johnson tried to elevate him to be Chief Justice. Justice Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48. I was here for that nomination. A single Senator--any Senator--could have demanded a cloture vote, but out of 100 Senators, none did. Why? For the simple, commonsense fact and 200 years of history that you don't filibuster a Supreme Court nomination. But today is entirely different. The minority is committed to filibustering this fine nominee in the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history. So here we are. The President has nominated an exceptionally qualified judge to take Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. The Democrats will break new ground again by conducting a partisan filibuster of the nominee. Republicans aren't the ones breaking new ground here. As a matter of fact, the Democrats' own Vice Presidential nominee last year emphatically promised that the Democrats would further change the rules to make sure an expected-President Clinton's nominees couldn't be filibustered. So at the end of the day, the fact is that if Democrats insist on a filibuster, the Republicans will insist on following the practice that Senators have followed for more than 200 years, and that is not to have a partisan filibuster for somebody going to the Supreme Court. We don't conduct partisan filibusters of Supreme Court nominees, and we certainly are not going to start with this highly qualified nominee. I hope those that think back 16 or 17 years--when this meeting of Democrats in retreat came to the conclusion that you had to break new ground--realize that they have poisoned the well of the comity traditional of the Senate. I think maybe a lot of them realize that was a mistake, as we realized that was a mistake, and it would be nice to get back to the comity of the Senate that existed on judges prior to 15 or 16 years ago. But that is going to take people on their side who were present at that same retreat who are still in the U.S. Senate to drill a new well, because the present one is poisoned, and we need to get back to the comity that we have had. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I start, I ask unanimous consent that the debate time on the nomination of Judge Gorsuch during Tuesday's session of the Senate be divided as follows: the time until 3:30 p.m. be under the control of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; the time from 3:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. be under the control of the minority; the time from 4:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. be under the control of the majority; the time from 5:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. be under the control of the minority; and finally, that the time from 6:30 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. be under the control of the majority.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we will continue to debate the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Judiciary Committee held four full days of hearings last month. The judge testified for more than 20 hours. He answered more than 1,000 questions during his testimony and hundreds more questions for the record. We have had the opportunity to review the 2,700 cases he has heard, and we have had the opportunity to review the more than 180,000 pages of documents produced by the Bush Library and the Department of Justice. Now, after all of this, my Democratic colleagues unfortunately appear to remain committed to what they have been talking about for a long period of time: filibustering the nomination of this very well qualified jurist. Even after all of this process, there is no attack against the judge that sticks. In fact, it has been clear since before the judge was nominated that some Members in the Democratic leadership would search desperately for a reason to oppose him. As the minority leader said before the nomination: ``It's hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support.'' That is the end of the quote from the minority leader. He said later, and I will continue to quote him: ``If the nominee is out of the mainstream, we'll do our best to hold the seat open.'' Then the President nominated Judge Gorsuch. This judge is eminently qualified to fill Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, and there is no denying that whatsoever. Let me tell you some things about him. He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He earned a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford University and served as a law clerk for two Supreme Court Justices. During a decade in private practice, he earned a reputation as a distinguished trial and appellate lawyer. He served with distinction in the Department of Justice. He was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by a unanimous voice vote in this body. The record he has built during his decade on the bench has earned him the universal respect of his colleagues both on the bench and the bar. This judge is eminently qualified to do what the President appointed him to do. Faced with an unquestionably qualified nominee, my friends on the other side of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues, have continually moved the goalpost, setting test after test for this judge to meet. But do you know what? This judge has passed all of those tests, all with flying colors, so the people on the other side of the aisle--the Democrats in the minority--are left with a ``no'' vote in search of a reason. Let's go through some of their arguments. First, the minority leader announced that the nominee must prove himself to be a mainstream judge. Is he a mainstream judge or not? Well, consider his record: Judge Gorsuch has heard 2,700 cases and written 240 published opinions. He has voted with the majority in 99 percent of the cases, and 97 percent of the cases he has heard have been decided unanimously. Only one of those 2,700 cases was ever reversed by the Supreme Court, and it happens that Judge Gorsuch did not write the opinion. Then consider what others say about him. He has been endorsed by prominent Democratic members of the Supreme Court bar, including Neal Katyal, President Obama's Acting Solicitor General. This Acting Solicitor General wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled ``Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch.'' Mr. Katyal wrote: ``I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.'' He went on to write that the judge's record ``should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the President who appointed him.'' Likewise, another well-known person, David Frederick, a board member of the liberal American Constitution Society, says we should ``applaud such independence of mind and spirit in Supreme Court nominees.'' So after hearing what people on both the right and the left have said about the judge, it is clear that he is ``mainstream,'' but the goalpost seems to move. Next we hear that the judge doesn't care about the ``little guy'' and, instead, rules for the ``big guy.'' First of all, that is a goofy argument. Just ask liberal law professor Noah Feldman. If you ask Professor Feldman, he says this criticism is a ``truly terrible idea'' because ``the rule of law isn't liberal or conservative--and it shouldn't be.'' The strategy on this point became clear during our hearing: Pore through 2,700 cases, cherry-pick a couple where sympathetic plaintiffs were on the losing end of