Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the majority leader has brought a $3.5 billion emergency supplemental spending bill to the floor at the request of President Obama. This bill, while it shaves off $1 billion from the President's original request, is still a blank check that does not solve the crisis along our southern border. This Democratic spending bill isn't a solution, and it is not a reasonable or responsible request. The majority in the Senate want taxpayers to fund a bandaid that is needed because of the President's own policies and practices. Not only does the President want a blank check, but he wants unfettered authority to keep people unlawfully in the country from being returned to their home country. While we are facing a crisis, President Obama is looking at ways to weaken our immigration laws. I understand that there are a variety of reasons that people come here--to be with family, to find work, and to have a better life. We are a compassionate country, and we provide a safe haven for people who need it. But we are also a country based on the rule of law. That rule of law has been a principle of our country since its founding. This principle means that the government will enforce the laws it writes. People need to be able to trust their government and trust that it will be fair. Today, people don't trust the government to enforce the laws. They see lawlessness at the border. Individuals--including both children and adults--are crossing the border without repercussions, and instead of taking responsibility for it, the President wants to fuel the fire and provide them with more benefits. Instead of providing a blank check, Republicans have come forward with solutions. Today, Senators Cornyn, McConnell, Flake and I are introducing a humanitarian solution to the problem. We provide funding while changing the law to ensure speedy repatriation of unaccompanied minors to their home country. We provide equal treatment to young children of noncontiguous countries to voluntarily return to their home country when apprehended by a border agent. Today, these young people can't voluntarily return. They wait 6 or 12 months until they go before an immigration judge. They are released, and we can only hope that they will show up for their court date. Our bill provides a new and special process for unaccompanied children to have an immediate court proceeding. This new process would be conducted within 7 days, and children would remain in protective custody. We also require expedited removal--meaning, no opportunity for formal removal proceedings--of criminals, gang members, those who have previously violated our immigration laws, and those who have fraudulently claimed to be an unaccompanied alien child. Expedited removal is a tool that will help border agents return people who don't have a right to be here, and it will avoid an influx of individuals going through our lengthy court system. Our efforts, unfortunately, are only worthwhile if the home countries cooperate. We would require the President to certify that the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are cooperating in taking back their nationals. Moreover, we tie taxpayer dollars to their cooperation. In addition to fixing the immigration court system for children, our alternative approach requires information sharing between Federal partners, including the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services. It requires information sharing between the Federal Government and States, providing transparency and notice to States about individuals released. This administration has an abysmal record with transparency, and many States are left wondering how they are going to deal with the influx of undocumented children in their schools and health systems. By the end of this fiscal year, up to 90,000 children will have entered the country. People are rightly concerned that they are being released into our communities. They are also being released to nonrelatives and people without lawful immigration status. Our bill fixes that. It requires children to be in the government's protective custody unless their parent is in legal status and undergoes a criminal background check. Our bill prohibits the government from placing children with sex offenders or traffickers. Doesn't that just make sense. We are talking about vulnerable young people, and we need to be careful about who is taking custody of them. Why are these young people coming? Aside from President Obama's weak policies, there is reason to believe that they are being trafficked and used as a commodity by drug traffickers. There are serious gang issues in some of these countries. And these issues are seeping into our country. Our bill ensures that alien gang members are not provided a safe haven in the United States by rendering them inadmissible and deportable, requiring the government to detain them, and it prohibits alien gang members from gaining U.S. immigration benefits such as asylum or temporary protected status. Border Patrol agents are being strained during this crisis. They are being taken off the line to care for children and adults. States along the border are stepping up and paying the price. Our bill supports State and local governments by reimbursing the costs they have had to bear. Our bill ensures that Customs and Border Protection agents are provided access to Federal lands along the border. It also increases the penalties for smuggling offenses. Finally, our bill deals with the lawless policies of this President and his administration. Over the last few years, the President has shown an astonishing disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of American citizens and legal residents. He has made promises and threats to go around Congress by using his phone and pen. Well, today we are exercising our constitutional right in cutting off funding for the President to expand his administrative amnesties. Our bill would stop him from expanding the deferred action for childhood arrivals. It would stop other legalization programs that President Obama is contemplating. Congress has a role to play in reforming our immigration system. He should not circumvent the process and go against the will of the American people. Again, our bill is a reasonable alternative to a blank check. We have a solution that provides due process for minors who illegally enter our country. We are being responsible and showing leadership on this issue, and I encourage my fellow colleagues to seriously consider our proposal so that we can humanely deal with this crisis.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I request the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelli Andrews and Carter Burwell, who have been detailed to my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to speak about the unconscionable way in which the Drug Enforcement Administration treated Daniel Chong, a San Diego college student, back in 2012. Unfortunately, the American people still do not know all the facts. They do not know what lasting changes are being made to make sure something like this never happens again. And they do not know what is being done to hold the DEA agents involved accountable because if people are not held accountable, there are not going to be any changes made. Most of the time, for people to be held accountable, heads have to roll, and there is no evidence that is the case in this particular case. But here is what we do know. It is a story that you might expect to hear set in some Third World country but never in the United States of America. So here it is. Back in April 2012, Daniel Chong, a college student at the University of California, San Diego, was arrested by law enforcement conducting a sweep for drugs at a college party. He was taken into custody by the DEA and transported to the local DEA field office. He was questioned by the agents who had arrested him, and the agents apparently concluded that there was no basis to charge him with a crime. The young man may well have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. The agents told him he was going to be released. But Daniel Chong was not released. Instead, he was taken back to a holding cell in handcuffs, and he was left there for dead for 5 days--5 days without food, 5 days without water, 5 days without sunlight, 5 days without any basic necessities of life, in a holding cell not much larger than a bathroom stall. He cried out for help. He kicked and banged on the door of the cell but to no avail. He became so desperate and dehydrated that he even drank his own urine in an effort to survive. Incredibly, the one thing Daniel Chong found in his cell that he tried to live on turned out to be some methamphetamine. That is right, he found an illegal drug in the DEA's own holding cell. Apparently, it was never searched before Mr. Chong was tossed inside. It got so bad that this young man tried to kill himself. He tried to carve the words ``sorry Mom'' into his own skin. He intended it to be the last message for anyone to pass on who might one day discover his lifeless body in that DEA holding cell. After 5 days someone finally responded to Daniel Chong's call for help. He was taken immediately to the hospital. He was found to be suffering from extreme dehydration, hypothermia, kidney failure, and cuts and bruises on his wrists. It took 4 days to nurse him back to health. This all occurred in April 2012. Soon after I learned of it, I sent a letter to the DEA Administrator demanding to know what could have led to such a calamity. I asked how, in a modern age of computers and surveillance cameras, it was possible that an innocent person could be left for dead in a DEA holding cell. I asked about the DEA policies and procedures in place to help prevent this from ever happening again. And I asked whether those responsible for what happened to Mr. Chong were going to be held accountable. It took the DEA more than a year to respond to my questions--more than a year. In June 2013 the DEA trotted out the familiar response we so often hear from bureaucrats when they do not want to tell you what really happened. They said at that time the DEA could not comment on many aspects of the matter because the Department of Justice's own inspector general was conducting a review. The DEA assured me that, in their words, an ``interim'' policy had been adopted to make sure no other innocent people would be abandoned in a prison cell and left for dead. But the American people would have to wait for a permanent policy change and a full accounting until after the inspector general finished its investigation. Just a month later, in July 2013, the DEA announced it would be handing over $4.1 million to Daniel Chong to settle his lawsuit. Mr. President, $4.1 million of taxpayer money--almost $1 million for each day he spent forgotten and also ignored in that dark and drug-infested DEA holding cell. Now, up to date, finally, just this month and more than 2 years after this debacle, the Department of Justice's inspector general finally issued its report of the investigation. We still do not know the full truth about what happened to Daniel Chong. In many ways the inspector general's report raises more questions than it answers, and what the report does tell us is quite disturbing. According to the report, Daniel Chong was not just forgotten by the agents who arrested him; he was ignored by other DEA employees who knew he was there but assumed he was somebody else's problem. And the report suggests the DEA may have tried to cover up the whole event. According to the report, there were three DEA agents and a supervisor directly responsible for making sure this young man was not abandoned in that holding cell. So it is obvious these four agents failed miserably in their responsibilities. But it gets even worse. According to the report, at least four other agents passed in and out of the holding cell area during the 5 days Daniel Chong was imprisoned. These four agents admitted they had either seen or heard Chong in his cell, but they simply assumed someone else was going to take care of him--in other words, he was somebody else's problem. Daniel Chong was arrested on a Saturday. One of those agents saw him in the cell on Sunday, and one saw him there on Monday, and another two agents either saw him or heard him on Wednesday, but nothing compelled these law enforcement officers to address his plight because they did not believe anything was amiss. I hope to all my colleagues that what I just told you is very difficult to believe. In addition, Daniel Chong's holding cell was near a workspace area used by dozens of DEA personnel. According to the report, anyone in that workspace could have clearly heard banging and yelling from inside the cell. But not a single one of the 25 DEA employees interviewed by the inspector general who worked this area could recall hearing any unusual noises during the time Daniel Chong was imprisoned there. So this is very difficult to believe. It defies all common sense. It contradicts what Daniel Chong says he did by crying out for help and banging on his holding cell door. It contradicts what his injuries tell us he did. It contradicts what anyone left in a holding cell without the basic necessities of life for days would do. Why did no one respond to Daniel Chong's cries for help? The report does not even attempt to answer that question. These eight DEA agents were in some way responsible for this young man's wrongful captivity. The report does not say what happened to these agents. This is where you get into accountability. Who is responsible? Are heads going to roll so this behavior changes? Are these agents still working for the DEA? Have they been disciplined? Are they still arresting other people, tossing them behind bars and leaving them for dead? The problem does not stop here. According to the report, the DEA may have tried to cover up this entire event. The inspector general learned about what happened to Daniel Chong from an anonymous whistleblower who called one of its field offices. This is another example of the value of whistleblowers, heroes who stand up for what is right, sometimes at great personal risk. According to the IG's report, the whistleblower indicated that the DEA ``was trying to contain this matter locally.'' That is another way of saying, essentially, that a coverup could be in the works. Incredibly, as it turns out the DEA office in San Diego assigned the very agents who were responsible for Daniel Chong's captivity to process the holding cell area where Chong was held for days. That is right. The agents who left Chong behind bars for 5 days were assigned to investigate their own egregious mistakes--kind of like the fox guarding the chicken house. DEA management also decided that it was going to conduct its own internal management review of the incident; that is, it would conduct it is own interviews and investigations before DEA notified anybody else. DEA management justified this decision by telling the inspector general that it assumed the conduct ``which resulted in Chong's detention did not amount to misconduct and was not criminal.'' But, of course, as the inspector general found, it should have been readily apparent to DEA management that this was not true. Of course, DEA management may have calculated that undertaking its own investigation could head off an independent outside review; indeed, perhaps the investigation could even be contained ``locally.'' How many other DEA misdeeds have been similarly contained? So it is obvious what happened. It is outrageous. How it was handled is outrageous. We need to know more about why the inspector general was not called in immediately--that is, even as DEA policy requires--rather than having people who conducted the wrongdoing investigating, in a sense, themselves. We need to know if indeed this was a deliberate attempt to sweep this dereliction of duty under the rug. The DEA is entrusted with a lot of responsibility and authority. We ask the DEA to enforce our drug laws. We ask the DEA to protect our communities. The DEA has a very tough job. The Obama administration is not making that job any easier because this administration is undermining the DEA by turning a blind eye to illegal marijuana trafficking. It is trying to release convicted drug dealers from our prisons. It is trying to reduce the criminal penalties and minimum mandatory sentences for drug dealers who