Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Several weeks ago, February 12, to be exact, as Washington, DC, was braced for a snowstorm and the Senate rushed to finish its business before the Presidents' Day recess, the senior Senator from Arkansas came to the floor to offer unanimous consent to confirm a district court judge for his State. Before he made the request, I spoke with that Senator who, to his credit, was one of only three Democrats to vote against the so-called nuclear option in November. Although I was sympathetic to his desire to see his home State judge confirmed, I objected to his request to bypass the procedure the majority adopted in November, including recorded cloture and confirmation votes. I did so based on principle. I did so because after 52 Democrats voted to strip us Republicans in the minority of our rights, the very least we could do is to ask the majority to utilize the procedure they voted to adopt. After all, the simple fact is that the minority can no longer stop nominees. That is the result of the nuclear option, and that was, of course, the whole point of what the majority did in November. So the Senator from Arkansas offered his unanimous consent request, and I withheld my consent. We had our exchange on the floor, but we did so courteously, and that is what Senators should do. Later that evening the majority leader came to the floor and made another unanimous consent. Senator Cornyn objected for the same reason I had objected. Thereafter, the majority leader exercised the power that he has--he alone possesses it--to move these judges and filed cloture on four district court nominees. That set up several votes for last Monday evening. That evening, during our side's hour of debate time--and that is all we have anymore for Circuit judges; we have 1 hour of debate time on each side. That evening I spoke on the current state of the Senate with respect to the legislative process. I spoke about how our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to operate. I spoke on how the Senate used to operate, how it should operate and, sadly, how it does the opposite. I spoke about how the majority leader routinely files cloture on bills before debate has even begun. I spoke about how in today's Senate, in what is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, the Senators from great States all over this Nation are shut out of the process of legislating and sometimes even debating. As our side's hour of debate time neared its end, the distinguished chairman of our committee asked if I would yield him a few minutes of our time. I, of course, agreed to extend him that courtesy. I extended him the courtesy even though I knew he would use that time to argue against everything I just said. I extended him the courtesy because I know he would do the same for me, and, as a matter of fact, he has done exactly that same thing for me. That is the Senate. We are courteous to each other, even when we disagree. As I said, that was Monday night--eight days ago. On Tuesday morning, we had a series of stacked votes related to those district court nominees. We had several cloture votes as well as confirmation votes. I voted against cloture, along with many of my colleagues. I don't presume to speak for my colleagues, but I voted against cloture to register my objection to a process arrived at via brute force--in other words, by the action of the nuclear option. But the majority leader wasn't content to simply use the procedures he led his caucus to adopt last November when the nuclear option was adopted--when the minority rights on judges were taken away. He wanted voice votes rather than recorded votes on those lifetime appointments-- and I emphasize lifetime appointments--so they deserve serious consideration. At that point, I objected, and I exercised the right of a Senator to ask for a rollcall vote of the yeas and nays. I supported each of the nominees on final confirmation. Some of my colleagues opposed them. But even if the votes had been unanimous, the right to demand a recorded vote is one of the most basic and fundamental rights of any Senator. There is absolutely nothing wrong with exercising that right, especially when it comes to approving lifetime appointments to the courts. Before we had that recorded vote, I took the opportunity to remind my colleagues of how well this President is doing with respect to getting the judges he nominates confirmed by the Senate. Specifically, thus far in this Congress, we have confirmed 50 of President Obama's judicial nominees. By way of comparison, at this point in President Bush's second term, we had only confirmed 21 judicial nominees. That is 50 for President Obama and 21 for President Bush. Those numbers compare both district and circuit nominations. That is a benchmark both sides typically use. So why are Republicans blamed by Democrats for not approving judges, especially when over the course of 5 years and 2 months now we have approved 223 judges and only disapproved two. Those are basic, unassailable facts. In response, the majority leader described our request for recorded votes, as I was speaking about eight days ago, as ``a waste of taxpayer time.'' Then he concluded his brief remarks by saying this: ``I would suggest to my friend the senior Senator from Iowa that he not believe his own words because they are simply not true.'' That was on Tuesday, a week ago. Two days later, on Thursday evening, the majority leader came to the floor and proffered a unanimous consent request for several district court judges. Senator Moran was on the floor at the time and objected for our side. Thereafter, the majority leader filed cloture on four district court judges and the nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. That is a right the majority leader has under our rules. A few minutes later the majority leader returned to the floor so he could, as he described, ``say a few words about the man who does all the objecting around here--or a lot of the objecting.'' He then proceeded to quote extensively from a speech I delivered in 2005. He then accused me of violating senatorial courtesy during floor consideration of the immigration bill because I objected to consideration of amendments approved by Democrats, without assurances that we would vote on amendments Members on my side thought we had a right to offer, as any Senator should have a right to offer amendments. Even if some of the amendments the Democrats wanted had bipartisan support, I was the Senator standing up and defending the right of our Members to offer amendments--even controversial amendments. To be clear, I was prepared to vote on any Democratic amendment provided the Republican amendments were not restricted. The majority leader then concluded his highly discourteous remarks by saying this: The senior Senator from Iowa is talking out of both sides of his mouth, and the people of Iowa should check this out. They should see what he says and what he does. Given how inappropriate these remarks were and that they roughly coincided with several other inappropriate comments the majority leader made last week, I feel compelled to respond, and, of course, that is what I am doing. Let me start by reviewing briefly how we arrived where we are today. As I said, the majority leader quoted from a speech I delivered in 2005. For the benefit of my colleagues who weren't here at the time, that was back when the Democrats were indiscriminately filibustering a host of President Bush's highly qualified nominees for the circuit courts. Make no mistake. The Democrats were utilizing the filibuster on judges at that time to an extent never witnessed before in our Nation's history. During this time, they were filibustering 10 different circuit court nominees. So, as I said, the majority leader quoted from a speech I delivered during the debate of May 23, 2005. What he failed to mention is that six days earlier, on May 17, 2005, he said this on the Senate floor regarding the nuclear option: It appears that the Majority Leader-- Referring to then majority leader Senator Frist-- cannot accept any solution which does not guarantee all current and future judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. That result is unacceptable to me because it is inconsistent with the constitutional checks and balances. It would essentially eliminate the role of the Senate minority in confirming judicial nominations and turn the Senate into a rubberstamp for the President's choices. I am not going to relitigate that fight today, except to say this. At the time, Republicans, myself among them, were arguing that those nominees should be afforded an up-or-down vote. But as the quotation I just read demonstrates, Democrats refused. At the end of the day, our side lost that debate. We didn't believe judicial nominees should be subjected to a 60-vote threshold nor did we believe we should play by two sets of rules. So when the roles were reversed and there was a Democrat in the White House, Republicans utilized the tool as the Democrats did. The only difference was that we used it much more sparingly. As I said, we have approved 223 Obama nominees to the courts and only disapproved two. The Democrats, of course, didn't like being treated to the tactics they pioneered, so they began to threaten to utilize the so-called nuclear option. A lot of negotiations ensued between our side and the majority leader. That is the way the Senate most often gets things done-- negotiating to a consensus. Again, I am not going to review every detail, but as any Member of this body can tell us, the result of those negotiations was this. The minority--this time the Republicans-- relinquished certain rights regarding nominations. We did it by negotiation. For instance, district court nominations used to be subject to 30 hours of debate. They are now subject to only 2 hours. In exchange for relinquishing those rights, the majority leader of the Senate gave his word that he would oppose any effort to use the nuclear option. On January 27, 2011, the majority leader said this on the Senate floor: ``I will oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the Senate rules other than through regular order.'' Notwithstanding that promise, at the beginning of the next Congress, we were, once again, on the receiving end of threats regarding the nuclear option. Once again, on January 24, 2013, after lots of negotiations, the majority leader again gave his commitment. Here is what he said on the floor of this Chamber: ``Any other resolutions related to Senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the Rules Committee.'' That commitment mattered. It mattered to me, and it mattered to my colleagues. We as the minority relinquished certain rights. In exchange for extinguishing those rights, we received a commitment from the majority leader of the Senate. Remember, I say to my colleagues, please: This is the Senate. Not only are we courteous to one another, but we keep our word. Ten months after making that commitment, on November 21, 2013, the majority leader and 51 other Democrats voted to invoke the nuclear option. They chose to adopt a new set of procedures for confirming judges. So that is how we got to where we are today. Yet three months later, when the minority has the audacity to insist that the majority utilize the procedures they voted to adopt, the majority leader comes to the floor to level an ad hominem attack. Amazingly, given the commitments he made at the beginning of the last Congress, he accuses me of speaking out of both sides of my mouth. The fact of the matter is there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding debate time and rollcall votes, especially on lifetime appointments to the judiciary, and especially after the majority chose to adopt these very procedures just last November. That is not a ``waste of taxpayer time,'' as the majority leader called it. It is representative government. While I am on the floor of the Senate and while I am on the subject of floor procedure, let me say this about the legislative process we have been following on the floor. I spoke at length on this subject a week ago yesterday, just as I have on several other occasions. I