the legal argument, then find a reason to attack the judge for that result, and then, because of that case or two, label him ``against'' the little guy. As silly as that argument is, the judge himself laid waste to that argument during the hearing when he rattled off a number of cases where the so-called little guy came out on the winning end of the legal argument of a case. At any rate, as we discussed at length during his hearings, the judge applies the law neutrally to every party before him, and that is what you expect of judges. I disagree with some of my colleagues who have argued that judging is not just a matter of applying neutral principles. I think that view is inconsistent with the role our judges play in our system and, more importantly, with regard to the oath they take. That oath requires them to do ``equal right to the poor and the rich'' and to apply the law ``without respect to persons.'' Naturally, this is what it means to live under the rule of law, and this is what our nominee has done during his decade on the bench of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. So the judge applies the law ``without respect to persons,'' as he promised in his first oath he would, and he will repeat the oath when he goes on the Supreme Court. Then, of course, as they move these goalposts, the judge has been criticized for the work he did on behalf of his former client, the U.S. Government, when he was at the Justice Department. Of course, we have had a lot of nominees over many years who have worked as lawyers in the government. Most recently, Justice Kagan worked as Solicitor General. As we all know, she argued before the Supreme Court that the government could constitutionally ban pamphlet material. That is a fairly radical position for the U.S. Government to take. When asked about that argument during her hearing, she said that she was a government lawyer making an argument on behalf of her client, the U.S. Government, and it had nothing to do with her personal views on the subject. Now, there is a whole different standard for some people of this body. That answer is apparently no longer good enough. To hear the other side tell it, government lawyers are responsible for the positions their client, the U.S. Government, takes and the positions they have to argue. I respect my colleagues who are making this argument, but this argument does not hold water. What, then, are my colleagues on the other side left with after moving these goalposts many times, after making all of these arguments that don't stick? What are they left with? Because they can't get any of their attacks on the judge to stick, all they are left with are complaints about the so-called dark money being spent by advocacy groups. Yes, that is where the goalpost took them--to dark money. As I said yesterday, that speaks volumes about the nominee, that after reviewing 2,700 cases, roughly 180,000 pages of documents from the Department of Justice and the George W. Bush Library, thousands of pages of briefs, and over 20 hours of testimony before our committee and hundreds of questions both during and after the hearing, all his detractors are left with is an attack on the nominee's supporters-- people out there whom the nominee probably doesn't even know. They raise money to tell people about him, which they have a constitutional right to do under the First Amendment freedom of speech. The bottom line is that they don't have any substantive attacks on this nominee that will stick, so they shifted tactics, yet again moving the goalpost, and are now trying to intimidate and silence those who are speaking out and making their voices heard in regard to this nominee. Here is the most interesting thing about this latest development: There are advocacy groups on every side of this nomination. There are people out there for him, raising money and spending the money for him, and there are people out there against him who are raising and spending money so people know why they disagree with this nominee. Of course, that is nothing new. That has been true of past nominations, and there is nothing wrong with citizens engaging in the First Amendment freedom of speech and in the process of being for or against and encouraging public debate on whether a person ought to be on the Supreme Court. It was certainly true when liberal groups favoring the Garland nomination poured money into Iowa to attack me last year for not holding a hearing. For that reason, I didn't hear a lot of my Democratic colleagues complain about that money that could well be called dark money as well. There are groups on the left who are running ads in opposition to this nominee and threatening primaries. They are actually threatening primaries against Democrats who might not tow the line and might not help filibuster this nomination. For some reason, I am not hearing a lot of complaints about the money that is being raised to make some Democrats who might support this nominee look bad. As I have said, there is nothing wrong with citizens engaging in the process and making their voices heard. This is one of the ways we are free to speak our minds in a democracy. It has been true for a long, long time. As I said yesterday in the committee meeting, if you don't like outside groups getting involved, the remedy is not to intimidate and try to silence that message; the remedy you ought to follow is to support nominees who apply the law as it is written and then, in turn, leave the legislating to a body elected to make laws under our Constitution--the Senate and the House of Representatives. Regardless of what you may think about advocacy groups, about their getting involved, there is certainly no reason that they should go to great lengths to talk about this in our committee or talk about it to the nominee because he can't control any of that. The truth is, the Democrats have no principled reason to oppose this nomination, and those are words from David Frederick that I have quoted before. It is clear instead that much of the opposition to the nominee is pretextual. The merits and qualifications of the nominee apparently no longer matter. The only conclusion we are left to draw is that the Democrats will refuse to confirm any nominee this Republican President may put forth. There is no reason to think the Democrats would confirm any other judge the President identified as a potential nominee or any judge he would nominate. In fact, we don't even need to speculate on that point because the minority leader has spoken that point and made his point very clear. Before the President made this nomination, he said: ``I can't imagine us supporting anyone from his list.'' So it was very clear from the very beginning that the minority leader was going to lead this unprecedented filibuster. The only question was what excuse he would manufacture to justify it. The nominee enjoys broad bipartisan support from those who know him, and he enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate. I recognize that the minority leader is under very enormous pressure from special interest groups to take this abnormal step of filibustering a judge, because filibustering the Senate is not unusual but filibustering a Supreme Court Justice is very unusual. I know other Members of his caucus are operating under those very same pressures as well. In fact, yesterday, while the committee was debating the nomination, a whole host of liberal and progressive groups held a press conference