are still on the streets peddling death in our communities. So I understand these are very challenging times for the DEA. When the DEA or any law enforcement agency neglects its responsibilities and then possibly even covers up wrongdoing, then those who are responsible must be held accountable. So I have to ask, if the employees at DEA are not held accountable, what needs to happen in order for action to be taken? Do we need to wait until someone dies? The DEA's conduct in this case is inexcusable. After 2 years and more than $4 million of taxpayer money, the DEA owes the American people more answers. The American people deserve answers to the questions I posed in my letter to the DEA back in May of 2012, so, not getting a proper answer, I will be writing to the DEA again this week to pose additional questions, including about the possibility of a coverup. Most importantly, the American people deserve to know that those responsible for the detention and the mistreatment of Daniel Chong will be held accountable for this horrendous event. Constitutional Amendment I come to the floor also to discuss a constitutional amendment the Judiciary Committee has just reported to the Senate. The amendment would amend the Bill of Rights for the first time. Let me repeat that. The amendment would amend the Bill of Rights for the first time. I think that is a slippery slope. It would amend one of the most important of those rights--the right of free speech. The first amendment provides that Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech. The proposed amendment would give Congress and the States the power to abridge free speech. It would allow them to impose reasonable limits--whatever the word ``reasonable'' might mean at a particular time--on contributions and expenditures. By so doing, that has to be putting limits on speech, particularly speech that is very valuable in this country--political speech; in other words, trying to influence the direction of our country through elections. It would allow speech by corporations that would influence the elections to be banned altogether. This amendment is as dangerous as anything Congress could pass. Were it to be adopted--I believe it will not be adopted--the damage done could be reversed only if two-thirds of both Houses of Congress voted to repeal it through a new constitutional amendment. Then, of course, three-fourths of the States ratify that new amendment. I would like to start with some basic first principles. The Declaration of Independence states that everyone is endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights that governments are created to protect. Those preexisting rights include the right to liberty. The Constitution was adopted to secure the blessings of liberty to Americans. Americans rejected the view that the structural limits on government power contained in the original Constitution would adequately protect the liberties they had fought the Revolution to preserve. So when the people came to the conclusion that the original Constitution would not protect their liberties, the people living in the States at that time insisted on the adoption of this very important Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights regardless of whether the government or the majority approve of their use. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech. That freedom is basic to self-government. Other parts of the Constitution foster equality or justice or representative government, but it is the Bill of Rights--that Bill of Rights is only about individual freedom. Free speech creates a marketplace of ideas in which citizens can learn, debate, persuade fellow citizens on the issues of the day. At its core it enables the citizenry to be educated, to cast votes, to elect our leaders. Today freedom of speech is threatened as it has not been in many decades. Too many people will not listen and debate and persuade. Instead, they want to punish, intimidate, and silence those with whom they might disagree. A corporate executive who opposes same-sex marriage--the same position that President Obama held at the very time--is to be fired. Universities that are supposed to foster academic freedom cancel graduation speeches by speakers some students find offensive. Government officials order other government officials not to deviate from the party line concerning proposed legislation. This resolution filed by the Judiciary Committee, S.J. Res. 19, is cut from the same cloth. It would amend the Constitution for the first time to diminish an important right of Americans; that is, a right contained in the Bill of Rights. In fact, it would cut back on the most important of these rights--core free speech about who should be elected to govern us. The proposed constitutional amendment would enable government to limit funds contributed to candidates and funds spent influencing the election. That would give the government the ability to limit speech. The amendment would allow the government to set the limit at low levels. There could be little in the way of contributions or election spending. There could be restrictions on public debate on who should be elected. Incumbents would find that outcome--well, you guessed it--to be very successful because it protects incumbents. They would know that no challengers could run an effective campaign against them. What precedent would this amendment create? Suppose Congress passed limits on what people could spend on abortions or what doctors or hospitals could spend to perform them? What if Congress limited the amount of money people could spend on guns or limited how much people could spend of their own money on health care? Under this amendment Congress could do what the Citizens United decision rightfully said it could not--make it a criminal offense for the Sierra Club to run an ad urging the public to defeat a Congressman who favors logging in the national forest or for the National Rifle Association to publish a book seeking public support for a challenger to a Senator who favors a handgun ban or for the ACLU to post on its Web site a plea for voters to support a Presidential candidate because of his stance on free speech. That should, for everybody, be a frightening prospect. Under this amendment, Congress and the States could limit campaign contributions and expenditures without even complying with the existing constitutional provisions. Congress could pass a law limiting expenditures by Democrats, but not by Republicans--by opponents of ObamaCare, but not by its supporters. What does the amendment mean when it says that Congress can limit funds spent to influence elections? If an elected official says he or she plans to run again, long before any election, Congress, under this amendment, could criminalize criticism of that official as spending to influence the elections. A Senator on the Senate floor appearing on C-SPAN, free of charge could, with immunity, defame a private citizen. The Member could say that the citizen was buying the elections. If the citizen spent what Congress has said was too much money to rebut the charge, he could go to jail. We would be back to the days when criticism of elected officials was a criminal offense during the Alien and Sedition Acts. Yet its supporters say that this amendment is necessary to preserve democracy. The only existing right that the amendment says it will not harm is freedom of the press. So Congress and the States could limit the speech of anyone except corporations that control the media. That would produce an Orwellian world in which every speaker is equal but some speakers are more equal than others. Freedom in the press has never been understood to give the media special constitutional rights denied to others. Even though the amendment by its terms would not affect freedom of the press, I was heartened to read that the largest newspaper in my State, the Des Moines Register, editorialized against this amendment amending the Bill of Rights. They cited testimony from our hearing, and they recognize the threat that the proposed amendment poses to freedom. But in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, an amendment soon may not be needed at all. Four Justices right now would allow core political speech to be restricted. Were a fifth Justice with this view to be appointed, there would be no need to amend the Constitution to cut back on the freedom. Justice Breyer's dissent for these four Justices in the McCutcheon decision does not view freedom of speech as an end in itself the same way that our Founding Fathers did. He thinks free political speech is about advancing ``the public's interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.'' To be sure, individual rights often advance socially desired goals, but our constitutional rights do not depend on whether unelected judges believe they advance democracy as they conceive it. Our constitutional rights are individual, not collective, as Justice Breyer says. Never in 225 years has any Supreme Court opinion described our rights as collective. Our rights come from God and not from the government or the public. At least that is what the writers of the Declaration of Independence said. Consider the history of the past 100 years. Freedom has flourished where rights belong to individuals that governments were bound to respect. Where rights are collective and existed only at the whim of a government that determines when they serve socially desirable purposes, the results have been literally horrific: no freedom, no democracy. We should not move even 1 inch in that direction that the liberal Justices did and that simultaneously this amendment would take us. The stakes could not be higher for all Americans who value their rights and freedoms. Speech concerning who the people's elected representative should be, speech setting the agenda for public discourse, speech designed to open and change the minds of our fellow citizens, speech criticizing politicians, and speech challenging government and its policies are all vital rights. This amendment puts all of them in jeopardy upon the penalty of imprisonment. It would make America no longer America. Contrary to the arguments of its supporters, the amendment would not advance self-government against corruption and the drowning out of voices of ordinary citizens. No, just the opposite. It would harm the rights of ordinary citizens--individually, as well as in free associations--to advance their political views and to elect candidates who support their views. By limiting campaign speech, it would limit the information that voters receive in deciding how to vote. It would limit the amount that people can spend on advancing what they consider to be the best political ideas. Its restrictions on speech apply to individuals. Politicians could apply the same rules to individuals who govern corporations. Perhaps individuals cannot be totally prohibited from speaking, but the word ``reasonable'' is in the amendment but that word limits can mean anything. Incumbents likely would set a low limit on how much an individual can spend to criticize them; that is, incumbents protecting their office. Then the individual would have to risk criminal prosecution in deciding whether to speak, hoping that a court would later find that the limit he or she exceeded was unreasonable. This would create not a chilling effect on speech, but, in fact, a very freezing effect. This does not further democratic self-government. The amendment would apply to some campaign speech that cannot give rise to corruption. For instance, under current law, an individual could spend any amount of his or her own money to run for office. An individual could not corrupt himself with his own money and could not be bought by others if he or she did not rely on outside money, but the amendment would allow Congress and the States to strictly limit what even an individual could contribute to or spend on his or her own campaign. That would make beating the incumbent, who would benefit from the new powers to restrict speech, much more difficult. In practice, individuals seeking to elect candidates in the democratic process must exercise their First Amendment freedom of association to work together with others. This amendment could prohibit that altogether. It would permit Congress and the States to prohibit ``corporations or artificial entities . . . from spending money to influence elections.'' Now, that even means labor unions. That means nonprofit corporations such as the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. That means political parties. The amendment will allow Congress to prohibit political parties from spending money to influence elections. If they can't spend money on elections, then they would be rendered as a mere social club. The prohibition on political spending by for-profit corporations also does not advance democracy. Were this amendment to take effect, a company that wanted to advertise beer or deodorant would be given more constitutional protection than a corporation of any kind that wanted to influence an election. The philosophy of the amendment is very elitist. It says the ordinary citizen cannot be trusted to listen to political arguments and evaluate which ones are persuasive. Instead, incumbent politicians interested in securing their own reelections are trusted to be high-minded. Surely, they would not use this new power to develop rules that could silence not only their actual opposing candidates, but associations of ordinary citizens who have the nerve to want to vote them out of office. As First Amendment luminary Floyd Abrams told our committee: ``[P]ermitting unlimited expenditures from virtually all parties leads to more speech from more candidates for longer time periods, and ultimately more competitive elections.'' Isn't that the goal that we should seek through the political process? Having parties led to more speech from more candidates for longer periods of time and ultimately more competitive elections. Incumbents are unlikely to use this new power to welcome that competition. In fact, the committee report indicates that State and Federal legislators are not the only people who would have the ability to limit campaign speech under this amendment. It says that the States and the Federal Government can promulgate regulations to enforce the amendment. So you have unelected State and Federal bureaucrats, who do not answer to anyone, being empowered to regulate what is now the freedom of speech of individuals and entities that for 230 years has been protected by the Bill of Rights. That all makes a mockery of the idea that this proposed amendment would advance democracy and that argument is used by its proponents. Another argument for the amendment--some voices should not drown out others--also runs counter to free speech. It also is elitist. It assumes that voters will be manipulated into voting against their interests because large sums will produce so much speech as to drown out others and blind them to the voters' true interests. Tell that to the voters in Virginia's Seventh Congressional District. That incumbent Congressman outspent his opponent 26 to 1. Newspaper reports state that large sums were spent on independent expenditures on the incumbent's behalf, many by corporations. No independent expenditures were made for their opponent, but yet his opponent won. That doesn't seem to be drowning out people making their own decisions in the ballot box, and it is not some undue influence that proponents of this amendment want you to believe that this constitutional amendment can do away with undue influence. Just think, 26 to 1, trying to convince people to vote for an incumbent Congressman, and he loses. Let me say this. The exact amount of money that the winner of that primary spent was just over $200,000 to win 55 percent of that vote. Since a limit that allowed a challenger to win would presumably be reasonable under the amendment, Congress or the States could limit spending on House primaries to as little as $200,000, all by the candidate with no obviously unnecessary outside spending allowed. The second set of unpersuasive arguments concerns the Supreme Court decision Citizens United. That case has been mischaracterized as activist. Again, I wish to say what Mr. Abrams testified before the committee. He said that case continues a view of free speech rights by unions and corporations that was expressed by President Truman and