have been highly critical of the process we follow these days on the floor. But I have always tried to avoid making my criticisms personal. I have always tried to be courteous. But there is no getting around this fact. It is nothing short of a travesty that great Senators from all over the Nation must go to the majority leader to ask permission to offer amendments. Proud Senators from proud States, Republican Senators and Democratic Senators, conservative Senators, liberal Senators, northerners and southerners, appropriators and authorizers, hawks and doves, all of these Senators have been reduced to this. They are forced to come before one individual on bended knee to ask permission--permission--to offer an amendment. That is not as it should be in the world's greatest deliberative body--the Senate. So am I highly critical of the legislative process we undergo on the floor? Absolutely, I am. But I didn't criticize the majority leader in a personal or discourteous way. I didn't accuse him of ``talking out of both sides of his mouth,'' as he did of this Senator. I wasn't attacking him personally; I was defending the rights of 99 other Senators as well as my own rights as a Senator. What exactly is the majority leader afraid of, anyway? Taking a few hard votes? We are paid to take hard votes. We are sent here to exercise our best judgment on behalf of our constituents. That is how our Republic is designed. It does not have to be that way. Consider how amendments are handled in the Judiciary committee, as an example--something that ought to be followed here in the U.S. Senate. Our chairman--I should say the senior Senator of this body, the President pro tempore, Senator Leahy--our chairman does not tell us in the minority--Republicans--or even the Democrats what we are allowed to offer; nor does he tell us how many amendments we are allowed to offer. He controls the agenda, as you would expect a chairman to do. But we get to offer amendments. As a result, every single Senator of our committee--whether they like it or not--contributes to the process. The chairman controls the agenda. The minority offers amendments. And the majority has to vote on those amendments. That happens to be the process. That is what happens when you have a chairman who respects the rights of U.S. Senators. There is absolutely no reason we could not do exactly that same thing right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Let me mention one other thing about what the majority leader said the other night because I found it particularly offensive. Immediately after accusing me of ``talking out of both sides of my mouth,'' the majority leader suggested that the people of Iowa, my constituents, should pay attention to what I say and what I do. Well, they do. But let me relate something to my colleagues about how I keep track, keep in touch with Iowans. The people of Iowa know who they elected to the Senate. They know that ever since I was first sworn in in this body in January 1981, I have fought all day, every day, to represent them. I know my constituents. They know me. I go to constituent meetings in every county--every one of 99 counties--every year. Multiply that 99 by 32 years, and you get a fairly large number. I have been in 25 counties so far this year. So I talk to my constituents. I read their mail. I know, for instance, how hard ObamaCare has been on families in my State. So I find it personally offensive for the majority leader to come to the floor, as he did last Wednesday, and accuse Americans, including my constituents, of telling lies when they share their stories about how ObamaCare is impacting them. Last Thursday evening the majority leader came to the floor so he could, as he described it, ``say a few words about the man who does all the objecting around here.'' Well, Mr. President, do I object? You bet I do. So do the rest of my committee members on the Judiciary Committee when it comes to things of the Judiciary Committee; so does the rest of our caucus. We object to the authoritarian way this Senate is being run. We object to being shut out of the legislative process. We object to dismissing constituent stories of ObamaCare as lies. We object to taking to the floor of the U.S. Senate to attack fellow citizens as ``un-American'' because they have the audacity to exercise First Amendment rights. And, yes, we object to the discourteous ad hominem attacks on Senate colleagues because they choose to exercise their right to demand rollcall votes on lifetime appointments. It should stop. The Senate should return to being the greatest deliberative body in the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the legalization of marijuana is an issue that has generated significant media attention in recent months. Last year Colorado and Washington State became the first jurisdictions in the world to legalize the production, trafficking, possession and use of marijuana for recreational purposes. The consequences of legalization are only beginning to be understood. But one thing is clear. Legalizing marijuana does not make it any safer. Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. According to that designation, it is a substance that presents ``a high potential for abuse.'' Colorado's previous experience legalizing medical marijuana suggests that the consequences of full-on legalization could be dire for public health and safety. From 2006 to 2010, the number of Colorado drivers involved in fatal car crashes who tested positive for marijuana doubled. The number of Colorado students who have been suspended or expelled for marijuana use has increased considerably. Nearly three- quarters of Denver teenagers in drug treatment reported obtaining marijuana from a ``medical marijuana'' user. Colorado has become a source State for the distribution of marijuana throughout the United States. Law enforcement in my home State of Iowa reports that the percentage of marijuana interdicted there that originated from Colorado has increased from 10 percent in 2010 to 36 percent in 2012. Against this backdrop, the Obama administration has recently sent mixed signals, especially to young people, about the dangers of marijuana use. President Obama recently stated that in his view, marijuana use was no worse than drinking alcohol. The Department of Justice declined to challenge State laws that have legalized marijuana, despite the obvious conflict with Federal law. Additionally, the Department issued guidance to prosecutors concerning the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act and Federal money laundering laws that is plainly intended to permit marijuana businesses in these States to grow and flourish. These actions have caused confusion and uncertainty about whether using marijuana is really something that should be discouraged because it is harmful. However, many community anti-drug coalitions, healthcare professionals, public health officials, and law enforcement groups are speaking out about the dangers of marijuana use. One such group, Smart Approaches to Marijuana--or Project SAM for short--has recently begun to confront the marijuana legalization movement head-on. One of Project SAM's cofounders, former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, has been outspoken in his efforts to fight the marijuana legalization movement. He has appeared on numerous television and radio shows, including ones where audiences may disagree with his views against legalization. He has bared his own struggles with addiction, offering himself up as a cautionary tale about the dangers of becoming addicted to marijuana and other substances. And he has broken with many in his party by speaking out against the President's permissive attitude toward marijuana use and the Obama administration's failure to enforce the Controlled Substances Act. Indeed, all former DEA Administrators, appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents alike, have joined with Project SAM and others to oppose the Obama administration's policies in this area. According to a recent article from NBCnews.com, an article I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, Project SAM recently launched a serious counter-offensive to the marijuana legalization movement. The organization began by placing a billboard near the Super Bowl stating that ``Marijuana kills your drive.'' Project SAM launched a website dedicated to tracking public health incidents linked to marijuana use in Colorado and Washington to highlight the consequences of legalization in those States. It is also launching websites that will allow current or former marijuana users to share their stories about how marijuana has damaged their lives. Project SAM has also been active in my home State of Iowa. The organization recently co-hosted town hall meetings with local community anti-drug coalitions, highlighting the risks of legalizing marijuana. Project SAM has also briefed State officials about the dangers of legalizing marijuana. It is not every day that I have the occasion to praise a Democrat. However, Congressman Kennedy is to be commended for his courage in coming forward and participating in this debate by publicizing the dangers of marijuana use and opposing the Obama administration's failure to enforce Federal law in this area. His voice is a welcome one for those of us who believe that the legalization of marijuana is an unwise policy that will have a profoundly negative effect on public health and the lives of many young people.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for the benefit of the people of this country who have been listening to the complaints in the Senate from Senators about not approving judges, let me remind everybody that at this point we have approved over 220 judges appointed by this President. Only two have been disapproved. That is more than 99 percent. As far as the second term of this administration is concerned, I want to say that after the Senate confirms the three district court judges we will approve today, we will have confirmed 50 of President Obama's judicial nominees during his second term. Up to this point in President Bush's second term, the Senate had confirmed only 21. So that is 50 to 21 as far as the production of this Congress for approving judges. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Either tonight or tomorrow the Senate will consider several district court nominees. These nominees will be brought up, considered by the Senate, and in all likelihood confirmed in very short order. As I mentioned several times, this is a procedure the Democrats voted to pursue in November when they voted for the so-called nuclear option. The majority voted to eliminate the filibuster on nominations and to cut the minority, us Republicans, out of the process. While the Senate is debating these district court nominees, it gives me a good opportunity to continue the discussion about how the Senate ought to be functioning in the constitutional way determined by our Constitution writers. There is no debate that the Senate isn't functioning properly, and we have been treated to relentless finger- pointing from the other side regarding who is to blame. Unless we can establish a nonpartisan account of how the Senate ought to function, this debate will amount to nothing more than a kindergarten shouting match. I wish to return to the Federalist Papers, which are the most detailed account, from the time the Constitution was being ratified, about how our institution, this Senate, was intended to operate. Although these Federalist Papers were written over 200 years ago, the principles those papers articulate are timeless, and the problems they highlight are strikingly relevant to this very day. The last time I addressed the Senate on this subject I quoted at length from a passage in Federalist No. 62. Although the Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym of ``Publius,'' we know they were written by three of our Founding Fathers: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. Federalist No. 62 has been attributed to the father of the Constitution James Madison. In it he lists several problems that can be encountered by a republic the Senate was specifically, under the