outside of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, demanding that the campaign arm cut off campaign funds for any incumbent Democrat who doesn't filibuster this nominee. Those groups argue that because the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had already raised a lot of money off the minority leader's announcement that he was going to lead a filibuster, the committee shouldn't provide that money to any Member who refused to join this misguided effort. Well, all I can say is that it would be truly unfortunate for Democrats to buckle to that pressure and engage in the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice nominee in U.S. history--another way to say that is, the first partisan filibuster in the 228-year history of our country since 1789. If they regard this nominee as the first in our history worthy of a partisan filibuster, it is clear they would filibuster anyone. I have stated since long before the election that the new President would nominate the next Justice and the Judiciary Committee would process that nomination. That is just what we have done through the committee, and now we are doing it on the floor. So I urge my colleagues not to engage in this unprecedented partisan demonstration. Everyone knows the nominee is a qualified, mainstream, independent judge of the very highest caliber. Republicans know it, Democrats know it, and the left-leaning editorial boards across the country prove that even the press knows it. I urge my colleagues on the other side to come to their senses and not engage in the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history and instead join me and vote in favor of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I was going to ask unanimous consent to that extent. I guess you have already announced that it is in place; is that right? I am going to add something to what the Acting President pro tempore just said, so let me start over again. I ask unanimous consent that the time until 10:45 a.m. be equally divided between Senator Feinstein or her designee and myself or my designee and that the time from 10:45 a.m. to 11 o'clock be reserved for Senator Schumer's leader remarks.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, that is what my unanimous consent request said.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will probably need more than 9 minutes, but I will put the rest of my statement in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, within the next hour or so, we will learn whether the minority will come to their senses or whether they will engage in the very first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. All indications are that they are committed to their course. That is unfortunate. It truly is. The question one has to ask is this: What, exactly, is so objectionable about this nominee that he should be subjected to the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history? Is he, really, not well qualified? He attended Columbia for his bachelor's, Harvard for law school, Oxford for his doctorate. He clerked for not one--but two--Supreme Court Justices. He has spent over 10 years on the circuit court and has heard 2,700 cases. It is clear, then, that he is extremely well qualified. So what is it? What makes this nominee so objectionable? The truth is, throughout this process, the minority, led by their leader, has been desperately searching for a justification for their preplanned filibuster. Over the course of the last couple of months, they have trotted out one excuse after another, but nothing will stick. They said he isn't mainstream, but that is not true. Everyone from Obama's Solicitor General to Rachel Maddow has said he is mainstream. They said he isn't independent, but everyone knows he is an independent judge. He is his own man, and he understands the role of a judge. Then they roll out this ridiculous argument that he is for the big guy and against the little guy. Even liberal law professors like Noah Feldman made fun of that attack. He called it ``a truly terrible idea.'' Then they said we should hold him responsible for the legal positions he took on behalf of the U.S. Government. The only problem there is, we have had a lot of nominees who have represented the U.S. Government. They worked for it; the government was their client. The other side certainly didn't want to hold Justice Kagan responsible for taking the truly extreme position as Solicitor General that the U.S. Government was constitutionally permitted to ban pamphlets. So that argument fell flat as well. Then, of course, after they ran out of substantive arguments against the judge and his record, they resorted to attacks on his supporters or the President who nominated him or the selection process, anything-- anything--to distract from the judge and the stellar record he has. They trotted out this absurd claim that we should reject the judge not because of some opinion he has written but because those who support his nomination have the gall to actually speak out and make their voices heard, except they forgot to check with their own supporters first to make sure none of them are spending so-called dark money. Of course, they are spending money on issue advocacy, just as the law permits and the Constitution protects under the First Amendment. As we all know, issue advocacy during Supreme Court nominations is absolutely nothing new. Those who are complaining about issue advocacy today don't seem to remember the TV ads the far left ran attacking Judge Bork in 1987. I remember those ads. I remember the ads the left ran against Justice Thomas as well. Of course, outside groups on the left have attacked every Republican nominee since. So expressing selective outrage over issue advocacy doesn't advance their cause either, but they still keep it up. Finally, the talking point we have heard repeated most often over the last 24 hours is that Candidate Trump ``outsourced'' his selection process to conservative groups. I must say, I find that argument the oddest of all. It is the kind of thing Justice Scalia would call ``pure applesauce.'' The President didn't outsource the selection process to conservative groups. He made his list public for the entire country to review during the campaign--the first President to do that. If anything, he outsourced the selection process to whom? The voters--the American people. So what do you do? You are out of substantive arguments from the other side. Even shots fired at the judge's supporters somehow boomerang back and hit your own advocacy groups. We have seen all of this before. I have been through a few of these debates over the years. When a Republican occupies the Oval Office, the nominees may change, but the attacks remain the same. You will hear today the same poll-tested catch phrases we have all heard time and again. You will hear words and phrases like ``outside the mainstream,'' ``far right,'' and ``extreme.'' Invariably, these are words the left tries to pin on every nominee of a Republican President and the people he submits to the Senate. With each nominee, the playbook on the left seems to be the very same. The nomination process, it seems, is a desperate attempt to retell the same old preordained narrative. As I have said, those of us who have been through a few of these episodes have heard it all before, and we are going to hear it in the next few hours again, but this time something is very different. This time, they