by liberal Justices in the 1950s. What the Citizens United overruled was the departure from precedent. And Citizens United did not give rise to unfettered campaign spending. The Supreme Court case in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, ruled that independent expenditures could not be limited. That decision was not the work of a supposed conservative judicial activist. Wealthy individuals have been able to spend unlimited amounts since then. And corporations and others have been able to make unlimited donations to 501(c)(4) corporations since then as well. As Mr. Abrams wrote to the Judiciary Committee in questions for the record: What Citizens United did do, however, is permit corporations to contribute to PACs that are required to disclose all donors and engage only in independent expenditures. If anything, Citizens United is a pro-disclosure ruling which brought corporate money further into the light. And it is this amendment, not Citizens United, that fails to respect precedent. It does not simply overturn one case. As Mr. Abrams responded, it overturns 12 cases, some of which date back almost 40 years. As the amendment has been redrafted, it may be 11\1/2\ now, depending upon what the word ``reasonable'' means. Justice Stevens, whom the committee Democrats relied on at length in support of the amendment, voted with the majority in three of the cases the amendment would overturn. Some members of the committee may not like the long-established broad protections for free speech that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed, but that does not mean there are five activists on the Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously in more cases this year than it has in 60 or 75 years, depending on whose figures you use. Its unanimity was frequently demonstrated by rejecting arguments of the Obama administration. I have made clear that this amendment abridges fundamental freedoms that are the birthright of Americans. The arguments made to support it are unconvincing. The amendment will weaken, not strengthen, democracy. It will not reduce corruption, but will open the door for elected officials to bend democracy's rules to benefit themselves. The fact that the committee reported this amendment is a very great testimony to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in insisting on and adopting the Bill of Rights in the first place. As Justice Jackson famously wrote: The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. We must preserve our Bill of Rights, including our rights to free speech. We must not allow officials to diminish and ration any one of the Bill of Rights, but especially the first one, which is so important. We must not let the proposal become the supreme law of the land. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last week I explained why I oppose the nomination of Pamela Harris to the Fourth Circuit. I wish to raise several other aspects of her record that I find troubling, but before I address the specifics of this nominee, I need to place this nomination in context. Last November, when the distinguished majority leader decided to toss aside an institution almost as old as the Senate itself, he claimed that breaking the rules was necessary because of an imminent crisis in the DC Circuit--not a judicial emergency; the numbers made it plain there was no judicial emergency, but a crisis that required radical action. That was after we had already confirmed the President's first nominee to the DC Circuit by a unanimous vote of 97 to 0. As I said in November, there was no crisis. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, as of September 2013, the DC Circuit had 149 pending appeals for each active judge, by far the lightest caseload of any of the Nation's 13 circuit courts of appeals. The number of cases filed in that circuit decreased by almost 5 percent during the year 2013. So the only crisis the distinguished majority leader was responding to was one he and the Obama White House had manufactured. Instead, in an exercise of raw political power he decided to stack the DC Circuit by ramming through three of the President's nominees simultaneously. It turns out that the crisis was just an excuse for a political power grab, plain and simple, and everyone knew it. Despite the denials from the other side, all the signs were there for anyone and anybody who cared to see those signs. In May of last year the distinguished majority leader said the DC Circuit was ``wreaking havoc with the country'' and that he was going ``to do something about it.'' I am not going to recount how many of my Democratic colleagues repeatedly blocked President Bush's nominees to that court when they were in the minority. Those were and remain nominees of the highest quality who deserved a vote but never got such a vote. Suffice it to say then that during the Bush administration, when the parliamentary shoe was on the other foot, the distinguished Democratic leader claimed the filibuster was a sacred institution. Times surely have changed. So now after the other side has succeeded in stacking the DC Circuit, Democratic appointees outnumber Republican appointees by a 7-to-4 majority among active judges. The distinguished majority leader wasn't going to leave anything to fortune and he rammed those three nominees through. I am recounting how the majority leader took the Senate nuclear because it all came to another head last week. You see, on Tuesday the three-judge panel of the DC Circuit decided the Halbig v. Burwell case, the most significant ObamaCare ruling since the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law in 2012. Halbig is a straightforward case of statutory interpretation under the Administrative Procedures Act and the DC Circuit panel got it right. As the panel held, the text of the Affordable Care Act states on its face that tax credits are available only to individuals--individuals--who purchase their insurance plans through an exchange established by a State. So the IRS cannot make the tax credits available as the law clearly says to those who bought plans through the Federal exchange. You don't have to take my word for it. Putting aside the ample evidence mustered by the DC Circuit's opinion, as early as 2009, the former Democratic chair of our Finance Committee suggested that tax credits were aimed to cover only State exchanges. Additionally, economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the key architects of ObamaCare, has been very clear on this question. According to the New York Times, Mr. Gruber's role in designing ObamaCare was so crucial that ``the White House lent him to Capitol Hill to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.'' What did the administration's own expert economist have to say about the availability of tax credits under ObamaCare? Here is his quote from 2012 explaining how credits were intended as a political pressure tactic on our 50 States: I think what's important to remember politically about this, is if you are a state and you don't set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying to your citizens, you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize that there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they'll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this. Mr. Gruber is right. The politics have gotten very ugly around this. After the panel ruled against the HHS Secretary in Halbig last week, it only took the administration about an hour to announce that it would seek en banc review by the full DC Circuit. That is where the majority's power grab is paying off. Breaking the Senate's longstanding rules and stacking the DC Circuit was a premeditated political calculation from the very beginning. So last week when asked whether his decision to stack the courts was vindicated by the Halbig decision, the distinguished majority leader told the press: ``I think if you look at simple math, it does. Simple math, you bet.'' Simple math was the other side's calculation. The simple math is stacking the DC Circuit with leftwing judges who will do in a court what the President and the other side have been unable to do through the legislative process. It is what they have been unable to do through the proper channels of government designated by the Constitution to resolve these issues through the Congress. But the President has been complaining for years that he cannot accomplish his legislative agenda that way, so he went looking for alternatives to that constitutional process, where the Constitution says the legislative branch shall legislate, and the Constitution says that the executive branch should only execute. Faithfully executing the laws is not something this President concerns himself with. By now everybody has heard the President's boast about his pen and his phone. As of July 18 of this year, the President wielding that pen and dialing that phone has unconstitutionally amended ObamaCare by executive or administrative fiat a grand total of 24 times, and that could be a very conservative estimate of everything he has done. The President's unilateral Executive actions were not minor. They unconstitutionally altered basic aspects of the law's design and operation. Things as fundamental as delaying the individual mandate, ordering the IRS to make subsidies available through Federal exchanges in direct contravention of the law, extending noncompliant plans, delaying the employer mandate--not once but twice--and exempting unions from reinsurance fees which will create costs that will be passed on to consumers who aren't fortunate enough to be employed by the President's political allies--all of these and more in violation of law. By his own admission the President has used these aggressive and lawless tactics because he cannot prevail in the legislative process. But time has shown that Executive action has been insufficient to realize a failed legislative agenda. So the President turned to the courts to do what he couldn't otherwise do legislatively, what he couldn't do within constitutional constraints, because it is all about just ``simple math.'' That is not the way the Constitution works. High school students know otherwise. The President isn't entitled to a rubberstamp from a Congress on unpopular legislation, and he is not entitled to stack the courts with radically liberal judges when his political initiatives fail legislatively. So I want the other side to remember how politics works when they inevitably find themselves in the minority once again. I want them to remember the new realities of the so-called simple math that they resorted to in order to accomplish legislative projects through judicial proxies instead of through the democratic process. The DC Circuit wasn't the only appeals court to rule on the ObamaCare subsidies issue last week, and that brings me back to Professor Harris's nomination that we will be voting on today. The Fourth Circuit has ruled, but in contrast to the DC Circuit, it upheld the administration's subsidies regime in a case called the King case, and that is where this nominee comes in. As I explained to my colleagues last week, the timing of the vote on this nomination is not coincidence. Professor Harris is being fast-tracked to the Fourth Circuit just in time for another en banc appeal, should one materialize. The professor, one of the President's most stridently liberal nominees to date, is jumping ahead of other circuit nominees on the Executive Calendar. Why? For one simple reason: The administration is betting on more simple math to defend ObamaCare in the Fourth Circuit, just like they are betting on simple math to save them in the DC Circuit. My colleagues need to face the facts. Professor Harris is a rock- solid vote for saving ObamaCare's unlawful subsidy regime which many commentators have described as the economic linchpin of the entire law. All we need to do is look at the nominee's record, which shows time and again how this nominee confuses politics with the law. For years prior to her confirmation hearing she advocated a legal philosophy in which leftwing politics actively guides and actively shapes judicial decisionmaking. She has explained in detail that she believes the Constitution is made and remade over and over again by political movements at the so-called constitutionally critical junctures. So do we even need to ask whether Professor Harris thinks that passage of ObamaCare was one such critical juncture and that the law is worth preserving at all costs? The question answers itself. Just look at Professor Harris's record. Before my colleagues vote I want them to have a clear picture of what this nominee stands for, so I am going to mention a few truly remarkable positions she has taken in addition to the many I discussed with my colleagues last week. Professor Harris is on record that extralegal considerations should influence how a judge rules. She also expressed her belief that the personal characteristics of the judge should matter as well. I think it is fair to say that she is acutely concerned with the personal characteristics of the judge. In 2010 she even told the Los Angeles Times that the President should consider a judicial nominee's religious beliefs when filling Supreme Court vacancies, even though our Constitution says there can be no religious test for any office. She said: It is hard for me to see religion as especially different than all other things that presidents take into account. I don't even know where to start with that, and perhaps the less said about it the better. But I would be interested to know which religions the nominee thinks are suitable or unsuitable for representation on the Federal bench. I will leave you with another example of how out of mainstream this nominee is. Professor Harris is an outspoken advocate for abortion rights. Over the years she has made a number of controversial statements about abortion and the Supreme Court's abortion precedent. Shockingly, on one occasion last year she described partial-birth abortion as merely a ``late-ish'' kind of abortion. The nominee also suggested that States ``gin up medical controversies'' intentionally and in bad faith in order to justify restrictions on late-term abortions. She denigrated restrictions on partial-birth abortion because, in her view, ``you could find one guy to say `I don't know it's safe to create medical uncertainty that will allow state regulation.' '' Those are definitely not the views of mainstream nominees. My colleagues need to understand this nominee's views fully before they cast their votes. This is a nominee who describes herself as a ``profoundly liberal person'' and who thinks the Constitution is a ``profoundly progressive document.'' This is a nominee who actually thinks the Constitution embodies her personal leftwing philosophy and has said it is ``pretty close to where I am.'' This is a nominee who suggested that a judicial nominee's religious faith is a valid consideration for service on the Federal bench. This is a nominee who thinks partial-birth abortion is just a ``late-ish'' kind of abortion and criticizes State partial-birth abortion laws ginned up by fake controversies and bogus data. I explained earlier, a vote for this nominee is a vote in favor of ObamaCare, and that is why she is being hurried onto the Fourth Circuit ahead of nominees to other courts of appeal. It is the distinguished majority leader's simple math. This is perhaps the most liberal judicial nominee we have seen from this President so far, which is why I am going to vote no on this nominee and urge my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last year, I cosponsored the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2013. The sponsor of the bill is reintroducing the bill with some modifications. While I am again cosponsoring this new bill, I wanted to remind my colleagues of my concerns related to the visa waiver section of the bill. The Visa Waiver Program is a benefit to other countries, and they are allowed to participate after meeting certain conditions, which are laid out in statute. A section in the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act provides authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the requirements and allow Israel to participate in the program. Specifically, under the legislation, Israel would not have to abide by the low nonimmigrant visa refusal rate standard. As I stated previously, I am concerned about this section of the bill because it sets a precedent for other countries not to have to abide by all the terms of the program. Neither Congress or the executive branch should be making exceptions to the rules. I support the bill because it reaffirms the United States' partnership with Israel, however, we need to be cautious in relaxing the rules regarding the Visa Waiver Program.