Constitution, designed to counteract. The first point Madison makes is that having a second chamber-- meaning the Senate--composed differently than the House makes it less likely one faction will be able to take over and enact an agenda out of step with the American people. The second point deals with the tendency of a unicameral legislature to yield to sudden and popular impulses and pass what he called ``intemperate and pernicious resolutions.'' The third point is that based on the experience of the early unicameral State legislatures, a second chamber, with longer terms, such as the Senate, and a more deliberative process, such as the Senate is supposed to have, will make sure any laws passed are well thought out. The Framers of our Constitution determined it was better to get it right the first time than to subject the American people to the upheavals caused by the need to fix poorly conceived laws. Madison talks about the early American experience with ``all the repealing, explaining and amending laws,'' which he calls ``monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted Senate.'' In my last speech I did not get to Madison's fourth and final point in Federalist Paper 62, which is quite long and deserves to be examined in detail, and that is my main purpose today. Madison concludes Federal No. 62 with an extensive discussion of the importance of stability to good government and the danger to rule of law from constant change. So here he is talking about the purpose intended for the Senate. This section starts: Fourthly, the mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the government. Every new election in the States is found to change one-half of the representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in national transactions. Here Madison is making a case for stable government instead of constant change. He says that constant change, even with good ideas, will not produce positive results. Madison then elaborates on the various problems caused by an unstable government. This is what he first says about a country that is constantly changing its laws: . . . she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs. Madison then makes the case that the domestic ramifications of constantly enacting and changing laws ``poisons the blessing of liberty itself.'' But he goes on to explain: It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. This sounds a little bit like what we are finding with the health care law today, which is being rewritten daily and on the fly by the Obama administration. The Law has been changed by the President 29 times so far. But it is part of a bigger problem we face with new laws and regulations from agencies which have the force of law being churned out in such volume that no American can possibly know what all those regulations are. Just based upon probability, Americans are likely to violate some regulation or some other law without knowing it at the time. Madison is making a case not just for more thoughtful laws but fewer laws. When the majority leader and many in the media complain the Senate should be passing laws at a higher rate, those people miss the point entirely. To listen to some Members of the majority, and even more so in the media of America, one would think the success of a session of Congress was measured solely on the sheer number of laws passed and not on the quality of those laws that it passes. Common sense tells all of us the Senate was specifically designed to slow down the process and to make sure that Congress passes fewer but better laws. Madison elaborates further on why fewer laws are better in this passage, which is extremely relevant today: Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. In other words, a situation where Congress is constantly changing the laws gives more influence to those who can hire lawyers to keep on top of the changes and lobbyists who influence them versus the little guy who is out there on his own. It is sometimes said that big businesses don't like regulations. But that isn't my experience in many instances. The bigger and wealthier a business or a union or other special interest group, the better chance they have to shape a new law or regulation and the more people they can hire to help them comply. On the other hand, small businesses and individuals can't hire a team of lawyers to read the latest laws and regulations and fill out the proper paperwork. Small businesses and individuals are the ones squeezed out of the marketplace by the constant flow of new laws. An overactive government benefits the big guys at the expense of the little guys. If you think that fact is lost on the big guys and their lobbyists when they come to Congress, you would in fact be very badly mistaken. So as James Madison so wisely noted, an overactive government is an invitation to the rich and the powerful to use government to their benefit and to the detriment of their competitors. That goes to show there is a great benefit to stability in laws as opposed to constant change--the very purpose Madison sets out for the Senate. A cornerstone of liberty is the rule of law, meaning the law is transparent and no one is above the law. If you look around the world today, the poorest and least free countries are the ones where there is no rule of law. If someone can take what you have earned through force and you have no legal recourse, that is an example where there is no rule of law. If the rich and the powerful get special privileges, that is an example of where the rule of law has broken down. The rule of law is one of the principles our country was founded upon. But when there are so many rules and they are changing so quickly the average citizen cannot keep up, that undermines the rule of law. Of course, the situation is only made worse when the rules already on the books are waived for the politically connected. Of course, that is another problem, but one that has become all too common under this administration, particularly with the health care reform law, where 29 changes have already been made by the President on his own volition, and some of us believe even contrary to law. As an example, I have even heard some Democratic Senators comment: How can the President make the change on employer mandates? Of course, going back to the Senate's role, I am not making a case for doing nothing or that we should be happy with the failure of the Senate to debate legislation. The Senate is supposed to be slow and deliberative, not stopped. That is why we are called the greatest deliberative body in the world. Still, it is important to get away from this notion that somehow the failure to ram legislation through the Senate with no debate and no amendments is a problem. The reason the Senate doesn't function when the majority leader tries to run it that way is very simple. The Senate was not designed to do business that way. The Senate was intended to be the deliberative body we always praise and has been for most of its history. But it has now become routine for the leadership to file cloture to end consideration of a matter immediately upon moving to it. By contrast, the regular order is for the Senate to consider a matter for some period of time-- how long would vary--but allowing Senators from all parties to weigh in before cloture is even contemplated. Cloture was invented to allow the Senate to end consideration of a matter after the vast majority of Senators had concluded it has received sufficient consideration. Prior to that, there was no way to end debate so long as at least one Senator wished to keep deliberating. Cloture was a compromise between the desire to move things along and the principle that each Senator, as a representative of his or her respective State, has the right to participate fully in the legislative process. The compromise was originally that two-thirds of Senators voting had to be satisfied a matter had received sufficient consideration. That was reduced to three-fifths of all Senators. Each time this matter is renegotiated, the compromise leans more in favor of speeding up the process at the expense of allowing Senators to fully represent the people of their respective States. The majority leadership routinely files cloture immediately upon proceeding to a matter. Again, cloture is a tool to cut off further consideration of a matter when it appears it is dragging on too long. One can hardly claim the Senate has taken too much time to deliberate over something when it hasn't even begun consideration and debate of the specific matter. According to data from the Congressional Research Service, there were only seven times during the first session of this current Congress the Senate started to consider a bill for a day or more before cloture was filed. That is out of 34 cloture motions related to legislative business. The number of same-day cloture filings has more than doubled compared to when Republicans last controlled the Senate. Moreover, the total number of cloture motions filed each session of Congress under this majority leadership has roughly doubled compared to the period from 1991 to 2006, under majority leaders of both political parties. Before 1991, cloture was even more rare. This is a sign that cloture is being overused, even abused, by the majority. Still, if this alarming rise in cloture motions was a legitimate response to a minority of Senators insisting on extended debate to delay proceedings beyond what is necessary for reasonable deliberation, otherwise known as a filibuster, then of course it would be justified. That is clearly not the case when the overwhelming number of motions to cut off debate are made before debate has even started. What amount of time is necessary for deliberations and what is purely dilatory in any particular case is, of course, a subjective determination. However, the practice of routinely moving to cut off consideration of virtually every measure when there has not even yet been any deliberation cannot be justified in a body termed ``the most deliberative body in the world''--that being the U.S. Senate. So we are in a situation where this is very much an abuse of the cloture motion. Along with the routine blocking of amendments, cloture abuse is preventing Senators from doing what we are paid to do; that is, to represent the people of our States. Shutting Senators out of the deliberative process isn't just an argument about dry Senate procedure, as the majority leader has tried to suggest in response to criticisms. When Senators are blocked from participating in the legislative process, the people they represent are effectively disenfranchised. When I say people are disenfranchised when the majority leadership shuts Senators out of the process, I don't just mean citizens of the 45 States that elected Republican Senators. The citizens of States that elected Democratic Senators also expect those Senators to offer amendments and engage with their colleagues from different parties. Shutting down consideration of a bill before it has been considered prevents even Members of the majority party from offering amendments which may be important to the people of their respective States. Voters have a right to expect the people they elect to actually do the hard work of representing them, not just be a rubberstamp for their leadership's legislative agenda. Senators who go along with tactics which disenfranchise their own constituents should have to answer to those who voted them into office as to why they aren't willing to do the job they were elected to do. That job includes not just offering amendments when appropriate but taking tough votes which reveal to their constituents where that Senator stands. The majority leader has gone out of his way to shield members of his caucus from taking votes that may hurt them back home. Senators don't have any right to avoid tough votes. That is not the deliberative process James Madison envisioned and expressed in the writings of the Federalist Papers. If we are going to have good laws which can stand the test of time, the Senate must be allowed to function as it was intended to function. One aspect of what is needed to return the Senate to its proper function as a deliberative body is to end cloture abuse. I would ask my colleagues to reflect on all the changes to the Senate recently, including those negotiated between the two leaders a year ago in return for a promise--which was not kept--not to use the nuclear option, as well as the subsequent use of the nuclear option yet 10 months later, last November. Those reforms, if you can call them reforms, have been in the direction of reducing the ability of individual Senators to represent the people of their States and at the same time concentrating power with the majority leadership. It is time we had some reforms to get the Senate back functioning as a deliberative body as was intended under the Constitution. The Senate is supposed to be a place where all voices are heard and reason can rise above partisanship. I urge all my colleagues to reflect on these thoughts and think about our responsibility to the people of our States. If we do, I am sure we can come up with some sensible reforms to end the abuse of cloture and restore the Senate to the deliberative body the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be and, most importantly, as expressed by James Madison. I will be thinking about that, and I would encourage all my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back our time. Cloture Motion