intend to use the same old preordained narrative to justify the first partisan filibuster in the 220-year history of the United States. Of course, this result was preordained because as the minority leader said weeks before the President was even sworn into office, ``it's hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we [Democrats] could support.'' You have already committed to the far left that you will launch the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history. So you are stuck. You have to press forward, don't you, even though you know the effort is doomed to fail. You know he will be confirmed, and you know in your heart of hearts he deserves to be confirmed. That is why this is an especially sad state of affairs, and I hope my colleagues will change their minds. At the end of the day, we are left with an exceptional nominee, with impeccable credentials and broad bipartisan support. In short, we have in Judge Gorsuch a nominee who proves without a doubt that the minority leader would lead a filibuster against anyone nominated by this President. That is unfortunate because it is not the way it has to be, but it is a situation we cannot accept. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are now well on our way to confirming Judge Gorsuch as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. I have a few things to say about the way we have gotten here. Earlier today, the other side--meaning the Democrats--made a very unprecedented break with Senate history and with Senate tradition. They launched the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history. For our part, we Republicans insisted that we follow the practice of the Senate. We don't engage in partisan filibusters of Supreme Court nominees. Yesterday, I came to the floor to speak about the path that brought us to this point. As I discussed, way back in 2001, the current minority leader and some of his allies on the far left hatched a plan to, in their words, ``change the ground rules'' with regard to lower court nominees. I noted a New York Times article describing the Democratic senatorial caucus retreat, where the new approach to nominees was discussed; in other words, where they discussed the strategy for changing the ground rules of how judges are considered by the United States Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the May 1, 2001, New York Times article entitled ``Washington talk; Democrats Readying for Judicial Fight,'' and the April 5, 2017, story from the Washington Examiner entitled ``The Gorsuch Plagiarism Story is Bogus.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. After a brief time in the majority, Senate Democrats were back in the minority in 2003--so approximately 2 years after they had this strategy. It was at that time the Senate Democrats began an unprecedented and systemic filibuster of President George W. Bush's circuit court nominees. Then the tables turned. President Obama was elected, and Republicans held the Senate minority. At that time, even though many of us did not like the idea of using the filibuster on judicial nominees, we also recognized that we could not have two sets of rules--one for Republican Presidents and one for Democratic Presidents. Our party defeated two nominees for the lower courts by filibuster and denied cloture to three of President Obama's nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But the other side did not appreciate being subject to the rules that they first established and started using in 2003 to filibuster judges. So at that point, in 2013, they decided to change the rules of the Senate. By the way, they changed the rules by breaking the rules. I say that because the rules of the Senate say it takes a two-thirds vote to change the rules of the Senate, but they changed it by a majority vote. Now at that time, as we all know, Majority Leader Reid changed the rules for all Cabinet nominations and lower court nominees. To say that my colleagues and I were disappointed is a gross understatement. The majority claimed that they left intact the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. But my view back in 2013, when they did that, was that the distinction Majority Leader Reid drew between lower court nominees and Supreme Court nominees was not a meaningful one. My view, in 2013, was that Majority Leader Reid had effectively eliminated the filibuster for both lower court nominees and the Supreme Court. Here is the reason. There are two circumstances where this issue might conceivably arise: either you have a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat-controlled Senate or you have a Republican in the White House and a Republican-led Senate. In the first, there was a Democrat in the White House and the party led by Leader Reid and Leader-in-Waiting Schumer was in the majority. If for some extraordinary reason Senate Republicans chose to filibuster the nominee, there is no question that a Majority Leader Reid or a Majority Leader Schumer would change the rules. Now, I do not believe that this particular circumstance would ever arise, because our side does not believe in filibustering Supreme Court nominees. I have never voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, not once. I think I have a pretty good sense of the rest of our caucus. Our side just does not believe in it. It is not much more complicated than that simple commonsense statement I just made. Of course, even if for some extraordinary reason our side did choose to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, we do not have to speculate as to whether the other side would have changed the precedent with respect to the Supreme Court. Last year, when everyone thought that Secretary Clinton was going to win the election, their own Vice-Presidential candidate said that they would change the rules if they needed to if we had a Republican filibuster. Then, of course, the other circumstance where this issue would arise is what we have seen this very day--a Republican in the White House and a Republican-controlled Senate. We saw this very day that the minority was willing to take that last step and engage in the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history. As I have repeatedly discussed, because they were willing to do it with a nominee as well-qualified as Judge Gorsuch, it proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that they would filibuster any one submitted by this Republican President. That is why, on the day that Majority Leader Reid took that unprecedented action in 2013 to break the Senate rules to change the Senate rules, I spoke on the floor. I concluded my remarks this way. So I want to quote myself: So the majority has chosen to take us down this path. The silver lining is that there will come a day when the rolls are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes, regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on the lower court nominees and still preserve it for the Supreme Court nominees. That is what I said when Reid took that extraordinary step. So though I am extremely pleased that we will confirm such an exceptional nominee to the Supreme Court in the next day or so, I am, of course, disappointed with what we were forced to do to get it done. Sadly, I cannot say I am surprised. I think my surprise, or the fact that I can't be surprised--you can tell it from what I said back there, what I just quoted from the 2013 speech that I gave. I knew when Majority Leader Reid did it in 2013 that this is where we were headed. That is where we ended earlier this afternoon. But the bottom line is that you cannot have two sets of rules. You cannot clothe yourself in the tradition of a filibuster while simultaneously conducting the very first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history. You cannot demand a rules change only when it suits the Democratic Members of this body. You just can't have it both ways. You can't use the Senate rules as both a shield and a sword. But I must say, the one thing that does not disappoint me is this: The nominee to take Justice Scalia's seat is eminently qualified. He will apply the law faithfully without respect to persons. He is a judge's judge. Come some time tomorrow, we will all start calling him Justice Gorsuch. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to fellow Iowan Judge Edward ``Nick'' McManus. Judge McManus died earlier this month at the age of 97. He has a long and deep history in Iowa politics and judicial activities. When I first entered the State legislature, Judge McManus was known as Lieutenant Governor McManus. He also served in the Iowa Senate. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy appointed him chief judge of the Northern District of Iowa where he served for 23 years when he took senior status. His ascension to this position made him the first native-born Iowan appointed to the Federal Northern District Court of Iowa. He remained on the bench for a total of 55 years and was still taking cases at the time of his death. He was proud of his service on the court and the modernization of the court he started in 1962. Upon Judge McManus's death, current acting U.S. Attorney Sean Berry told the Cedar Rapids Gazette, ``The changes implemented by Judge McManus left an indelible and positive impact on the efficient administration of justice for all litigants in the federal court.'' He took great pride that the only time he had a backlog of cases was the first 100 that were there when he took the job. He took very seriously the Bill of Rights Sixth Amendment where it says ``the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.'' His longtime assistant, Deb Frank, may have said it best, ``I know he loved to work. He loved what he was doing. I think it's just the whole idea of coming to the office every day and doing what needed to be done.'' Barbara and I send our sincerest condolences to Judge McManus's five sons, two step-sons, other family members, and friends. He served our State and our country with great distinction and will be missed.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 2006, I was successful in enacting much needed updates to the IRS whistleblower program. Up until that time, the program was entirely a voluntary award program. There was also no central office within the IRS for handling whistleblower claims. Given this, there was little incentive for whistleblowers to step forward potentially risking their careers. My 2006 amendments sought to bolster the IRS whistleblower program by making a special program targeted at going after high-dollar tax cheats, such as corporations. It did this by making awards mandatory in cases where a whistleblower discloses tax fraud totaling $2 million or more. Moreover, the 2006 amendments established the Whistleblower Office within the IRS to formalize and manage the program. The IRS whistleblower program has turned into one of the most effective programs in addressing tax evasion--leading to the recovery of more than $3 billion in taxes that otherwise would have been lost to fraud. I firmly believe the program has the potential to collect even greater sums going forward. However, for this to occur, the IRS is going to have to completely embrace the program and start to view whistleblowers as their allies. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the program in 2015 that expressed concerns that long timelines and poor communication may be discouraging whistleblowers. This is exactly what I have been hearing from whistleblowers for years. Too often whistleblowers are waiting in the dark for years with no communication on where their claim is in the system. While the IRS has made improvements in this area, I fear that without further improvements some whistleblowers may start to question whether stepping forward is worth their time and effort. My concern is exacerbated by the fact that under current law, IRS whistleblowers have no protections against employer retaliation for good-faith disclosures. That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden today in introducing legislation that seeks to address these issues. The IRS Whistleblower Improvements Act would increase communication between the IRS and whistleblowers, while protecting taxpayer privacy, and provide legal protections to whistleblowers from employers retaliating against them for disclosing tax abuses. To increase communication, our bill would specifically allow the IRS to exchange information with whistleblowers where doing so would be helpful to an investigation. It would further require the IRS to provide status updates to whistleblowers at significant points in the review process and allows for further updates at the discretion of the IRS. It does this while ensuring the confidentiality of this information is maintained. Moreover, to protect whistleblowers from employer retaliation, our bill extends antiretaliation provisions to IRS whistleblowers that are presently afforded to whistleblowers under other whistleblower laws, such as the False Claims Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Too often, whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a picnic. This is unfortunate, as often the only way to discover fraud and abuse is for a whistleblower to step forward. It is time we roll out the welcome mat for IRS whistleblowers. Our bill takes a good step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Wyden and me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 2006, I was successful in enacting much needed updates to the IRS whistleblower program. Up until that time, the program was entirely a voluntary award program. There was also no central office within the IRS for handling whistleblower claims. Given this, there was little incentive for whistleblowers to step forward potentially risking their careers. My 2006 amendments sought to bolster the IRS whistleblower program by making a special program targeted at going after high-dollar tax cheats, such as corporations. It did this by making awards mandatory in cases where a whistleblower discloses tax fraud totaling $2 million or more. Moreover, the 2006 amendments established the Whistleblower Office within the IRS to formalize and manage the program. The IRS whistleblower program has turned into one of the most effective programs in addressing tax evasion--leading to the recovery of more than $3 billion in taxes that otherwise would have been lost to fraud. I firmly believe the program has the potential to collect even greater sums going forward. However, for this to occur, the IRS is going to have to completely embrace the program and start to view whistleblowers as their allies. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the program in 2015 that expressed concerns that long timelines and poor communication may be discouraging whistleblowers. This is exactly what I have been hearing from whistleblowers for years. Too often whistleblowers are waiting in the dark for years with no communication on where their claim is in the system. While the IRS has made improvements in this area, I fear that without further improvements some whistleblowers may start to question whether stepping forward is worth their time and effort. My concern is exacerbated by the fact that under current law, IRS whistleblowers have no protections against employer retaliation for good-faith disclosures. That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden today in introducing legislation that seeks to address these issues. The IRS Whistleblower Improvements Act would increase communication between the IRS and whistleblowers, while protecting taxpayer privacy, and provide legal protections to whistleblowers from employers retaliating against them for disclosing tax abuses. To increase communication, our bill would specifically allow the IRS to exchange information with whistleblowers where doing so would be helpful to an investigation. It would further require the IRS to provide status updates to whistleblowers at significant points in the review process and allows for further updates at the discretion of the IRS. It does this while ensuring the confidentiality of this information is maintained. Moreover, to protect whistleblowers from employer retaliation, our bill extends antiretaliation provisions to IRS whistleblowers that are presently afforded to whistleblowers under other whistleblower laws, such as the False Claims Act and Sarbanes-Oxley. Too often, whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a picnic. This is unfortunate, as often the only way to discover fraud and abuse is for a whistleblower to step forward. It is time we roll out the welcome mat for IRS whistleblowers. Our bill takes a good step in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Wyden and me in supporting this commonsense legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week is Sunshine Week, an annual nationwide celebration of the good that comes from peeling back the curtains on government. Sunshine Week coincides with the National Freedom of Information Day and President James Madison's birthday, both of which occur on March 16. James Madison understood the value of an informed citizenry as a necessary check against those in power. We shouldn't forget his call for the people to ``arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.'' More recently in our Nation's history, Justice Brandeis declared, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' These sentiments hold true to this day. A government that operates in darkness--and a public that's kept in the dark--sows the seeds of waste, fraud, and abuse. In the face of secrecy and obstruction, the public has a vital weapon: the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Over 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed FOIA into law, establishing the public's judicially enforceable right to government information. Before FOIA, the people had to justify their need for information to the government, but after FOIA, the government has to justify its refusal to release information to the public. FOIA's enactment marked a crucial step toward a government more accountable to the people. No doubt, FOIA manifests Congress's recognition of the need to carefully balance the public's right to know and the government's interest in protecting certain information from disclosure, but practice and history demonstrates this balance has all too often been tilted away from transparency. Many in government have continued to find ways to undermine citizens' right to know under FOIA. Transparency should be the norm, not the exception; yet, when it comes to FOIA requests, we have continued to see a government culture of delay, deny, and defend. When this happens, FOIA's effectiveness is undermined and the public becomes even more skeptical of its government. We have seen this in one way or another under every administration, both Republican and Democratic, since FOIA's enactment, but the trend toward secrecy and obstruction in recent years should alarm all of us. According to a March 14 Associated Press report, ``The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under [FOIA.]'' In 2016, the Obama administration set records for ``outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.'' To top it off, ``The government acknowledged when challenged that it had been wrong to initially refuse to turn over all or parts of records in more than one-third of such cases, the highest rate in at least six years.'' We simply cannot continue down this path. Fortunately, a truly bipartisan and bicameral effort last year resulted in the enactment of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. I was proud to be a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation and to have worked closely with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, as well as the open government community, in ensuring its passage. It achieves some of the most meaningful and necessary reforms to FOIA in history. We are already witnessing some of the positive impacts of these reforms. For example, the National Security Archive, a nonprofit open government advocate, fought for years to achieve the public release of certain historical documents about the Bay of Pigs invasion. But time and again, they were met with legal hurdles put up by the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. This past October, however, the CIA released these historically significant documents. In doing so, the CIA's Chief Historian stated that the Agency is ``releasing this draft volume today because recent 2016 changes in the [FOIA] requires us to release some drafts that are responsive to FOIA requests if they are more than 25 years old.'' This is excellent news. It is just one example of the good that can result from bipartisan work toward a common goal for the American people. I look forward to hearing many other such stories of important information finally being made publicly available under FOIA, thanks to these recent reforms. But we can't just rest on our laurels. No matter which party is in control of Congress or the White House, continuing oversight of FOIA-- and the faithful implementation of its amendments--is essential to ensure the law's effectiveness as a tool for the public good. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am proud during this Sunshine Week to join Senators Feinstein, Cornyn, and Leahy in sending letters to the Trump administration to learn more about specific steps taken to carry out the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and efforts underway to improve the proactive disclosure of information. Compliance with both the letter and spirit of FOIA should always be a top priority of any administration, so I look forward to hearing back about progress made. Before President Trump took office, I stood on this floor and urged him to reverse the secrecy and obstruction that defined the Obama administration's FOIA track record. Today I reiterate that call. A new administration provides a new opportunity to get it right. This Sunshine Week, let's recommit to working together toward improving open government, fulfilling FOIA's promise, and ensuring a more informed citizenry.