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, similar to my colleague from Maryland, I come to the floor to discuss the nomination of Professor Pamela Harris to the Fourth Circuit. I come for another reason, to give my reasons for opposition. Contemplating my vote on this nominee has been a particularly memorable process. That is because as I reviewed the professor's writings, statements, and legal briefs, it seemed as though I was reviewing the record of not one but two nominees. The size of those two nominees' records was rather unequal. On the one hand, there is the record of the pre-nomination Professor Harris. That is the record reaching all the way back to her graduation from law school in 1990, a record rich in public statements and writings. It is a record long enough to develop a distinct and stridently left-wing philosophy. That is one record. Then, on the other hand, there is the record of the post-nomination Professor Harris. It is a dramatically shorter record. That record only began a few weeks ago at the professor's confirmation hearing on June 24. It is a record that consists of the professor's testimony before the Judiciary Committee and of course her responses to questions for the record from my colleagues and from this Senator. It is a record of a jurist who will be faithful to the statutory text and constitutional precedents, a record with comments that could be mistaken for those of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. But what is so unbelievable to me is how totally at odds the record of the pre-nomination professor is with the record of the post- nomination professor. As I said before, it is as if there were two entirely distinct nominees vying for this single seat on the Fourth Circuit. So for the next few minutes I would like to share with my colleagues some excerpts from the record of the pre-nomination Professor Harris and some excerpts from the post-nomination professor. There is no question that the professor spent her entire legal career, before nomination to the Federal bench, that is, consistently and aggressively advocating for a liberal interpretation of the Constitution that is well outside the mainstream of constitutional jurisprudence. That is the pre-nomination record. But as I said, that all changed when she testified before the committee. I would start with the professor's pre-nomination views on constitutional interpretation. She has spoken with unusual clarity and forthrightness on the topic. That is in part because she served for many years on the board of the left-wing American Constitution Society. That ironically named group spends a lot of time developing theories of interpretation that are designed to attack and redefine key constitutional principles. The professor was at the forefront of those discussions in many years. So how exactly did the pre-nomination Professor Harris view the sources of constitutional meaning? Here is a statement she made before the American Constitution Society in 2008: I just don't think that any account of the Constitution that even seems to privilege the Constitution as it was originally ratified is consistent with the way we should think about the Constitution. Yes, the values, the principles, on some level of generality, are there at the beginning, but they take their meaning--and they should take their meaning--from what comes after. We should pause for a moment because she said a lot in that quote. First, we hear how the professor rejects out of hand the idea that the Constitution as originally ratified should guide its interpretation. Instead she sees only ambiguous principles. Those principles, according to the professor, are more or less empty and meaningless by themselves. That is because those principles, as she formulates them, take their meaning primarily from subsequent developments. Then the professor goes on to specify exactly what subsequent developments she is talking about. She explains that her interpretive ``source of legitimacy most particularly,'' is ``what the People do'' at what she calls ``critical junctures,'' including ``the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the gay rights movement.'' According to the professor, these movements ``reconstitute what it is we're talking about when we talk about American constitutional tradition, when we say words like equality and liberty, when we change what they mean.'' We need to pause and unpack that statement. First, the professor explicitly identifies for herself ``a source of legitimacy'' to be used in constitutional interpretation. That source of legitimacy is not the Constitution's text, nor its structure, nor its history, nor its original intent, nor any other established interpretive method. It is something outside the law altogether, and that happens to be social and political movements. I will put it this way: They are the social and political movements that Professor Harris chooses for inspiration. They are the social and political movements Professor Harris has decided to raise all the way to constitutional status. It is these extralegal sources that she says change the scope of the Constitution's guarantees of equality and liberty. I am sure you are going to say this sounds as though I am making it up, but I am not. The professor literally said, ``We change what they mean.'' Who is the ``we'' the professor is talking about? I suspect it is the people in social movements that Professor Harris finds particularly inspirational. I suspect it is also the people who share her view that the Constitution's original guarantees are merely empty vessels which can be filled with whatever political or social ideas a judge might ``privilege,'' as the professor puts it. In other contexts, Professor Harris said the meaning of the Constitution changes based on things such as ``an evolving and changing public understanding,'' ``the consequences of constitutional rulings,'' and ``the circumstances on the ground.'' Note the absence of any legal standard on that list which seems to be the basis of the rule of law or the basis of stare decisis. I will finish up with the professor's quote. I think that constitutional legitimacy comes, even in part, from the fact that it does reflect these social movements and what happens at these particular moments when the people come together and force this kind of change in the way we think about ourselves and what it means to be American. And I think there's something about originalism at least as it's commonly understood that's inconsistent with that. And that's why I'm not an originalist, even now. Let's recap. The Constitution derives some of its legitimacy, as the professor put it, from social movements at particular moments. Again, how are we to know which particular moments rise to the level of constitutional significance? We will have to ask Professor Harris because there is absolutely no principled or objective way of making that kind of a decision. It is certainly not a legal decision. It happens to be a matter of personal preference. What else can we take away from that quote? Well, we also learned the professor is definitely not an originalist. She literally says: ``I'm not an originalist.'' I want you to keep that in mind because what I have to say shows how quickly she can change her views. Let's turn now to what the post-nomination professor thinks about constitutional interpretation. As I said before, the contrast is so striking that it is almost as if we are dealing with two different nominees for the single seat on the Fourth Circuit. Does the post- nomination professor still think constitutional principles change with the times? In a response to my question for the record, Professor Harris wrote: I do not believe that the Constitution's provisions and principles change or evolve, other than by the amendment process in Article V. They are fixed and enduring and judges are not free to change them whether by incorporating public preferences or their own policy views. That is astounding. It is like a night-and-day difference with the judicial philosophy I have previously quoted from the pre-nomination Professor Harris, and it is totally incompatible with the philosophy which Professor Harris has developed over the decades. Now we suddenly hear that the professor believes in unchanging and in fixed--dare I say eternal--principles that cannot be changed except by an Article V amendment. All of a sudden there are no more social movements. All of a sudden there are no more ``critical junctures.'' All of a sudden there is no more ``what the people do.'' All of a sudden there is no more ``privileging'' or ``reconstituting''--those are her words. So no more ``privileging'' or ``reconstituting'' constitutional meaning. All of a sudden the meanings are now fixed in our Constitution. All that other stuff she previously said happens to be in the rearview mirror. Now judges are forbidden from incorporating public preferences to change constitutional principles. Public preferences as interpreted by the judge, of course. But just a few years ago that was at the very core of her interpretative philosophy. I have another post-nomination quote. I would never suggest that a justice of the Supreme Court, or any judge, should change his or her opinions based on public opinion. That is not the way I view the role of a judge. That happens to be the way I view the role of a judge, and now she says that is the way she sees the role of a judge, but it is completely contrary to what she had thought for decades before this nomination. The post-nomination Professor Harris added that courts should be ``especially cautious on social issues when the political branches and political institutions are deeply and rapidly engaged in those issues'' and ``leave as much to the democratic process.'' That statement is also a massive sea-change. For the pre-nomination professor, the democratic process went hand- in-glove with the judicial process. Now, however, with her confirmation on the line, the post-nomination professor sees a wall between politics and the courts. Let's return to the pre-nomination professor for another quote on judicial decisionmaking. Here is what she candidly told a gathering of the American Constitution Society about that issue in 2009: I always feel unapologetically, you know, left to my own devices, my own best reading of the Constitution. It's pretty close to where I am. Where exactly is the Constitution, in her view? She tells us flatly: ``I think the Constitution is a profoundly progressive document. I think it's born of a progressive impulse.'' Well, if that is where the Constitution is, where then is the professor? Again, there is no mystery here because she is very upfront with that answer: ``I'm a profoundly liberal person so we''--she is talking about herself and the Constitution as one--``we match up pretty well. I make no apologies for that.'' Think for a moment about what the professor is saying. I frankly cannot recall a judicial nominee who has actually expressed her belief that the Constitution embodies the nominee's personal political philosophy, but that is exactly what Professor Harris does in that statement. Think about how she put it: The Constitution is pretty much where she is as a liberal. It is almost in sync with her views. That was a crystal-clear explanation of how the pre-nomination Professor Harris viewed her beliefs and the Constitution. But what does the post-nomination Professor Harris have to say? At her hearing, she told our Judiciary Committee: I do not believe that it is the view of a judge ever to import his or her personal values into judicial decisionmaking. Again, the post-nomination statement is strikingly at odds with the pre-nomination views. Or, perhaps we should actually take the post- nomination statement at face value. After all, Professor Harris doesn't need to import her own views when interpreting the Constitution. As she explained, it just happens to be almost as liberal as she is. So that is a fortunate coincidence, I suppose. What about the professor's views on a particular judicial philosophy? Remember earlier her pre-nomination criticism of originalism and her assertion that she is definitely not an originalist. That happens to be out the window as well. Here is her post-nomination testimony: ``I do not reject originalism as an interpretive method.'' Those are just a few of the contradictory quotes from the pre- and post-nomination Professor Harris which strikingly illustrate almost unbelievable inconsistencies in her judicial philosophy and understanding of constitutional interpretation. The quotations also point to issues that are deeply troubling about this nominee, and I'll discuss a few of them. First, this nominee has made many statements suggesting that if confirmed, she would pursue a results-oriented, whatever-it-takes approach to deciding cases. From this nominee's past commentary, we know that she is not only a devoted liberal, but she would also strive to move the courts leftward to suit her ideological preferences. For example, in discussing the Warren Court, the professor said she wondered ``whether we almost have, by now, a stunted sense of what the legal choices really are, what really is a liberal legal outcome.'' Just listen to that phrasing again: ``liberal legal outcome.'' Is there any doubt this nominee views the courts as simply a third political branch? I will quote again: If Chief Justice Warren came out a certain way, that must be as liberal as it gets. That's not right! I think that we've stunted the spectrum of legal thought in a way that removes the possibility that there could have been more progressive readings of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. It seems Professor Harris doesn't think the Warren court was nearly liberal enough. That is a fairly astonishing view in itself. I often hear liberals and some of our nominees talk about the so- called living Constitution. Well, it is clear to me this nominee sees not a living Constitution but a profoundly political Constitution. She said so herself. She sees judges as proxies engaged in a tug-of-war who use judicial power as an instrument of political control. Her statements, as I explained a few minutes ago, also are a clear indication of her belief that the role of a judge is to reflect those political and social forces. For example, speaking about Justice Kennedy's stance on gay marriage, the professor said that the Justice ``should be changing the same way the whole country is changing.'' That is the language of politics, not the language of law. She has said so many things to this effect that I find myself asking this question: Will this nominee even consider the law when deciding a case or is it all progressive outcomes, social movements, and critical junctures? So it is clear there are two Professor Harrises: the pre-nomination professor and the post-nomination professor. Let's not be naive about which Professor Harris will sit on the Federal bench--for life--if confirmed, because no one else is being naive about that question. Take, for example, an article published last May in New Republic gushing that the professor is a ``champion of liberal jurisprudence'' and will be a ``sympathetic vote for liberal causes.'' We know that will be the case from the pre-nomination professor's long record of impassioned liberal advocacy. The article also observes--accurately, in my view--that Professor Harris ``clearly has an interest in using her voice to project a liberal jurisprudence perspective.'' That quotation pretty much sums it up. All anyone needs to do to confirm that claim is to read the pre- nomination professor's public statements, because they are all out there. It is not a secret what this nominee thinks about the law and what she thinks about the courts. And it is no secret what kind of a judge this nominee will be if she takes the bench. So it seems pretty clear to me that the timing of the vote on this nominee is not purely coincidental. We know this because of this week's ObamaCare decisions handed down by the DC Circuit and the Fourth Circuit. Last November, when the majority changed the cloture rule on judicial nominees, I told my colleagues the decision was a blatant attempt to stack the DC circuit with judges who would view sympathetically the administration's arguments in upcoming ObamaCare lawsuits. The other side dismissed the notion that the rules change was designed to tilt the court in the President's direction and to salvage ObamaCare. Well, as we all know, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit decided the Halbig case this week against the administration, and it only took the administration about an hour to announce that it would seek a rehearing by the en banc DC Circuit, which now includes four of the President's nominees. As we all know, our distinguished majority leader rushed through three of those four nominees immediately after the rules change. And yesterday the distinguished majority leader finally admitted that the upcoming en banc panel on the Halbig ruling vindicated his decision to go nuclear. He said: ``I think if you look at simple math, it does.'' So the distinguished majority leader isn't even trying to disguise his intent, and that is exactly what happened with this nominee on her way to the Fourth Circuit. This nomination is being considered ahead of other circuit nominees on the executive calendar. Why is this Fourth Circuit nomination being fast-tracked? Why fast-track one of the most liberal nominees we have considered to date? If history is any guide, the answer is simple. It is all about saving ObamaCare. The other side wants to stack the Fourth Circuit just like the DC Circuit, because the Fourth Circuit hears a disproportionate number of significant cases involving Federal law and regulations, as does the DC Circuit. So my colleagues should understand a vote for this nominee is also a solid vote for the Affordable Care Act as the cases make their way through the court. I am voting ``no'' on this nominee and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield back our time.