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object--and I will object--I wish to remind my colleagues of a couple important points. First, over the last several weeks some of my colleagues in the majority have expressed frustration because some of the nominees they support haven't been brought up for a final vote. I must say this is quite surprising to me. As everyone knows, late last year the Senate Democrats invoked the so-called nuclear option. The stated reason for doing so of course was to strip the minority of our ability to stop any judicial or executive nominees on the floor. In fact, just before invoking the so-called nuclear option, here is what the majority leader said about it: The change we propose today would ensure executive and judicial nominations an up or down vote on confirmation--yes or no. The rule change will make cloture for all nominations other than the Supreme Court a majority threshold vote--yes or no. Of course, 52 Democrats voted to take this unprecedented step, which tossed aside two centuries of Senate history and tradition, even though this President has an outstanding record of getting his nominations confirmed. In fact, prior to the President's attempt to fill the DC Circuit with judges they didn't need, the Senate had confirmed 215 of the President's judicial nominees, rejecting only 2. That is more than a 99-percent approval rating of the President's nominees. Notwithstanding that record, however, the majority voted to cut the minority out of the process on the floor. I note there was bipartisan opposition to what the majority leader tried to accomplish. Three Democrats voted against it. I have to give credit to the Senator from Arkansas who has made this unanimous consent to be one of those who thought the minority should not be cut out of the process. The bottom line is that under the precedent 52 Democrats voted to establish, the majority leader now can bring up at any time these nominations for a vote on the floor whenever he decides to do it. If he did, the nominees would be confirmed within no more than 2 hours of debate. So the minority simply has no ability to stop anyone from getting a vote. There is no filibuster of any nominees anymore, which is the whole point of what the majority chose to do in November. I object to this unanimous consent and respectfully suggest that any Senator--including the Senator from Arkansas--discuss the matter with the one individual who has the ability to bypass the minority in that matter, and that happens to be the one Senator who is the majority leader of the Senate. I do object, and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the third time to express my opposition to the farm bill--obviously not in total, but to certain provisions of it, particularly provisions I had a hand in writing--and to set the record straight, once again. I come here because several of my colleagues have approached me indicating confusion on whether the payment limits provisions I fought for are in this bill or not in this bill. People are going to tell colleagues there are payment limitations in this bill, but I am here to set the record straight with facts. They don't accomplish what I tried to accomplish, and they are even much more liberal than in existing law in regard to my amendment. My original payment limit provisions included a $50,000 individual/ $100,000 married couple cap for the shallow loss programs shown as Price Loss Coverage--PLC--and the Agricultural Risk Coverage--ARC-- programs. In this bill farmers will have to pick one of those programs for the next 5 years. The conference report allows individual farmers to get $125,000 and married couples to get $250,000 from the PLC and the ARC programs. This is where this has really exploded because what I just referenced is a 150-percent increase over what my limits allowed--the limits that passed the Senate without discussion and limits adopted in the House of Representatives on a 230-to-194 vote. That is just a plain, simple fact--a 150-percent increase over what my limits allowed. The conference report allows the PLC and ARC programs to pay out 150 percent more than my limits did. This intentional change by the conference committee allows each farmer to get significantly more from these new countercyclical programs that are not even World Trade Organization--or, as we say around here, WTO--compliant. Another way of looking at this, under the 2008 farm bill, an individual farmer could only get $65,000 from the countercyclical program. Under this bill, they can get $125,000 from the countercyclical program. That means they almost doubled what the countercyclical program will pay out compared to current law. Furthermore, some university analysis has already shown the high target prices for certain crops in this bill will likely have a 70- to 80-percent chance of triggering payments through the PLC program any given year of this farm bill. So, I say to my colleagues, please don't buy what my opponents are selling on this issue, or at least trying to sell. My payment limits are not in this bill. The result of that is going to be a countercyclical program that will be much more market-distorting than the current ones for a few crops. How can it not be more distorting? The PLC program is designed to trigger more often and pay out larger amounts than the old countercyclical program for certain crops in the 2008 farm bill. That is just a plain, simple fact. I am sorry if proponents are having a tough time acknowledging that publicly, but that is what this bill actually does. Their bill does lots of things, but brilliantly reforming Title I is not one of them. I am sure we have been told that this bill reforms. It is like some of the opponents of payment limits still thinking this is 1975 or some year back then. Back then, the national debt was still measured in billions and the WTO didn't even exist. Unfortunately for them, things are very different today. Recently, the WTO declared our cotton program noncompliant, and we happen to have a $17 trillion national debt. But worse than this, I say to my colleagues, is the fact that these amendments were adopted on the floor of the Senate, and they were adopted in the House of Representatives by a 230-to-194 vote. They should not have even been subject to negotiations. The moral authority of the people of the United States was behind what both Houses did. Because we have a $17 trillion national debt, we ought to be able to save this $387 million that this amendment would have saved. It had the moral authority of a majority of the House and the Senate, which moral authority should not have been overridden by a handful of people sitting in conference. I stress this latter point for one simple reason: Rule XXVIII of the Senate says if things are the same in both Houses, they should not be conferenceable. I say this to my friends, not that this bill is going to go down to defeat and we start over again and maybe accomplish what I want to accomplish, but to make sure other conferences do not abuse the Senate rule like this conference abused the Senate rule; and also to tell my colleagues here that, both working with what rules maybe we can get through the U.S. Department of Agriculture or on some other piece of legislation, I intend to pursue these goals that I sought, and I intend to keep reminding my colleagues of Senate rules being violated by conferees that should not have been violated. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to address a small part of this bill but a very important part of the bill, something I have been working on through at least two farm bills. Since the chairwoman of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is here, Senator Stabenow, I thank her for defending my position up until the last day or two of the conference. She kept me informed fully about the difficulty of the position that both Houses had taken getting that out of conference. I come to the floor not to discuss just my issue but to use it as an example that my colleagues may look forward to in the future; that is, that just because something goes through the Senate, even without controversy--because as far as I know it wasn't discussed or there was no amendment offered to strike what I am talking about that came out of committee and it passed in the House of Representatives by a 230-to-194 vote in the same language--one would assume that something which was the same in both Houses would not be changed by the conference. In fact, rule XXVIII of the Senate rules says this: ``Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses.'' So if Members are interested in the Senate rules being followed by conference committees in the future, understand in this particular case that was not followed. The provisions were not necessarily struck, but they were changed in such a manner that the $387 million the Congressional Budget Office said would be saved if my provision stayed in, that amount of money will not be saved. We are talking about a situation that we are trying to correct, going back at least to the 2008 farm bill and maybe previous to that, where 10 percent of the biggest farmers get 70 percent of the benefits from the farm program, so it is subsidizing farmers as opposed to helping medium- and small-sized farmers get through conditions such as natural disasters, politics, and other aspects beyond the control of farmers that the safety net for farmers was intended to help. So we could have saved $387 million, and the rules of Senate said this should have been in the final package that came back to the Senate, but it is not here. It seems to me my colleagues ought to be aware of that fact because they may be in a similar situation sometime on some other conference committee report, and the question is: Are you going to let a small number of people--for most of this conference report 4 people negotiating the difference between the House and the Senate--speak for the other 531 Members of the Congress? Are you going to let a majority of that group of people represent a minority of the Senate and a minority of the House? By this being taken out or this being changed in such a way so it has no value, that is exactly what has happened. Making sure we have limits on the amount of money a farmer can get and real numbers that work is not something new. President Bush vetoed a farm bill in 2008 because he said it continues subsidies for the wealthy. In another part of his veto message he said the American taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes up to $1.5 million as the rationale for vetoing that bill. So what we have is the moral authority of a majority of the Senate, a moral authority of the House of Representatives, and their positions taken on this language--language that limited a farmer to no more than $250,000 and defining a farmer as somebody who is actually engaged in the business of farming so nonfarmers don't