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, affirming the public's right to know how their government is run, Sunshine Week is an annual reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the spirit of government transparency, I am pleased to join a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2017. This important piece of legislation furthers the public's access to court proceedings by permitting Federal judges at all Federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. For decades, and with great results, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms. In fact, all 50 States and the District of Columbia now allow some news coverage of proceedings, and it is time we join them. This openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of the legal system and what happens inside our courts. However, our Federal judicial system unnecessarily remains a mystery to many across the country. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Klobuchar and a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts by letting Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. Letting the Sun shine in on our Federal courtrooms will allow Americans to better understand the judicial process. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the State level. This legislation leaves the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts to the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of nonparty witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Additionally, the bill prohibits the televising of jurors and includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party. It is time to open the courthouse doors and let the light shine in on the Federal judiciary. Granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, affirming the public's right to know how their government is run, Sunshine Week is an annual reminder of the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the spirit of government transparency, I am pleased to join a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2017. This important piece of legislation furthers the public's access to court proceedings by permitting Federal judges at all Federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. For decades, and with great results, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms. In fact, all 50 States and the District of Columbia now allow some news coverage of proceedings, and it is time we join them. This openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of the legal system and what happens inside our courts. However, our Federal judicial system unnecessarily remains a mystery to many across the country. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Klobuchar and a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, will greatly improve public access to Federal courts by letting Federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. Letting the Sun shine in on our Federal courtrooms will allow Americans to better understand the judicial process. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the State level. This legislation leaves the presence of the cameras in Federal trial and appellate courts to the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of nonparty witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. Additionally, the bill prohibits the televising of jurors and includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party. It is time to open the courthouse doors and let the light shine in on the Federal judiciary. Granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the junior Senator from Utah and the junior Senator from Nebraska.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have come to the floor several times over the past 8 years to discuss the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and the judicial branches. President Obama promised that he would act independently of Congress where he had to; his quote: ``Where they won't act, I will.'' I have come to the floor to discuss the many examples of Executive overreach that we have witnessed, from unilateral pursuit of climate change regulations to unconstitutional recess appointments. As I have said before, the structure of our Constitution is a critical safeguard of our liberty. As Justice Scalia famously said: Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights. Every President for life has a bill of rights. The real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our government. Now, I have served in the Senate for 36 years, so I have a deep appreciation of the different roles of the coordinate branches and for the fact that the people govern themselves through their elected representatives, and my accountability to them is the defining characteristic of my role as one of their representatives in the U.S. Senate. That is not true of judges in our Federal system who are not elected, and it is certainly not true of the executive agencies that administer the laws we write here in the Congress. Judge Gorsuch is the President's nominee to serve as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. It seems to me that he really understands the important differences in these roles. Reflecting on the legacy of Justice Scalia, he remarked that ``the great project of Justice Scalia's career was to remind us of the differences between judges and legislators.'' So I am now going to turn to Senator Lee. I would like to have him discuss a question I put before him: How do you understand Judge Gorsuch to view differences between judges, legislators, and the executive under our Constitution?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his very thoughtful explanation. I know both as a Senator and as a lawyer, he takes the study of constitutional law very seriously. His point of view ought to be seen as an authority on the separation of powers, particularly. I think the way Senator Lee sees Judge Gorsuch is similar to how I do, but he knows the law a lot better than I. It is clear that the questions about separation of power can arise in very complex and legally technical cases in the courts. But I think the principle is also a fundamental one. Judge Gorsuch has made this point himself, and I would like to quote a little of what he has said. Recent Supreme Court cases ``permit executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design.'' To quote again, on the role of the prosecutor and the role of Congress, he said: ``If the separation of powers means anything, it must mean that the prosecutor isn't allowed to define the crimes that he gets to enforce.'' So I want to ask my other colleague here for this colloquy, the Senator from Nebraska, a question that I am sure he can answer and has thought about a lot. These are not just legal technicalities that we are talking about, but the very fabric of our Constitution. I hope the Senator would agree.