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, later we will be voting on a judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. I come to the Senate floor today to explain why, regrettably, I am unable to support the nominee. As my colleagues know, Justice Ronnie White was originally nominated by President Clinton during the 105th Congress. This body voted on and rejected his nomination in 1999. After careful consideration of his record, I voted against Justice White's nomination at that time. Since 1999, Justice White completed a term as chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court and has returned to private practice. So today I would like to revisit a few aspects of Justice White's legal and judicial career that first led me to vote against his nomination. I will also discuss developments since 1999. Unfortunately, his record since that time has only reinforced my concerns. First, I begin with some troubling aspects of Justice White's record during his days on the Missouri Supreme Court in the 1990s. I only need to point to a few cases to illustrate my concerns. In the 1998 Johnson case, Justice White was the sole dissenter on the State's high court. It was a capital appeal case involving a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The case was heartbreaking. The defendant shot four people to death--three Missouri sheriffs and one of the sheriffs' wives. The facts were stark and very clear-cut. This was not a close case. The defendant was convicted based upon the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Justice White conceded there was more than sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction on appeal, but he went out of his way to create a standard that was not based on Missouri law when he evaluated the conduct of the defense attorney. Unsurprisingly, not a single member of the State court agreed with Justice White's dissenting opinion. That is because it was obvious there was no reasonable probability that anything the defense attorney did would have changed the outcome of the trial. That is the applicable legal standard. It is straightforward--very straightforward. In that case, every member of the State supreme court applied it correctly, except Justice White. Unfortunately, Justice White's dissent in that case was not an isolated example. On a number of other occasions throughout his judicial career, Justice White misapplied standards of review or considered issues that were not germane to the law when he was deciding cases. Justice White has even admitted as much. Discussing his judicial philosophy, he said in 2005 that he thinks it is appropriate for judges to let their opinions be ``shaped by their own life experiences.'' I think the personal characteristics of any judge--what this nominee calls his ``own life experiences''--should play absolutely no role whatsoever in the process of judicial decisionmaking. I know my colleagues on our Judiciary Committee share that view as well. Let me get back to the nominee's judicial track record. Justice White was the sole dissenter in another case that the Missouri Supreme Court decided in 1997. That case raised the question of whether the defendant was entitled to an additional evidentiary hearing. In his dissent, joined by none of his colleagues, Justice White again ignored a straightforward standard of review and wrote that the defendant should have the hearing because Justice White thought it would cause ``little harm.'' Here again we see Justice White's personal preferences creeping into what should be objective, law-based decisionmaking--something pretty elementary to being a judge at any level, Federal or State, in our system of jurisprudence. Those are just two examples of what led me, after consideration of the nominee's record as a whole, to vote against his nomination in 1999. Unfortunately, my concerns about Justice White's first nomination have only been reaffirmed by his subsequent record. For instance, I am troubled by Justice White's concurrence in the Eighth Amendment case of Roper v. Simmons. That case was first heard by the Missouri Supreme Court, was appealed to the Supreme Court, and was eventually affirmed. But the affirmance is not what my colleagues should focus on. What should concern my colleagues is the opinion that Justice White concurred in, which ignored binding Supreme Court precedent. That precedent was the Stanford v. Kentucky case. I will explain. In 2003, when Justice White's court decided Roper, binding Supreme Court precedent at that time permitted applying the death penalty to individuals if they committed their crimes when they were under 18. Nonetheless, Justice White concurred in the State court opinion that simply ignored that precedent. Justice White concurred even though the Supreme Court had reaffirmed the Stanford principle twice in 2002, the year before Justice White's state court decision. Moreover, in 2003 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal raising legal arguments that were identical to the ones Justice White endorsed. That is the very same year Justice White's court ruled in Roper and ignored Stanford outright. My colleagues on our Judiciary Committee often ask nominees about their commitment to Supreme Court precedent and their faithfulness to the doctrine of stare decisis. Nominees who appear before us routinely repeat the mantra that they will unfailingly apply precedent and nothing else--in other words, leave out personal views. Justice White did as much at his hearing as well. But--and this is what I find so troubling--when I asked him about the Stanford case, he admitted that Stanford was, in fact, binding on his state court at the time he concurred in Roper. What he did not explain--what he could not explain--was why he ignored that binding precedent as a State supreme court justice. He could not explain why he thought it was appropriate for him to concur in a State court opinion that, in effect, overruled U.S. Supreme Court precedent. I do not doubt that Justice White has always done what he thought was right and that he ruled the way he thought best to achieve justice for the litigants before him. But in my view that is not an appropriate role for a Federal district judge. Judicial decisionmaking requires a disinterested and objective approach that never takes into account the judge's life experiences or policy preferences. From the careful look I have taken at Justice White's 13-year track record as a judge, I have too many questions about his ability to keep his personal considerations separate from his judicial opinions. Finally, it is worth noting that there continues to be opposition to this nominee from law enforcement. Specifically, both the National Sheriffs' Association and the Missouri Sheriffs' Association oppose this nominee. I always try to give judicial nominees the benefit of doubt when I have questions about their records, but in this nominee's case, I simply can't ignore so many indications that the nominee isn't the right person to occupy a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. I sincerely hope I am wrong about Justice White, and I reluctantly vote no on the nominee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from Missouri Sheriffs' Association Training Academy and National Sheriffs' Association.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I wish to ask my colleagues as well as myself to think about how many times we have made pessimistic-sounding statements about America's future. I want to remind my colleagues and myself about what I see as excessive pessimism about our great country, because as public figures often what we say maybe has consequences--sometimes positive, sometimes negative. Our attitudes matter and the policies shaped by those attitudes can have an enormous impact for better or for worse on the lives of Americans. President Ronald Reagan often expressed that America's best days were yet to come. Twenty-five years later I still believe in Reagan's optimism for America. In fact, President Reagan even ended his final letter to the American people: ``I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead.'' His agenda reflected that optimism and his policies worked towards a freer, more prosperous America. But it seems such optimism about America's future might be out of fashion these days. Instead of searching for a silver lining, many pundits and politicians see nothing but clouds. For instance, after decades of hearing about how we are about to run out of fossil fuel, making energy in the future much more expensive and scarce, improved technologies have unleashed enormous reserves of natural gas. This increase in supply has driven down costs and caused electrical generation to switch from coal to natural gas. That in turn has led to substantial reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That seems to be a silver lining. Now there are clouds on the horizon. However, rather than to celebrate the fact that the free market is achieving one of their long- held goals, many environmentalists want to ban the technology that led to the shale gas revolution based on unscientific claims of potential groundwater contamination. It seems that it would be a terrible shame to let all of that planning for scarcity of energy to go to waste. So I guess we better not take advantage of this Nation's resources. On another matter, we hear a lot of hand-wringing about the decline in manufacturing jobs, but this is partly due to advances in manufacturing process which seems to require fewer more-skilled and therefore higher-paying jobs. The growth in American advanced manufacturing will require job training to fill those higher-skilled, higher-paying jobs, and of course we have community colleges throughout our country that are rising to that challenge. This is an opportunity to do insource jobs that might otherwise be done overseas. That is good news for American economic competitiveness and from the standpoint of wanting higher paying jobs for Americans. That seems to me to be a silver lining. Now the clouds: The decliners are so heavily invested in the story of the decline of American manufacturing that it is easier to bemoan the lack of economically inefficient low-skilled jobs which are the hallmark not of Americans but of underdeveloped countries. On another matter, the bursting of the economic bubble has forced Americans to spend less and as a result to save more. ``Spend less, save more'' seems to me to be good news. Now clouds are forming because we have economic pundits saying that ``spend less, save more'' shows a lack of consumer confidence. You could look at it as a reality check in the face of unsustainable credit card debt financing spending or is it our national goal to get people to go back to saving less in the future and spending more today? Live for today and forget about tomorrow. You would think so, based upon what you hear in the news shows. American entrepreneurs still produce a disproportionate share of the world's major innovations. Still, we are cautioned by people who always see clouds hanging over America, that America is not graduating enough people with science and technology degrees and the best and brightest in developing countries may soon decide to stay at home to build their companies instead of coming to America. Doomsayers have existed throughout our history. It seems to be a sign of sophistication and intellectual refinement to predict the inevitable decline of your own society. Using 20/20 hindsight, the eventual decline of all of history's great civilizations somehow seems to be inevitable. So isn't it logical then to think our great Nation will decline as well? Perhaps the so-called great recession is a sign that America's best days are in fact already behind us. Many people in the media and government seem so caught up in this narrative they cannot see any other possibility but our decline. This fever is starting to spread to the general public as polls show a record number of Americans who think the next generation will be less well off than this generation. As a result there is a tremendous amount of energy being devoted to figuring out how to manage America's decline. This is kind of a historical determinism and pessimism that is very alien to the American character. The rise of America as the most prosperous Nation on Earth was hardly inevitable 200 years ago. We owe our current level of prosperity to the entrepreneurial spirit and hard work of our forefathers and, yes, to their unbounded optimism in the future of this great country. An excessive focus, then, on managing decline risks becoming a self- fulfilling prophecy. For instance, there is a lot of concern about the decline of the middle class, but instead of talking about how to unharness the entrepreneurial spirit that made America an economic super power and grew the great American middle class that we know, all the ideas from our friends across the aisle seem to focus on expanding dependency on government and more government programs. While a succession of new EPA regulations rain down on businesses causing them to pull back from expanding and hiring more people, the Democrats' solution is to keep people on unemployment benefits for a long, long time. Expensive health care reform mandates threaten to force small businesses to reduce the hours of employment and maybe not even hire more than 49 people, because when you get to 50 people there are other requirements in health care reform that kick in. So what is the answer? Many people in this body would mandate that small business pay a much higher minimum wage. Minimum wage jobs ought to be seen as a stepping stone for low-skilled workers to begin climbing the economic ladder. However, when the economic engine stalls, the ladder of opportunity becomes harder to climb. It happens that more and more people get stuck trying to make ends meet with low wage jobs and no opportunity to get ahead. And it seems that people are concerned about tackling this problem by putting more people on food stamps. So you get back to the American dream. The American dream is about an opportunity to work hard and earn your own success in life. Proposals to expand the welfare state to the middle class assume the American dream is somehow dead and the best we can hope for is anemic economic growth with high levels of government dependency. That is a defeatist attitude that reflects a distinct lack of faith in our great country. This is the old European model, which the experience of Greece showed to be unsustainable. In fact, the poster child for an expensive European welfare state, Sweden, has in fact taken a new route to cut taxes and reform entitlement programs--a lesson that we ought to be looking at in America. But who would ever think that we would look to Sweden as an example to teach us how to lower taxes and reform entitlement programs? If we keep planning for decline, we will get it. But if we recover our faith in America's potential and redirect our energy towards removing barriers to economic growth and opportunity, America's best days are still ahead of us. That leads me to repeat what Ronald Reagan said 25 years ago in that letter to the American people: ``America's best days are still ahead of her.