get help from the farm program--has been taken out, regardless of the moral authority that said it should be kept in the bill. In other words, conferees are taking out something that represented a minority of the House of Representatives and a minority of the Senate. We are here to vote on a farm bill--cloture today, final passage tomorrow. The farm bill is a very important safety net for producers. It gives farmers a chance to survive in tough times. As a farmer, I understand the risk of farming. My payment limit reforms were adopted-- and I can't say that too many times--in both bodies of Congress. It would have saved $387 million. People said, when we limited through my amendment that you could have one nonfarming manager per farming operation, that was unreasonable. There would have been a lot of money saved. But more importantly, as is the situation today and will probably be the situation in the future, nonfarmers are going to be able to get benefits from a farm program when they don't have legitimacy for it. This provision should not have been touched, because it was the same in both Houses. Unlimited subsidies, when 10 percent of the biggest farmers get 70 percent of the benefits from the farm program, actually put a new generation of young and beginning farmers at a severe disadvantage. There is nothing wrong with farmers getting bigger. That is the American dream, to use your potential to do the best for yourself. But when large farmers who shouldn't get subsidized get big payments from the farm program, it is, in my estimation, wrong--particularly when it drives up the price of land as it has in the recent 5 to 8 years; drives up the price of cash rent as it has recently. It is very difficult for people who are just trying to get into the business of farming to start. So I think when nonfarmers can qualify for the farm program as managers when they might not even be making a phone call to the operation and having limits that don't mean much--which is exactly what we are doing, subsidizing big farmers to get bigger--it puts young and beginning farmers at a severe disadvantage. Changing my reforms behind closed doors is wrong. The House and Senate had spoken on the issue. With no debate in the Senate here, a 230-194 vote in support of the Fortenberry amendment in the House of Representatives--something under the Senate rules that is the same in both bodies should not be messed with by the conferees, but it was changed dramatically. Some are saying the effort the conferees took to give the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority to bring about some of these reforms on who is engaged in the business of farming will do the job. But they have had that authority for a long time, and I see this as a Washington hat trick to say you have done something when you haven't done anything. I am not going to be able to vote for this bill because it would endorse what has happened. Egregious manipulation behind closed doors of something that is the same in both Houses should not be tolerated, and I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration so it doesn't happen to them in the future. How we will fix other entitlement programs if we can't cut subsidies to millionaire farmers who don't even farm makes it very difficult. As I said, my friend from Michigan, Chairwoman Stabenow, has worked hard on this bill. I wanted to support this farm bill. I just can't get over what happened behind closed doors, once again, here in Washington. And as she has told me so many times, she has defended my position and I thank her for so doing. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I had a chance to listen to the Senator from Minnesota, and I come to speak on another subject, but I wish to assure her that we will get these two nominees and others across the finish line so the U.S. attorney for Minnesota can go to work, hopefully before we get many more days added to the 800 she has already talked about. The farm bill process has been very long, very hard, and no doubt frustrating for all who have been involved. Some of us on the Senate agriculture committee have participated in two committee markups and two floor debates for this bill, and that is over a period of two Congresses. I voted for and supported the bill at every one of those junctures. I believe our country needs a good farm policy, which means, of course, an adequate and yet limited safety net for farmers, because so much about farming is beyond the control of the farmers, and I am not talking just about natural disasters. Without a doubt, our farmers then face real, uncontrollable risks every year. The farm bill provides farmers, then, with a number of programs to mitigate risks. Agriculture remains a changing industry. Unbelievable technological advancements are taking place right before our eyes. Farmers can now control irrigation equipment and monitor grain bins on the phone from the other side of the world. Agricultural technology is progressing so quickly. Five years from now, when we debate the next farm bill, autonomous tractors may well be doing a considerable amount of the field work in America. Farm policy has also changed over time. Unfortunately, the majority of farm program benefits have started going to a concentrated number of farmers. The fact is 10 percent of the farmers--and those obviously would be the wealthy farmers--get 70 percent of the benefits from a farm bill. One reason for this is that the current farm policy offers farmers essentially unlimited subsidies if they hire the right lawyers. As a farmer, a citizen, and a legislator, I believe it is wrong to expect or even to allow the government to give unlimited support to my farm or any farm, especially since our country has a record $17 trillion national debt. During the first full Senate farm debate in the summer of 2012--so the last Congress--my payment limit reforms were adopted by a vote of 75 to 24 here on the floor of this very body. During the first round of floor debate in the House in this Congress, Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska offered the same reforms and they were adopted there in the House by a vote of 230 to 194. Congress has spoken, then, and overwhelmingly agrees in both bodies with my commonsense approach of limitations on the amount that one farming operation can get. Wouldn't anyone think that policy, which is widely supported in both bodies of Congress and which saves taxpayers nearly $400 million, would be untouchable when it comes to a conference committee? The rules of this institution, the Senate, outline that. Senate rule XXVIII, if anyone would like to look it up. However, once again, behind closed doors, Washington decided to intentionally screw up common sense. This conference bill increases the payments available through the countercyclical program--now called price loss coverage or PLC for short--by 150 percent compared to what this Congress had already agreed upon. I have yet to hear anyone tell me a single legitimate reason why that change could be made. Additionally, the powers that be in this town have proven they learned nothing from the World Trade Organization Brazil cotton case. That dispute has resulted in the United States paying a $143 million fine per year to Brazilian cotton farmers because our farm program for cotton does not meet the rules of international trade. This farm bill doubles down on the same market distorting principles that brought us that very same trade dispute. The original payment limit reforms that this Congress approved also eliminated abuses through what is commonly know as the ``actively engaged loophole.'' To sum up this loophole, it makes it very easy for nonfarmers to get farm subsidies--probably those who go to the extent to hire a lawyer. This results in the largest 10 percent of the farms then, as I said before, getting 70 percent of the farm program's benefits, as I have already mentioned. Yet the conference committee, in another brazen act of manipulation, eliminates my simple enforceable reform. I happen to think that one nonfarming manager per entity is more than generous and over the years it has been much violated. So we just simply say it ought to be one nonfarm manager per farm and no more. But it has been a lot worse, and my language--the language accepted by this body--reformed that. But as I have indicated a couple times, the conference committee took it out. The language in the bill now says--instead of the way it passed the Senate and passed the House on the floor of the House--USDA will have the opportunity to review and fix the actively engaged loophole but only if they should choose so; in other words, the Secretary of Agriculture does not have to. I happen to know that Secretary Vilsack is sympathetic to what I have been trying to accomplish, so maybe he will be able to make something good out of what I think is a very bad provision in this bill that might actually make it very difficult for him to do that. Under this provision, USDA could have fixed this problem--or even under existing law, I should say--USDA could have fixed this problem at any point, since it is the result of their rulemaking. So giving, as the compromise does, the USDA power they already have and claiming reform happens to be a true--and true too often--example of a Washington hat trick. The conferees did not stop at just kicking the decision over to the Department, they also tied the USDA's hands with unnecessary requirements that must be met before action can even be taken. That is why I say it is going to be difficult for Secretary Vilsack. I hope he can find ways to accomplish what I want to accomplish. As I said, I think that is where his heart is. So I hope Secretary Vilsack, and I can even say the Obama administration, finally uses this authority to produce a strong, enforceable rule regarding the number of people who can be eligible for farm subsidies from taxpayers; in other words, people who are actually farming. I am certainly going to offer them my thoughts on this issue. Maybe I should explain why I said even the Obama administration, beyond Secretary Vilsack. Because in this President's budget more than once and in the Bush budget more than once, Presidents--including this President--have suggested these reforms to save money. This year I said about $400 million. Actually, according to CBO, it is $387 million. The Government Accountability Office released a report in October of 2013 that clearly outlines the problems with the actively engaged loophole. One farming partnership they highlighted was composed of 22 LLCs, with 20 different owners and 16 managers who got their eligibility through the actively engaged loophole. So you understand why the bill that passed the Senate and the House said one manager. At least four of the managers I have referred to from that operation even live out of the State, while several others live in cities around the State well outside of commuting distance. Additionally, just yesterday, it was reported that a large farming operation in the State of Illinois is being fined $5.3 million because they were exploiting taxpayers for farm subsidies. In this case, the government determined their business structure was intentionally designed to evade those payment limitations that are even in existing law with the exact fake entity structures my provisions would have nearly eliminated. I wish to quote U.S. attorney Jim Lewis, who handled that case: We are pleased with this favorable resolution of the government's claims of misuse of farm subsidy programs. These programs are designed to help farmers withstand market price volatility and the intrinsic risks associated with farming from year to year. Any attempt to exploit the system to take more than one's fair share is an improper use of government funds that erodes the public confidence in such programs and threatens their continued viability. End of comment of U.S. Attorney Jim Lewis, who won that case against these farmers, and they will be fined that $5.3 million. I wish that U.S. attorney could have been part of the farm bill conference committee. His logic and expertise would have helped. If a farm's business model depends on lawyers setting up