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his very thoughtful explanation. Senator Sasse and Senator Lee have laid out very clearly the Constitution's separation of powers, the proper role for judges, the proper role for Members of Congress, and when one can't interfere with the other. I think the Senator has laid out very clearly, and I agree, that Judge Gorsuch fits in very well with what judges are supposed to do, what the Supreme Court is supposed to do-- obviously not legislate. Members of the judiciary have a lifetime appointment. They can't be voted out of office. That is why, when people don't like what the Congress does, every 2 or 6 years as far as the House and the Senate are concerned, they get a chance to express that opposition and send somebody else to do the job, and they can't do that with whoever is on the Supreme Court. I thank my colleagues for participating with me in this conversation we have had about the separation of powers and about their thoughts on Judge Gorsuch on the issue of judges judging and not legislating. His record demonstrates a firm grasp on the separation of powers that animates our Constitution. He is an independent judge who properly understands the judicial role. At a time when we hear renewed calls for an independent judiciary, I don't think we could have a better nominee to fit the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record the concerns of the Summit Agricultural Group regarding three mergers in the agriculture industry. Specifically, this group is concerned with the mergers between Bayer AG and Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical, and China National Chemical Corporation--ChemChina--and Syngenta AG. The paper states that ``the mergers of these international agrochemical and seed giants will significantly reduce competition and innovation in the agricultural sector, and will cause irreparable harm to the American farmer via increased input costs.'' As my colleagues are aware, I have long been concerned about concentration and competition in the agriculture sector. Increased concentration in the industry could significantly reduce choice and raise the price of chemicals and seed for farmers, which ultimately can affect choice and costs for consumers. Moreover, further consolidation could diminish crucial research and development initiatives which drive have innovation and technological advances for the agricultural sector. I have also raised concerns about the competitive advantages that are likely to result from the ChemChina-Syngenta transaction. I have written several letters to both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission expressing my concerns and asking that they carefully review these mergers and collaborate, as appropriate, on their analysis of the impact on the agricultural industry. These regulators need to take a hard look at both the efficiencies and the benefits that the merging companies believe will result from these transactions, as well as the concerns raised by independent and small players in the market, farmers, and consumers.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the other body spent yesterday and well into the night to vote out bills that would repeal and reform ObamaCare. I do not know exactly what is going to happen in the other body on that issue, but I would like to add some thoughts on the issue of repeal and replace. ObamaCare has been a case of overpromise and underdelivery. People were told that their premiums would go down by $2,500. They have actually gone up by an average of $3,500. They were also promised that if they liked their doctors, they would be able to keep their doctors. Millions of people have had to change doctors. Then they were told that they could keep their healthcare plans, and millions of people have had to change their healthcare plans. In fact, ObamaCare has been a case of overpromise and underdelivery. The reality is much different. ObamaCare is hurting more people than it is helping. I have heard from many Iowans about the tremendous premium increases and, most importantly, all about high deductibles and high copays that make ObamaCare not worth its consideration. One farmer said his health insurance premium went from $20,000 to $30,000 in one year. Another family said their ObamaCare premium increased 144 percent over 3 years. The 2017 premium for three people was over $24,000, and families who did manage to purchase ObamaCare insurance found that they could no longer afford to use it because of sky-high deductibles and copays. Another Iowan said that his policy for his family of three increased from $15,000 a year to $23,000 in 1 year, with, more importantly, the policy's value being less because the deductible for that plan is nearly $6,000. It is quite obvious, as you think of these situations, that very few people can afford some of the prices or afford the deductibles that we hear about. So I think it is a very clear summation to say that ObamaCare is not working. According to Avalere, one-third of the country will have only one insurance carrier that offers ObamaCare plans next year. Since that analysis by Avalere, another insurance company has pulled out of ObamaCare and has left some parts of the country without any insurance companies whatsoever for the folks to choose from. So many insurance companies have dropped out of ObamaCare that there are places in the country where people have a subsidy, but no insurance plans to buy. That is like having a bus ticket and there is no bus to take you anywhere. Even those who were strong supporters of the healthcare law, like, as an example, the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, have said--or he said--the ACA ``is no longer affordable to many Americans.'' The problem with ObamaCare is it did nothing to address the underlying causes of the high cost of healthcare; that is, what it costs for a hospital or doctor to purchase and maintain medical equipment, to purchase medicines, to carry malpractice insurance, and things like that. Rather than address the actual cost of care, President Obama chose to bypass real healthcare reform for an unsustainable entitlement and, of course, bureaucratic mandates, which have priced people out of the healthcare insurance market, rather than provide them with affordable and quality coverage. It is time, then, as the House was working throughout the night, to deliver more accessible, more affordable healthcare to even more Americans. ObamaCare has failed on both of these points, with, I believe, 29 million people still not having health insurance. It is time to reduce the role of the Federal Government in the healthcare system because I think that expanded role is one of the very basic problems we have with ObamaCare. It is time to spend less and get better quality care. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work across the aisle in a bipartisan way. They know the Affordable Care Act is not serving the purposes that it was intended to serve and is falling apart and, in a short period of time, it may collapse. I think the other side is trying to distract attention from the Affordable Care Act collapse, and they are doing it by using the usual scare tactics. It used to be those scare tactics were applied just to Medicare improvements, but now they are applied across the board of healthcare delivery in America. It is time for the other party to step up instead of doubling down because it was their plan passed in March of 2010 that put us in this spiral we are in. It is time for statesmanship, not gamesmanship. It is time for the people who are responsible for ObamaCare to stop defending the un-Affordable Care Act and deliver Americans what was promised. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and, of course, our new President to deliver affordable healthcare to more Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander control 10 minutes of the remaining debate time on H.J. Res. 57.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Committee on the Judiciary has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 115th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee rules be printed in the Record.