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to speak to my colleagues on another issue as well, and that is something that came out of our Judiciary Committee a long time ago and is still on the calendar but probably will be brought to the Senate floor. A few weeks ago some were calling for the majority leader to bring up the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act to the Senate floor for a vote. So I come to the floor today to express my strong opposition to this bill and argue against taking the Senate's time to consider it. In the past I pointed out that this bill would put at risk our hard- won national drop in crime. It would also reduce penalties for importing and distributing heroin, a drug that is currently devastating our communities with an epidemic of addiction and a rising number of deaths from overdoses. In part, for these reasons many law enforcement professionals have come out against this legislation. The National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Federal law enforcement officers associations, and a long list of former high-level officials-- in Republican and Democratic administrations alike--are all opposed to it. Indeed page A12 of this morning's New York Times contains an article entitled: ``Second Thoughts on Lighter Sentences for Drug Smugglers.'' According to the New York Times, the sentencing changes that the administration has already pushed for are ``raising questions of whether the pendulum has swung too far.'' ``Some prosecutors say that couriers have little to no incentive to cooperate anymore.'' Border patrol officials grumble that they are working to catch smugglers, only to have them face little punishment. And judges who once denounced the harsh sentencing guidelines are now having second thoughts. Today I point out another perhaps less understood effect of the bill which puts our national security at increased risk. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, terrorists are increasingly funneling illegal drugs into America, raising large sums of money to fund their activities while simultaneously harming our communities. Undoubtedly, the Obama administration's unwillingness to control our border--which we have seen recently--contributes to the problem. Derek Maltz, Director of the Special Operations Division at the Drug Enforcement Administration, called this a two-for-one deal for terrorists: ``Poison gets distributed in the West, and they make millions in the process.'' According to a DEA spokesperson, ``Most people talk about the drug issue as a health issue, a parenting issue, an addiction issue. But the truth is, it's really a national security issue.'' In 2006, Congress took specific action to address this issue. When it reauthorized the PATRIOT Act, Congress also made it a separate crime to manufacture or distribute illegal drugs to benefit terrorists or terrorist organizations. The law is codified at title 21, section 960(a) of the U.S. Code. It is often called the narcoterrorism law. Just as important, Congress created mandatory minimum sentences applicable to narcoterrorism. Those sentences are set at ``not less than twice the minimum punishment'' applicable to the underlying drug trafficking offenses which are codified in title 21, section 841. However, the Smarter Sentencing Act would drastically cut the mandatory minimum sentences that apply to these underlying drug trafficking offenses. What this means is that by slashing in half the mandatory minimum sentences for the local drug dealer down the block, the Smarter Sentencing Act also slashes in half the mandatory minimum sentences for members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or Hezbollah who deal drugs to fund their acts of terrorism. For example, terrorists who currently face a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison for narcoterrorism would instead face only 10 years if the Smarter Sentencing Act were to become law. By cutting the mandatory minimum sentences for trafficking drugs to fund terrorism, the Smarter Sentencing Act weakens a very important tool that can be used to gain the cooperation of narcoterrorists facing prosecution. This cooperation leads to more arrests, more drug seizures, more terrorists off the streets, and more intelligence that could help prevent further attacks. Indeed, law enforcement authorities have been supportive of the mandatory minimum sentences that apply to the narcoterrorism statute for this very reason. For example, the Assistant Administrator for Intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration testified before Congress that ``the robust sentencing provisions in these statutes provide incentives for defendants to cooperate with investigators, promoting success in investigations.'' The last thing we should do is weaken the leverage law enforcement currently has to win a terrorist defendant's cooperation, but that is what the Smarter Sentencing Act would in fact do. Indeed, in opposing the bill, Federal prosecutors wrote that ``mandatory minimums . . . help gain the cooperation of defendants in lower level roles in criminal organizations to pursue higher-level targets.'' The same principle is true--and even more important--when our national security is at stake. These threats to our safety and security are not theoretical, they are very real, and the narcoterrorism law is not just a statute on the books, it is a tool that is actively used by prosecutors to protect our Nation. For example, in 2008, Khan Mohammed, a member of the Taliban, was convicted under the narcoterrorism law of distributing heroin and opium to finance attacks against American troops in Afghanistan. Chillingly, Mohammed was just as concerned with killing American civilians with drugs as he was with financing rocket attacks against our troops. The opium he agreed to sell was to be processed into heroin and imported into the United States. As a result, Mohammed was caught on tape exclaiming ``Good, may God turn all the infidels into dead corpses.'' He later expounded on his deadly intentions: May God eliminate them right now, and we will eliminate them too. Whether it is by opium or by shooting, this is our common goal. Similarly, the narcoterrorism law was used to prosecute Afghan heroin kingpin Haji Bagcho in 2012. He was also trafficking heroin to America and funneled the proceeds to the Taliban. The evidence at trial showed that in 2006 his drug trafficking organization produced almost 20 percent of the world's opium and, similar to Mohammed, he targeted Americans. He reportedly encouraged Afghan farmers to ``grow opium so we can make heroin to kill the infidels.'' Perhaps it is little wonder, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, heroin overdoses resulting in death in the United States increased 45 percent between 2006 and 2010. It should go without saying that these are not individuals whose mandatory minimum sentences should be cut in half. But the authors of the Smarter Sentencing Act apparently think otherwise because that is what the bill says or maybe they don't understand what they are doing. Either way, the American people should be extremely concerned about this bill that unbelievably was reported out of the Judiciary Committee. Some may assume that the Department of Justice has other tools to go after defendants such as these, but the only other charges that Mohammed and Bagcho faced were for unlawfully importing these illegal drugs into the United States. Unbelievably, the Smarter Sentencing Act cuts the mandatory minimum sentences for that crime in half as well. In addition to these two cases, the Department of Justice has brought prosecutions against other narcoterrorists. Many of these individuals were linked to Hezbollah, one of the most notorious terrorist organizations in the world. In at least one instance associates of Al Qaeda were also brought to justice for their role in drug trafficking schemes. In many of these cases, the narcoterrorism law and the ban on importing illegal drugs played a vital role in their prosecution. We should not be weakening these laws at this critical time by cutting the penalties associated with those acts of crime. Of course, if possible, I would rather these terrorists be treated as enemy combatants and not be subject to the civilian criminal justice system at all, but on those occasions when they are prosecuted in our criminal justice system, I want authorities to have the strongest tools available to address the threat these criminals pose. According to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who has brought many of these cases, ``there is a growing nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism, a nexus that increasingly poses a clear and present danger to our national security. Combating this lethal threat requires a bold and proactive approach.'' Cutting the mandatory minimum sentences for narcoterrorists is moving in precisely the opposite direction of what the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York said and I just quoted. Trafficking in illegal drugs has long been understood to be a way that these terrorist organizations raise funds, but it is now equally clear that this activity is also a way for them to target our fellow citizens directly. In effect, drug trafficking is a method of waging war against the United States. It is a way to terrorize our communities with poison without firing a shot. It is a way to threaten the lives of Americans just as surely as using a bomb, a gun or a hijacked plane. Terrorists are wielding another tool in their efforts to destroy and defeat our country. This is not the moment to weaken one of the tools we have to actually stop them. This is no time to let down our defenses. It is no time for the Senate to take up the misnamed Smarter Sentencing Act. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 or 12 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Earlier this year I learned about a case of research misconduct that happened at Iowa State University. A team of scientists was working on a vaccine to fight HIV. One of the researchers, Dr. Han, committed fraud to make it appear as though the vaccine for HIV was working. He purposely spiked the testing samples so it looked as if the vaccines actually fought HIV. Dr. Han's fraud helped his team get $16 million in national grant money from the National Institutes of Health or around here we refer to that as the NIH. NIH is part of the Department of Health and Human Services or what we refer to as HHS. HHS gives out billions of dollars in research grants every year. In 2013 NIH gave out over $20 billion in research grants. Obviously that is a huge amount of money by any standard. The government has a responsibility to make sure this money is well spent. Unfortunately, it looks as if the government is relying on the grant recipients to do oversight instead of the government seeing that the money is well spent. In this case officials at Iowa State University were unaware of the fraud until another team of scientists couldn't duplicate the results. Iowa State University took the problem very seriously and notified Health and Human Services. I compliment them for that. But if it weren't for Iowa State University's actions, I doubt the Government ever would have found out about this tremendous amount of fraud. The Office of Research Integrity at Health and Human Services was created for the specific purpose to prevent and investigate research misconduct. The Office of Research Integrity investigated the allegations of misconduct at Iowa State University and in fact confirmed that Dr. Han knowingly committed fraud. Dr. Han even admitted to the fraud. The Office of Research Integrity imposed only a 3-year ban on Dr. Han from receiving any more Federal grant money. That is basically a slap on the wrist from the Office of Research Integrity. It makes absolutely no sense that someone who admitted to that level of fraud could be eligible for another Federal grant in just 3 years. I asked the Office of Research Integrity why the penalty for Dr. Han was so light and if it would try to recover any of the $19 million in research grants. The taxpayers subsidized what was supposed to be promising HIV research, but it was based on Dr. Han's fraud. His phony results were the basis for those grant applications. The Office of Research Integrity says it considers a 3-year ban a very strict penalty. To Iowans, that doesn't sound like a very commonsense penalty. In fact, the Office of Research Integrity says that 3 years is the maximum penalty it can give unless there are aggravating circumstances. That 3-year limit is set by the White House Office of Management and Budget. So the Office of Research Integrity claims that somehow its hands are tied. But in this case the Office of Research Integrity did not even try to demonstrate aggravating circumstances to enforce a longer debarment than 3 years against Dr. Han. The Office of Research Integrity admitted that there is nothing to keep Dr. Han from conducting research again funded by American taxpayers after those 3 years. The Office of Research Integrity claims it does not have the authority to recover funds in case of research conduct. Now, think about that for a minute. This Office of Research Integrity, with the responsibility to make sure money is wisely used and research is honest, says it does not have the authority to recover funds obtained by fraud. The Office of Research Integrity--we are talking about research integrity--says it is the responsibility of the agency that issued the research grant to recover money obtained by fraud. So I asked the National Institutes of Health about its involvement in this case. The National Institutes of Health first said that only $500,000 of the $19 million in research grants would be recovered. The National Institutes of Health also claimed it was not responsible for recovering the fraudulent grant money. According to the National Institutes of Health, oversight is the responsibility of the educational institution receiving the money. NIH said: ISU as grantee is legally responsible and accountable for the use of funds provided for the performance of grant- supported project or activity. It looks as if each office I asked just simply passes the buck along to somebody else. But a pass-the-buck attitude doesn't work when it comes to government oversight. I also asked Health and Human Services about the case. Health and Human Services said that: Grant recipients have the primary obligation to conduct investigations of their own researchers. Universities need to be responsible and accountable with Federal research grants. By taking action when it learned of the fraud, Iowa State University did that in this case. But that does not give the government an excuse not to do oversight. And if the government is relying on universities to report fraud instead of doing the oversight, there are probably other cases of fraud that are never caught. If someone writes a taxpayer-funded check, they should be responsible for making sure the money is being well spent. The funding agency, and Health and Human Services as a whole, should do more to protect taxpayers' dollars, especially when many are calling for even more taxpayer funding for the National Institutes of Health. The Office of Research Integrity has a clear mission to prevent and investigate cases of research misconduct. But I am concerned not only about this case but allegations about the Office of Research Integrity made by its former director, Dr. David Wright. Dr. Wright resigned only days after I