complicated Mickey Mouse legal structures just to get more government subsidies, perhaps the owners of that entity are in the wrong business. So my provisions would have limited subsidies going to a few thousand people who are very well off and, quite frankly, do not need unlimited farm payments from the government--and probably are not even involved with dirt under their fingernails--especially since, by definition, they would be people then who do not actually work on farms. If we cannot cut subsidies that go to nonfarming millionaires, how will we ever find the courage then to fix other great entitlement problems we have in this country? With all that said, there are a few things this bill does that are good. The dairy provisions have ended up more market oriented than where we started, which I believe is very good. I am glad the Crop Insurance Program will remain strong for farmers across the country, and the nutrition program reforms are welcomed. In the end, I have to make a judgment of the bill as a whole. Every Member of this Senate has to. I believe this bill, sadly, is a missed opportunity. The Congressional Budget Office says the final savings in this bill are only $16.6 billion. That is a pretty small amount compared to the fact that it will spend nearly $1 trillion. I think my colleagues know I am a person who plays by the rules. So I played by the rules with these reforms that were adopted 2 years ago 75 to 24--not debated or voted on this year because they were part of the bill that passed the Senate and then went to the House of Representatives and were voted on there 230 to 194. So we played by the rules. A majority of both bodies support these reforms. Yet, in the end, just a small group of people, with a single- minded intent to keep unlimited farm subsidies flowing out the door, proved that Congress deserves its 12-percent approval rating. I want to be clear. I strongly support the business of agriculture. I have been involved in farming my whole life. My son Robin operates our family farm. I understand the industry. Growing wholesome foods to feed the world has always been one of the noblest occupations, in my opinion. But if I were to vote yes on the bill, it would be an endorsement of the egregious manipulation of my payment limitation reforms behind closed doors. I cannot in good conscience do that. Therefore, I will oppose the Agricultural Act of 2014. Just to kind of clarify, do you understand. I hope everybody understands we had the moral authority of a majority of the Senate, the moral authority of a majority of the House of Representatives, the moral authority of a majority of the people of this country--who I believe would say it is a good thing to save $387 million--and yet that moral authority was avoided by conferees who thought: To heck with the majority of the Senate or a voting majority of the House of Representatives of 230 to 194. It does not mean anything. We can do whatever we want to do. We can waste that $387 million. We can continue to give farm payments to people who are not farming. We can continue to let 10 percent of the biggest farmers get 70 percent of the benefits of the farm program, which, in the end, then helps subsidize big farmers getting bigger. There is nothing wrong with big farmers getting bigger, but you should not subsidize it. It drives up the price of farmland, it drives up the price of cash rent, so our young farmers cannot get started farming. If you want to preserve the family farm, that is one of the things that is very important. So I have said my part. I hope I am around 5 years from now so I can try this once again because I do not intend to give up on this process. Five years from now is the next farm bill probably. Maybe there will be opportunities between now and then. I intend to take advantage of those opportunities. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 20 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the letters I will be speaking about be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks. Recently the Obama administration has been talking a lot about income inequality and poverty. Yesterday I spoke about the issue, about the war on poverty, its successes and its failures. As I said yesterday, the United States has spent trillions of dollars in the last 50 years fighting the so-called war on poverty. I said yesterday that the results have been marginal, in some cases successful, reducing the poverty rate from 19 percent down to the 15 percent it is now. But a lot more needs to be done. Now, in the fight against the war on poverty, this administration, like a lot of administrations, wants to spend more money on more programs. Some of that may be justified, but that does not seem to fix the problems. If you just hand this money out with no strings and no oversight, it gets diverted and misused. That is the purpose of my speaking today on the subject of public housing. Wasted money does not help the poor. There are a lot of people who make a nice profit from the poverty of others. This administration has been helping a number of these profiteers while the poor suffer. I want to be clear as to some of these issues I am talking about--their genesis goes back to previous administrations as well. Through my oversight work, I have seen this happen over and over, that a few people profit from trying to help the poor, but the money does not go there. The Department of Housing and Urban Development hands out $4 billion in Federal money every year to local housing authorities. This money is supposed to help provide clean, affordable, safe housing for the poor. But, while no one is watching, much of the money gets spent on high salaries and perks for the people who run the housing authorities. These housing authorities have other sources of money. For most of them, up to 90 percent of their total funding comes from the $4 billion contributed by the Federal taxpayers. Housing and Urban Development argues that because housing authorities are State and local government entities, there is no reason to scrutinize them from here in Washington, DC. As far as I am concerned, HUD is missing the point for 4 billion reasons. Those are dollar reasons. Taxpayer money should come with Federal oversight. We need to make sure that the Federal authorities who disburse it make sure they oversee that it is spent in the legal way--to help the people who need the help. I have been conducting oversight of the wasteful spending at housing authorities for almost 4 years. I have been urging the Obama administration to look at what is happening and to take action. But there is little if any interest in the oversight of these Federal dollars by the folks writing the checks here in Washington, DC. They just want to send the checks and pat themselves on the back. They do not want to talk about what actually happens to the money once it is disbursed. Federal funds end up feathering the nests of local housing bureaucrats instead of housing the poor. I will show you how that is done. Here are some of the most egregious examples of how ineffective the Department of Housing and Urban Development has been at policing local housing authorities. Bradenton, FL, is an area of the country which was hit extremely hard during the foreclosure crisis, but employees at Bradenton Housing Authority only have to work 4 days a week. They get 2 weeks off at Christmas, bonuses in June and December, and the option to cash out up to a month of sick leave twice per year. They get free use of a car purchased by the housing authority. After 15 years of employment, they get to keep the car when they leave or take $10,000 instead; it is their choice. There are generous fringe benefits, but many housing authorities also provide very lucrative salaries. These salaries far exceed the salaries of Federal employees right here in Washington, DC, who hand out the taxpayers' money to the housing authorities. The biggest salary jackpot winner I have encountered so far is the Atlanta Housing Authority. At least 22 employees there earn between $150,000 and $303,000 per year. The Atlanta Housing Authority benefits from a special HUD designation called ``moving to work.'' That program exempts designated housing authorities from certain requirements, including salary justification. This is not just an isolated example. The executive director of the Raleigh, NC, housing authority receives about $280,000 in salary and benefits, plus up to 30 vacation days. He also accumulates comp time for any hours he works over 7\1/2\ hours per day. He has used over 20 days of comp time per year since 2009. Add that to his regular vacation time, and he is out of the office nearly 3 months per year. Nine months of work for $280,000 is an annualized salary of $375,000 per year. Very few taxpayer-funded jobs pay anything close to that amount. So what is the justification for such high salaries, particularly considering the fact that they are supposed to provide safe, affordable housing for low-income people? After years of ignoring the issue, HUD finally capped Federal funding for executive salaries at $155,500 per employee. Of course, this was only after various local media and I exposed deep-rooted problems and pushed the Department of Housing and Urban Development to act. But now housing authority executives have turned to creative accounting tricks to get around that limit of $155,500 per employee. Since some of their money comes from other sources, the housing authorities simply claim that any salary over the Federal limit comes from one of those other sources, whereas the money from those other sources ought to be used to help low-income people have affordable, clean, and safe housing. Because of my oversight letters on this subject, HUD recently notified the housing authorities that they must document the original source of the funding used to pay salaries over the Federal limit. That is good news, but there are still larger problems. The Department is still not making this salary data public in a reasonable timeframe. I will give an example. This administration refused to release the 2010 set of data for almost a year. I hope we do not have to wait a year to get the most recent data. Like many of our Federal agencies, some housing authorities spend large amounts of money on travel for conferences and training. Some of that may be legitimate, but I am raising questions about the extent to which it is done and the amount of money that is consumed. Staff and board members often attend the same conferences throughout the United States year after year. They often attend multiple conferences in a single year. In addition to travel costs, housing authorities must pay a conference fee for each attendee they send, often ranging from $400 at the low end to $1,000 per employee at the higher end. That money could easily be used to improve conditions and make needed repairs in public housing facilities. Instead, it is frittered away on conferences. In other words, forget the low-income people they are supposed to be helping and spend the money someplace else. The Tampa Housing Authority has spent more than $860,000 since 2009 for staff and board members to attend various conferences, seminars, and training programs--$860,000 that could have been used to provide affordable housing for low-income people. Tampa also has been sending 20 or more employees per year to conferences sponsored by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. That alone costs more than $177,000 per year. The Atlanta Housing Authority spent more than $480,000 since 2009 for the employees to attend conferences and training sessions. In fact, the housing authority paid over $68,000 in conference fees to a software company after giving them a multimillion-dollar contract for a new computer system. I wonder--I don't know, but I think it is legitimate to question--if the housing authority executive director thought to ask for a discount. Many of the housing authorities with questionable spending don't limit the abuses to salaries or travel. The Tampa Housing Authority purchased a new $7 million administrative office that includes nearly $3 million in renovations and upgrades. That could have helped hundreds, if