started my investigation. In his resignation letter, Dr. Wright said that bureaucratic red tape was keeping him--Dr. Wright--from doing his job. He said up to 65 percent of his time was spent ``navigating the remarkably dysfunctional HHS bureaucracy to secure resources and . . . get permission for ORI to serve the research community.'' We ought to take his allegations very seriously, and HHS should do so as well. When researchers abuse the public's trust, the Office of Research Integrity should use all the powers at its disposal to resolve the problem. I recently learned that Dr. Han has been indicted for four felony counts of making false statements. Regardless of the outcome of this indictment, it is encouraging to see an effort to increase accountability for spending of taxpayers' money. Also earlier this week the National Institutes of Health confirmed for the Des Moines Register that it would stop the final grant payment. That of course will save taxpayers $1.4 million. So it is good news that the National Institutes of Health is taking action to recover taxpayers' money in this fraud case. But this is only one case, and the National Institutes of Health's actions came after months of public attention and my investigating. I worry that more cases may go unnoticed and even unaddressed if there isn't a public outcry. We can't afford that. We can't afford to have cases like this go unnoticed and unaddressed. Federal oversight of research funds is far too weak. The government is doing far too little to recover money lost to fraud. We can't afford a ``fund it and forget it'' attitude. Fraudsters need to be held accountable, and people handing out taxpayers' money need to know that if they are careless with that money, Uncle Sam will come knocking at the door for a refund. Although Secretary Sebelius recently left Health and Human Services, I expect the new Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell to take this issue very seriously. Ultimately, the Secretary of HHS has the responsibility to ensure that health research grants are not abused. She needs to ensure that agencies within HHS have all the tools they need to recover money lost to fraud and to prevent it from happening in the first place. Secretary Burwell should investigate Dr. Wright's allegations about the Office of Research Integrity and fix the problems that Dr. Wright outlined before his resignation. Oversight is an extremely important part of the government's role. Unfortunately, it is often ignored and taxpayers' dollars are abused. When researchers abuse the public's trust, Health and Human Services and its components should use all the power they have to investigate, resolve the problem, and get the money back. They owe it to the American taxpayers. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for many years I have been an advocate for reforming the foster care system and making sure the government is doing the best it can to protect and care for those who are abused, neglected, and particularly when they are removed from their families. That is why Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and I started the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. We wanted a forum to discuss policies and practices and to learn more about the challenges foster young people face. We want to make a difference in the lives of vulnerable young people who don't have a permanent place to call home. The caucus cannot function without the input and the insight from foster young people. These young people are the experts on the foster care system. They have been through it. They know the challenges. They tell us in this caucus what works and what needs to change. They share the experiences and provide us with real-world stories about how our policies truly affect them. I wish to highlight the story of one particular person whom I have had the privilege of getting to know. Amnoni Myers is an intern in my office this summer. She is participating in the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute's Foster Youth Internship Program. I wish to tell her story because it is important not to forget there are young people in this country such as Amnoni who don't have a permanent family or a place to call home. Despite her circumstances, Amnoni has risen up and made a better life for herself. So allow me to share her story. Amnoni Myers, a native of Boston, became a ward of the State on the day she was born. She was abandoned at birth. When she was 6 months old, Amnoni's great aunt learned of Amnoni and her two other siblings and decided to take care of them by taking them into her home. She lived in her great aunt's care for 10 years. Even though she had a better family environment, life still presented her with many challenges. Amnoni struggled with rejection and trauma at a very young age, resulting from different types of abuse. At the age of 10, Amnoni was reunited with her biological mother because the State granted her temporary custody. Amnoni thought her life was finally secure. Wouldn't we think so, being at home with our birth mother? Her mother promised to care for her and never give her up again. Unfortunately, after 2 short years, Amnoni's mother voluntarily returned her and her siblings back to the State. So at the age of 12, Amnoni was separated from her siblings and placed with foster families until the age of 18. Although Amnoni and her brother were placed together for a short period of time, they were later separated as Amnoni moved around in the system. During her time in foster care, she was moved several times, never experiencing permanency or stability. That is one of the things I learned through the work of this caucus; that when we talk to people who are in foster care, what do they want? They want permanency. They want a real mom and dad, and they would like to have a place to call home. To Amnoni, foster parents seemed more interested in cash benefits for parenting rather than human investment. She experienced emotional and verbal abuse in places she stayed. She didn't know unconditional love. Her foster families didn't take the time to manage her trauma but instead added to it. One of the most difficult experiences Amnoni faced was aging out of the foster care system, and aging out issues with these young people is exactly why Senator Landrieu and I established the caucus I have already spoken about. During the summer, while still in care, Amnoni entered an intense college preparation program that would determine if she was adequately prepared to enroll in a postsecondary institution. Already anxious about the future of her success and if she would be able to handle the workload of the program, she received a phone call from her social worker that afternoon. The bad news came that she was aging out. She was told that her foster mother was no longer being paid for Amnoni's bed. Because the money was running out for her foster parents, Amnoni was forced to leave the home immediately. The shock and devastation of those words crushed Amnoni. She lived in that home with that family for 3 years. She considered it a long-term living situation. Amnoni returned to find her belongings packed in garbage bags waiting for her at the door. That is a story our caucus often hears. Amnoni aged out of the system in a way no person should have to experience. She left a place she considered home, not knowing what her future would hold. She was on her own, shoved into independence with no family, support or a place to call home. Amnoni's aging-out experience left her feeling shattered and confused. She felt betrayed by both her foster mother, who claimed to love her, and the child welfare system--in other words, the State she lived in--that claimed to protect her. While this experience quickly taught Amnoni the value of independence, she would have preferred to have a smoother transition into that independence. When Amnoni left her so-called home at age 18, she was taken in by a former mentor and her family. She resided there for 5 years. Living there was a reminder that love, family, and support do exist. In 2008 Amnoni learned she had post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety. These diagnoses led her to take a break from school to gain control over these disruptions. Amnoni entered into a Christian residential program, Mercy Ministries, where she was able to gain a better understanding of herself. This experience motivated her to attend Gordon College, a Christian institution outside of Boston. Today she is working in my office, sitting in this Chamber with me, learning how government works. She is becoming an advocate for foster youth who face the same experiences she faced. Despite the challenges, Amnoni feels very fortunate. She has been able to attend college, graduate this year, and hopes to pursue a meaningful career. Knowing that many children and youth do not have adequate support systems in their life to help them along their life journey, Amnoni pursued an education in social work and sociology. Many people who have gone through similar experiences resort to other paths because of the lack of support and services. Many foster children age out of the system without supportive services in place to ensure healthier lives. Thankfully, Amnoni has had a network of support to guide and direct her through difficult times. Amnoni's experience has fueled her passion to advocate for those who do not have a voice to fight for themselves. As Amnoni looks back on her life, she realizes her past does not have to determine her future. She is on her way to becoming a monumental figure for those who have suffered, giving youth across the country a voice and making a difference in this world. I appreciate her willingness to let me share her story. It is so typical of so much that we hear in the caucus that Senator Landrieu and I formed. This young girl is a very brave woman. She knows we can learn from her. We will learn from her. We must do right by her and others in the foster care system. I hope my colleagues have a chance to say hello to Amnoni while she is here in Washington, DC, and take a minute to commend her for being an advocate for other youth. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the Supreme Court's decision to strike down President Obama's illegal recess appointments. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides for only two ways in which Presidents may appoint certain officers: First, it provides that the President nominates and, by and with the advice of the Senate, appoints various officers. Second, it permits the President to make temporary appointments when a vacancy in one of those offices happens when the Senate is in recess. On January 4, 2012, the President made four appointments. They were purportedly based on the recess appointments clause. He took this action even though they were not made, in the words of the Constitution, ``during the recess of the Senate.'' These appointments were blatantly unconstitutional. They were not made with the advice and consent of the Senate, and they were not made ``during the recess of the Senate.'' In December and January of 2011 and 2012, the Senate held sessions every 3 days. It did so precisely to prevent the President from making recess appointments. It followed the very same procedure as it had during the term of President Bush, and that was done at the insistence of Majority Leader Reid. President Bush then declined to make recess appointments during these periods, thus respecting the desire of the Senate and the Constitution that we were in session. But President Obama chose to attempt to make recess appointments despite the existence of the Senate being in session. The Supreme Court said today: [F]or purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business. That is a quote from the decision. No President in history had ever attempted to make recess appointments when the Senate said it was in session. And I am a little surprised, since President Obama had served in the Senate, that he would not know how this had been respected in the past by Presidents. President Obama failed to act ``consistent with the Constitution's broad delegation of authority to the Senate to `determine the Rules of its Proceedings,' '' as the Constitution states. These illegal appointments represent just one of the many important areas where President Obama has disregarded the laws with his philosophy of the ends justify the means. We should all be thankful the Supreme Court has reined in this kind of lawlessness on the part of this administration, and it should also bring some confidence that at least from time to time--maybe not as often as our constituents think--the checks and balances of government do work. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether President Obama could make recess appointments even when the Senate was in pro forma session. Fortunately for the sake of the Constitution and the protection of individual liberty, the Supreme Court said he could not. This is a very significant decision. It is the Supreme Court's biggest rebuke of any President--because this was a unanimous decision--since 1974 when it ordered President Nixon to produce the Watergate tapes. The unanimous decision included both Justices whom even this President appointed to the Supreme Court. That shows the disregard in which the President held this body and the Constitution when he made these appointments. Remember, as I just said, I am a little surprised because at one time he was Senator Barack Obama. Thanks to the Supreme Court, the use of recess appointments will now be made only in accordance with the views of the writers of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers. It is worth keeping in mind what the President, the Justice Department, and the Senate said at the time of these appointments. The President said his nominees were pending and he would not wait for the Senate to take action if that meant important business would be done. So the President stated in another way that ``I have a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.'' But the Supreme Court has made clear that failure to confirm does not create Presidential appointment power. The appointments were so blatantly unconstitutional that originally there was speculation that the Justice Department had not approved their legality. But, in fact, the Department's Office of Legal Counsel had provided a legal opinion that claimed to justify the appointments-- in other words, justify the unconstitutional action of the President. The Department's Office of Legal Counsel's reasoning was preposterous, and this unanimous decision backs that up. That office defined the same word--``recess''--that appears in the Constitution in two different places differently and without justification. It claimed that the Senate was not available to do business, so that it was in recess when the President signed legislation that the Congress passed during those pro forma sessions. The Department allowed the President, rather than the Congress, to decide whether the Senate was in session. As today's Supreme Court unanimous decision makes clear, the Office of Legal Counsel opinion was an embarrassment, reflecting very poorly on its author. She had told us in her confirmation hearing that she would not let her loyalty to the President overcome her loyalty to the law. This Office of Legal Counsel opinion proved otherwise. It said the President had a power he did not have. He did not have that power, as expressed today by that unanimous decision of the Supreme Court. Those partisans in that office who defended that opinion and its author should be humbled and should take back their misplaced praise-- not that I expect them to do so. The Office of Legal Counsel opinion furthered a trend for that office from one which gave the President objective advice about his authority to one which provided legal justification for whatever action he had already decided he wanted to take. Perhaps now that the office has been so thoroughly humiliated, it will hopefully conclude that the Department and the President will be better served by returning to the former role of that office as a servant of the law and not a servant of the President. The other statements to keep in mind were from Senators. No Senator of the President's party criticized President Obama for making these clearly unconstitutional appointments, even though they felt we ought to protect against President Bush doing that. Rather than protect the constitutional powers of the Senate and the separation of powers, they protected their party's President. Those were not the Senate's best moments. This underscores again the need to change the operation of the Senate. Appointment powers and the separation of powers are not simply constitutional concepts, they are the rule for how the American people are protected from abuse by government officials. They exist not so much to protect the branches of government but to safeguard individual liberty. I often quote from Federalist Papers, this time from 51. Madison wrote that the ``separate and distinct exercise of different powers of government'' is ``essential to the preservation of liberty.'' President Obama's unconstitutional recess appointments are part of a pattern in which he thinks that if he cannot otherwise advance his agenda, he can unilaterally thwart the law. That is a pretty authoritarian approach to governing. Whether it is with respect to drugs, immigration, recess appointments, health care, and a number of other areas, President Obama has concluded he can take unilateral action regardless of the law. And, of course, as we see in the case of these appointments, the Justice Department has aided and abetted him. Praise today to the Supreme Court for forcing the President to confront the errors of his ways, for enforcing the constitutional structure that protects our freedom, and maybe cause him to modify that statement he made earlier this year that: ``When Congress won't, I will, because I've got a pen . . . and I've got a telephone . . . '' I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I would like to discuss the nomination of Leon Rodriguez to be the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Mr. Rodriguez was appointed on December 19 and approved by the Judiciary Committee on April 3rd by a vote of 11-7. I want to explain my opposition. First and foremost, Mr. Rodriguez lacks adequate immigration experience to lead this agency. I only say that because his nomination comes on the heels of potentially sweeping immigration reform legislation. When we read his responses to my questions, it becomes clear that he has little appreciation for what this job as director entails. He basically says that he has a lot of studying to do. I think, with the situation of immigration in this country--the need for immigration reform--that we need to do better than have a director of the agency who says he has a lot of studying to do. Second, his previous experience with Casa de Maryland is a concern as well. He was a member of the board of directors there from 2005 to 2007. The mission of Casa de Maryland is to help improve quality of life and fight for equal treatment for low-income Latinos. There is surely nothing wrong with that. That is a very noble cause. But if we peel back their mission statement, we will see that the activities they are involved in are a lot greater than just improving the quality of life for low-income people. They aid people here illegally in finding employment and gaining legal status in this country. They provide legal services to do so, and they fund day labor centers that focus on ensuring undocumented workers can find work on a daily basis. And, of course, that entails the use of taxpayers' money to accomplish that goal. Their efforts are in direct conflict with the mission of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. That agency has to ensure the integrity of immigration programs and benefits. Casa de Maryland believes that anyone, even those who are here in contravention of our law, should be eligible for benefits. The organization has pushed for driver's licenses for people here unlawfully. They have worked to undermine REAL ID, a Federal law that needs to be fully implemented by the States. They have organized rallies that promote legal status for people who have broken the law. They have trained undocumented workers to understand their rights and published a cartoon pamphlet advising people not to speak to law enforcement when approached. They go so far as to encourage them not to even provide their names. Mr. Rodriguez claimed that he had no knowledge of this pamphlet put out by Casa de Maryland. Yet, he was on the board at the time the pamphlet was published and disseminated. Mr. Rodriguez doesn't disavow their work or their contempt for law enforcement. In fact, he stated in one response that he was ``supportive of the use of local tax measures to support the day labor centers'' that Casa de Maryland established. So it is concerning that he could bring this same philosophy to an agency whose mission is to oversee legal immigration in the United States. And we all know that we are a welcoming Nation of immigrants because about a million people come here every year legally, and they are welcomed, and our laws allow that. Now, a third reason to oppose him is my concern about Mr. Rodriguez's commitment to responding to congressional oversight, and my colleagues know how strongly I feel about Congress's doing its constitutional job of oversight; in other words, to be a check on the executive branch of government, to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. Despite assurances given during his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez repeatedly failed to provide responsive answers to many of my questions. Mr. Rodriguez was not responsive to the questions I posed even in writing. While he repeatedly stated he would review the programs and policies if confirmed, Mr. Rodriguez claims not to be privy--that is his word--to internal functions or have knowledge of how the agency works. He refused to provide his opinions on very critical matters facing the agency, and I will give my colleagues examples. In his initial responses he stated the following response not once, not twice, but 17 times: ``If confirmed, I will certainly commit to a careful study of this program to determine any additional appropriate steps forward, including any possible changes to address this matter.'' We are talking about a person who gives that response, and he is directing an agency of 18,000 people. He is not going to be ready to go to work on day one, and they need somebody who is ready to go to work yesterday. The second time around asking questions, he responded a bit differently in each question, but always alluded to the fact that he was ``not privy to the internal factors upon which USCIS and its leadership base its decisions.'' I wish to give my colleagues one example. I asked about whether drunk drivers or sex offenders should be eligible for legal status and immigration benefits. He responded in both instances saying, ``In most cases, individuals who have been found guilty of a serious crime should not receive immigration benefits.'' Well, that is a big question mark. What does he mean by ``in most cases''? I would read that this way: So when should these individuals be allowed to receive benefits and legal status? That is the question that is unanswered by his response. By not answering the questions about felons, drunk drivers, or even gang members, he is essentially toeing Casa de Maryland's line that no one should be deported. He could not offer an opinion of his own or elaborate when such people should get benefits. He said he would be forthcoming with Congress, but his repetitive answers show, No. 1, he is avoiding the questions, and No. 2, he has a lot of studying to do before he takes this job. A fourth reason: He wasn't forthcoming with his views on what we call around here DACA, the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program that grants work authorizations and stays of deportation for anyone under the age of 31. One of the most pressing items on the agency's plate right now is whether we are going to renew the President's DACA directive. In his hearing and twice afterwards in questions for the record, I asked Mr. Rodriguez about his plans with DACA and whether he would expand the program. I couldn't get a straightforward answer from him. I asked if he had any discussions about the program, and he stated that he was only ``generally aware'' of the renewal process. He clearly knew the agency published a renewal form for public comment, yet he claimed to have little knowledge or opinion on the matter. What is more, I am told by employees within the agency that he has a person at the table who is reporting to him directly on the agency's decisions. I am told he has a conduit during discussions on the deferred action program. It is not clear how much he is driving the policies, but it concerns me that he claims no knowledge of this matter. Had Mr. Rodriguez been more forthcoming, we would also know what is in store for the President's directive. Will he simply renew it, or will he expand it, as many believe is the plan? Congress should know this man's views on those very important matters. In connection to DACA, I asked about information sharing with USCIS and other Federal entities. My colleagues know I rely on whistleblowers for a lot of information. Just recently, a whistleblower brought me a case in which the FBI asked for information on a DACA applicant. The FBI agent, in an email, said this: I am checking to see if there was any information available regarding fugitive ``john smith''? We would love to get him in custody. I was interested in knowing where he submitted his fingerprints and if he left a home address. Now, that is the Federal Bureau of Investigation doing its work. Here is what the USCIS provided in response to the FBI: We cannot confirm that a DACA request has been filed without reason to believe that the requestor would represent an enforcement priority. However, according to your email, the agent can see what form was filed. As such, you could also direct him to our website for additional publicly available information regarding immigration forms. The USCIS's response to the FBI was essentially this: Sorry. We can't help you. We must protect the confidentiality of the applicant. That is not quoting anybody; that is the hypothetical answer I think our immigration agency gave to the FBI. But this isn't the only case we have like this. I have been informed about the lack of information sharing by the USCIS since DACA began in 2012. I asked Mr. Rodriguez about his commitment to provide law enforcement with information on people who apply for immigration benefits. Now, I didn't ask about the statutory or regulatory hurdles in information sharing, but he refused to answer. I asked about his commitment to making sure people who defraud the government--or who are lawfully denied benefits--are turned over to law enforcement for removal. In one instance, he said it depended on the person's circumstances. The immigration agency is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Its core mission is, as we would expect, to protect the homeland. Yet, this agency has a culture that I call ``getting to yes.'' In other words, cut a whole bunch of red tape and don't worry about what the law says. Just get people approved to be in this country. Mr. Rodriguez's nonresponsive answer on this matter of ``getting to yes'' concerns me, because it is not consistent with the mission of the department. I wanted a firm commitment he would change that culture, and I couldn't get that from him. Let me also address his connection to Mr. Perez, former head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, now the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Perez, of course, was involved in the Department's decision to decline the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. During his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez admitted he was aware of emails between political employees and career prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute that case. At that time, Mr. Rodriguez was serving as Mr. Perez's chief of staff and personally assisted in preparing Mr. Perez for his testimony before Congress. Yet, after Mr. Perez testified that the political appointees were not involved in the decision when Mr. Rodriguez said that they were involved in that decision, Mr. Rodriguez made no effort to correct the testimony after the fact. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service can be a very powerful agency. They grant benefits to foreign nationals and are implementing the President's weak prosecutorial discretion initiatives. This agency will have a lot of responsibility if an immigration reform bill is passed by Congress. We are talking about 12 to 30 million undocumented people applying for benefits if this legislation is passed. They will carry out an administrative amnesty if a bill is not passed. Under President Obama, this agency has implemented very controversial policies and practices. Many of the policies this agency has undertaken were included in the July 2010 internal memo I obtained entitled ``Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.'' That sounds a little bit like ``I have got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.'' The purpose of the memo was to ``promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.'' The memo highlighted creative ways to achieve ``meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.'' Remember when the President said: I have got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will. That is a perfect example of it. While the administration suggested this memo was only an internal deliberative document concocted by some bored bureaucrats, the Department has already undertaken many of these proposals. They will do even more under the new Director's leadership if the President decides to act unilaterally regarding immigration. Remember the President who said: I have a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will. The agency's culture of ``getting to yes'' must change before any legalization program is carried out. The Homeland Security inspector general has reported on this culture. Their own internal watchdog, the IG, admonished the leadership for appearing to pressure line adjudicators to ``get to yes.'' Their report clearly shows that the immigration service has a lot of work to do to get rid of the ``get to yes'' culture that has pervaded this agency in recent years. The fact that one-quarter of the immigration service officers felt pressured to approve questionable applications and 90 percent of the respondents felt they did not have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits certainly warrants significant changes be made immediately. It does not appear Mr. Rodriguez is inclined to do that. This culture stems from the leadership suggesting that line adjudicators lean toward approval and focus on eligibility and less on fraud. Unfortunately, I did not get any sense from Mr. Rodriguez that he was committed to changing the culture. Mr. Rodriguez's appointment to this agency concerns me a great deal. I hope my colleagues, before voting this afternoon, will have that same concern. I question his experience and his managerial judgment to lead an agency of 18,000 Federal employees. Unfortunately, I doubt his sincerity in working with Congress on oversight requests. I wish he had been more forthcoming. For these reasons and others, I oppose the nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have the sad task of paying tribute to a fellow Iowan who has given his life in service to his country. LCpl Adam Wolff was killed while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. He was 25 years old. Adam was a native of Eldon, IA, and lived in Cedar Rapids. Eldon is home to the house depicted in Grant Wood's famous painting ``American Gothic,'' which has come to symbolize a certain indomitable American spirit. Certainly there can be no greater representation of the spirit of self-sacrifice that has preserved American liberty through the generations than patriots like Lance Corporal Wolff. We can never repay him for his sacrifice, but we as a country must remember him and all those who have given their lives in defense of freedom. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends who are feeling his loss very deeply, particularly his father Nicholas, his mother Deborah, and his siblings. We cannot begin to comprehend their loss, but they should know that Adam's service and sacrifice have earned the gratitude of an entire nation. Chief Warrant Officer Two Randy L. Billings