not thousands, of poor people needing the housing. They are also paying nearly $800,000 in salary and benefits for a public relations department while at the same time paying an employee another $170,369 as a PR consultant. Other housing authorities are also spending exorbitant amounts for outside consultants. Some of these consultants are former employees of the local housing authority. In 2013, the Pittsburgh Housing Authority retained 10 law firms for a total of $3.5 million over 3 years. One law firm has been representing the housing authority during inquiries by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General and the city controller. Think about that. It is bad enough that taxpayers' money meant to help the poor is wasted, but when the taxpayer also pays the lawyers to defend the very organization from scrutiny about whether the taxpayers' money was wasted is even more outrageous. Of course, that adds insult to injury. In Philadelphia, outside lawyers blocked the inspector general's office from assessing spending data for months, and that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. The Pittsburgh Housing Authority also paid an outside consulting firm $1.25 million in the year 2012. The vice president at the consulting company billed the housing authority $404,000 for 2,400 hours of work. That is 48 hours a week for a year. It is more than double the $168,000 salary of the housing authority executive director. Harris County, TX, is one of the most egregious examples of out-of- control spending. In 2013, the HUD inspector general questioned the mismanagement of over $27 million in Federal funding for Harris County. The IG provided the following examples of fraud and abuse: over $1.7 million in excessive payroll expenses; $190,000 for statues and monuments; $66,000 for employees' shirts embossed with logos; $27,000 for trophies, plaques, and awards; $14,500 for a helicopter, a chartered bus, and golf cart rentals for a grand opening; and $18,000 for letters written by Abraham Lincoln. I continue to send my oversight letters to the Senate appropriators and the Senate banking committee. These are the letters I received permission to put in the Record at the end of my statement. The Senate appropriators and the Senate banking committee members have jurisdiction over the Department of Housing and Urban Development. They have the authority to do something about these abuses. My colleagues need to know the extent of the problems, and that I am ready to work with the Members of this body to address these issues. Employment at public housing authorities should be about public service. That is why we have a program serving the needs of low-income people. It is supposed to be providing clean, safe, affordable housing for those in need, not helping bureaucrats live high on the hog on the taxpayers' dime. As I said in my opening, this problem didn't start with this administration. There is a culture here that had to start back a long time ago. But now, bringing these problems to the attention of this administration, I hope it will take them seriously. If this administration is truly serious about income inequality--and not only using it for political purposes--it would stop shoveling taxpayers' money out the door with practically no oversight, no controls, no limits, and the waste of money I have just expressed. If President Obama is truly serious about income inequality, he would take the money high-income public housing authorities waste and give it to the benefit of low-income patrons of public housing to provide what the law is meant to provide these people: safe, affordable, healthy housing.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow night we have the State of the Union Address, and news reports say that one of the issues the President will be speaking about is income inequality. That brings me to something I should have spoken on a couple of weeks ago, because January 8, 2014, marked the 50th anniversary of President Johnson's call for a war on poverty. This anniversary provides a time to reflect on and reevaluate its twin aims of poverty relief and economic opportunity. The goal of poverty relief is to ensure that even those who might find themselves in tough times have sufficient assistance to meet their basic human needs while lifting themselves out of abject poverty. In other words, we have to make sure people have a roof over their heads and food on their table, as minimums. The goal of economic opportunity is to ensure the lower rungs on the economic ladder are strong enough to support that climb out of poverty. Economic opportunity is another term for the American dream that through hard work, as we know, we can improve not just a person's own lot in life but that a person's children and a person's children's children will be better off. If we judge the war on poverty according to the first aim, a good case can be made that we have been very successful. Looking at the official poverty level that is based on income prior to many transfer payments, little has changed since 1964. However, consumption-based studies show the poor are much better off today than they were decades ago. A study available from the National Bureau of Economic Research that looks at consumption rather than income shows over a 26-percent decline in poverty since 1960. There is little doubt that programs from Social Security to food stamps, from Medicaid to heating assistance, have helped increase the standard of living for those at or below the poverty level. However, economic growth and the general decline in the cost of technology have also been a great source of poverty reduction. While providing relief from poverty is an admirable goal, the American dream has always been about opportunity. As President Johnson said in his State of the Union Address 50 years ago, the goal of the war on poverty ``is not only to relieve the symptoms of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it.'' It is this goal of the war on poverty that has largely fallen flat. As I referenced earlier, the official poverty level has changed little in the 50-year fight on poverty, despite spending trillions of dollars on antipoverty measures. In 1964, around 19 percent lived in poverty. Today, according to the most recent census data, that number stands only slightly lower at 15 percent. We all know America is the land of opportunity. In America, we have no caste system. Laws and social norms do not relegate any individual or any group of individuals to lower social status. It can be tough, but individuals can and do climb their way to the top. Sometimes this process can take generations, but it has always been a source of pride that the next generation is better off and has more opportunities than the generation that came just before. Indeed, there is considerable upward mobility in our economy. A 2007 Treasury study on income mobility found that between 1996 and 2005, around half of those taxpayers who found themselves in the bottom quintile in 1966 moved to a higher income group in 2005. How about the very top of the income distribution my colleagues are fixated on? Contrary to what some may claim, those at the top are not the same year after year. The Treasury study found of those taxpayers who were in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent in 1996, only 25 percent remained in that group in 2005. While there is upward mobility in America, there is always room for improvement. And there certainly are those who feel trapped in a cycle of poverty. Unfortunately, too often programs meant to help the less fortunate can act as an anchor, preventing Americans from climbing up the ladder of success. I have no doubt the vast majority of those living at or below the poverty lines are very hard-working people. Our programs do not act as an anchor because of the poor themselves but because too often programs meant to help actually turn out to punish success. Too often those who are seeking to escape generations of poverty feel as if the harder they work, the further behind they get. The landmark welfare reform legislation Congress passed in 1996 sought to lift the anchor off the backs of the poor. It sought to increase opportunity by incentivizing individuals to work. The welfare reform law was meant to reward personal responsibility and a strong work ethic rather than punish these traits so essential to success. The landmark law established work requirements, requiring individuals to work when job ready and within 2 years after coming on assistance. To receive funding, States must require a minimum amount of work, and that participation must be in hours by families receiving assistance. This meets one of TANF's--Temporary Assistance for Needy Families-- primary goals: to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation. In other words, if you are going to move up the economic ladder, you have to be in the world to work. If you are shunted off to the side of society, out of sight, out of mind, then there is no opportunity to move up. In the years that followed, those who argued dire consequences would result, particularly for single mothers--these people were proven wrong. Following the enactment of welfare reform, there was a precipitous decline in welfare caseload and usage. At the same time, the single mother labor force participation rose and their incomes rose. Unfortunately, President Obama has persistently implemented policies that erode these statutory regulations; thereby, discouraging personal responsibility and a strong work ethic. On July 12, 2012, the administration issued what is referred to as guidance to States about this TANF Program. This guidance explained how States can now seek waivers of work requirements for welfare recipients for the first time since the TANF Program was created in the 1996 welfare reform law. The 1996 welfare reform helped families to enjoy the dignity of self- sufficiency. It reduced poverty. Instead of pushing families out of poverty, the President's policies trapped Americans in soul-crushing government dependency. While welfare reform made strides, too often those working hard to get a leg up feel as if they are only treading water. In November 2012, the Congressional Budget Office released a report looking at the effective marginal tax rate of low- and moderate-income workers; that is, how much extra tax or reduction in government benefits is imposed on an American worker when he or she earns an additional dollar of income; in other words, people are pretty sophisticated about looking at how much they get in a government program, and if they go into the world to work, are they going to be penalized for it instead of drawing help. According to CBO, in 2013, the average marginal effective tax rate faced by low- to moderate-income workers was 32 percent. Keep in mind this is just the average. Many workers experience marginal effective rates far exceeding the top statutory rate of 39.6 percent paid by the highest income people in America. For an example, an economist with the Urban Institute calculated the marginal effective tax rate of a single parent with two children under various scenarios. Just one scenario examined what would happen if a household income rose from $10,000 to $40,000. Perhaps a single mother was able to increase her skills and earning potential by taking classes at night at a local community college. If this single mother had been receiving all the benefits she was eligible for, she would face a marginal effective tax rate of 80 percent as a reward for trying to make a better life for her and her family. That is a far higher marginal tax rate than most on the left even proposed for the much derided top 1 percent. It is difficult to blame an individual in this situation who becomes disgruntled and just gives up, not seeking employment. It is we in the government who have tilted the scales against those low-income Americans trying to realize the American dream. In order to alleviate this disincentive, there must be a better coordination between benefits and how they are phased out. Instead of reducing this disincentive to work, in recent years we have actually made it worse. The premium tax credit and cost-sharing subsidies that were enacted as a part of the Affordable Care Act will increase marginal tax rates by an average of 12 percentage points. Moreover, according to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, when the premium tax credit is fully in effect, some workers could experience ``infinite marginal tax rates.'' Some of you may wonder what is an infinite marginal tax rate. To put this into more understandable language, this means some workers could actually face marginal effective rates exceeding 100 percent. For a worker in this situation, it means if they decide to put in a few more hours at work or get a second job to earn extra cash, they could actually end up worse off financially. Of course, this is an absurd result that tells people do not work hard, do not try to advance your situation, because if you do, we are going to take it all away from you. Harvard economics professor and former chief White House economist Greg Mankiw recently opined on this result saying: ``It is hard to believe that the law is so badly written as to have this feature.'' Well, Professor, believe it or not, the President and the majority party did enact this law with this feature, and they did so with the full knowledge of the Joint Committee on Taxation analysis which I had made public. Often I hear my colleagues on the other side come to the floor to pound the table about income inequality--something we are going to hear the President talk about tomorrow night in his State of the Union Address, we are told. There are a number of studies that examine income inequality. There is great variation among these studies on how income inequality is measured and the degree to which it has actually increased over the years. However, all these studies do point to some degree of increasing inequality over the last several decades. That we have to admit. This has occurred during both Republican and Democratic administrations. It has also been occurring across most of the developed countries. It happens not just in the United States but other places as well. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often cite income inequality to justify whatever Democratic policy agenda is up at that particular time. Whether it is taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage or extending unemployment benefits, they cite income inequality to justify their aims. However, these policies either fail to address the root causes of inequality or are nothing more than a temporary bandaid. Income inequality is a symptom of much larger structural problems, not the disease itself. Raising taxes might be successful at generating revenue to fund greater wealth transfer payments, but it does nothing to rectify what caused the inequality in the first place. Soak-the-rich policies do not create greater opportunity for low- income individuals. In fact, because of the negative effects on economic growth and capital formation, they can reduce opportunity not only for the poor but for all Americans. Our country has historically been a land of opportunity. Whether such policies are well intended or cynical political opportunism, they are not worth trading away our Nation's legacy of opportunity. You do not have to take my word for the antigrowth effects of increasing taxes. Research by Christina Romer, President Obama's former chief economist, found that a tax increase of 1 percent of GDP reduces economic growth by as much as 3 percent. According to this study, tax increases have such a substantial effect on economic growth because of the ``powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment.'' In effect, what those who pursue wealth-destroying redistributionist policies are saying--to quote Margaret Thatcher--is that they ``would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.'' That may reduce inequality but at the expense of making us all worse off. Our goal must be to create wealth and to create opportunity for all Americans. I reject the notion that in order to improve the lot of one individual someone else must be made worse off. The leadership of the majority has become fixated on redistributing the existing economic pie. I believe the better policy is to increase the size of that pie. When this occurs, no one is made better off at the expense of anyone else. This is best achieved through progrowth policies aimed at growing the economic pie, not by taking from some and giving to others. Similarly, increasing the minimum wage or extending emergency unemployment benefits also fail to address long-term causes of inequality. These proposals are well intended, and I myself have supported both under the right circumstances but neither strike at the heart of income inequality. While there are many contributing factors, much of the research points to the widening wage gap between skilled and unskilled labor. If we are to address income inequality, the primary focus must be on ensuring individuals have the skills necessary to compete in a 21st century economy. One way to accomplish this is through greater competition in education through increased school choice. We should also further expand our efforts made in 1996 to incentivize individuals to work and ensure those who want to work can gain the skills that are necessary for a 21st century economy. There are certain ways we can help reduce poverty and promote opportunity. However, just throwing more and more money at existing programs is not the answer. According to a Congressional Research Service report, Federal spending on low-income assistance programs as a percent of Federal outlays has more than doubled since the 1970s. No amount of money then will change the tried-and-true formula for escaping poverty; namely, graduate high school, wait until marriage to have children, and find a job and keep it for at least 1 year. While even those who follow this formula can fall on tough times, statistically it is rare that they will find themselves poor for a sustained period of time. We should be sure our laws and programs encourage rather than discourage these three keys to success. One place to start is to take a look at reducing or eliminating the marriage penalty that can arise in both our tax laws and benefit programs. The war on poverty will not be won as long as the value of marriage is diminished. You cannot disagree with the facts. Children in single-parent households will face more challenges and are more likely to be poor. Some economists say that children raised in single-parent homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty. According to census data, in 2012 just 6.3 percent of the families headed by married couples are poor. In contrast, 31 percent of those in single-parent households are poor. Today, more children are born out of wedlock, more marriages are dissolved, families are not as strong as they could or should be, and we have a social problem that cannot be cured with more government spending. The war on poverty must be solved in part by encouraging and nurturing healthy families. Of course, there is no magic cure-all for poverty. In fact, that is the point. The notion that experts in Washington can wage a successful war on poverty with spending programs as a weapon was never realistic. We are dealing with real people, with real lives trying to realize their dreams, not pieces on a chess board that we can move around as we wish. Our goal should be to tear down the barriers to economic opportunity and simply get out of the way. When we discover that well-intentioned programs designed to help the poor are actually trapping them in generational poverty, we need to have the courage to chart a new course. The American dream is not to be dependent upon others for bare substance but to have the opportunity to get ahead through your own hard work and perseverance. All Americans deserve the self-respect that comes from earning your own success in life. Millions of immigrants have flocked to our shores because America offered greater economic opportunity than any other nation. We are at risk of losing part of what has made our society unique. We should seize the opportunity of this anniversary of the war on poverty 50 years ago to reevaluate our approach to ending poverty and get back to what has historically worked for generations of Americans, and that is simply to promote economic opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to continue the discussion about the description of the Senate as a deliberative body and continue to echo the call for the distinguished minority leader for a return to a functional Senate. I have spoken on this issue before. I think it is best to go back to the Constitution and the people who wrote the Constitution for an understanding of what was intended when the Senate was set up. So I do not intend to dwell on the use of the so-called nuclear option related to the filibuster. The reason I am not going to spend my time on the nuclear option today as in previous speeches is the majority leader claims the Senate's dysfunction is related to some unprecedented use of filibusters. I think that has been thoroughly debunked. This claim is directly refuted by the very source he has pointed to, the Congressional Research Service. More importantly, it has been debunked by fact checkers in important media sources in America. Yet, as we know, the Senate is dysfunctional beyond a doubt. To get to the bottom of how and, more importantly, why the Senate is not functioning, we must have a clear understanding of just how the Senate is supposed to function. As I just said, we should turn to the Constitution. For an understanding of what the Constitution means, there is no better source for this than going back to the Federalist Papers. I have referenced the Federalist Papers before on this subject, but it is worth the detail about what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when the Senate was created. Federalist Paper 62, which is usually attributed to the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, begins to lay out the rationale for how the Senate is to operate. He mentioned that the number of Members and the length of terms are different between the House and Senate. Then he said this--but before I quote, I hope you understand that when something was written in 1787 and 1788, they use a little different form of English than what we use. But it is pretty clear what they intended to say about explaining the difference between the House and the Senate. So here begins my quote of James Madison: In order to form an accurate judgment on both of these points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which are to be answered by a Senate; and in order to ascertain these, it will be necessary to review the inconveniences which a Republic must suffer from the want of such an institution. End of that quote, but I will have several other quotes from the Federalist Papers. In this specific quote, in other words, Madison is going to tell us the purpose of the Senate, starting with the problems a Republic would face without a Senate and how the Senate is designed to correct those problems. As we hear from Madison about how our legislative process is supposed to work, I would encourage my colleagues to think about major legislation that has been considered in the Senate in recent years. In fact, arguably the most major bill that has passed in recent years, President Obama's health care law, serves as one example. When that law was considered, one party held all political branches of government: the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and even had a supermajority in the Senate. That means they could run the Senate like the House, without the need to compromise with any in the minority. At that particular time, my party was then and still is in the minority. We are now dealing with daily problems caused by the way the health care law was written, which is something to keep in mind as Madison describes in these coming quotes. The problems the Senate was designed to prevent, here is the first problem Madison discusses. It is a fairly long quote from the Federalist. First he says: First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. Then Madison goes on: I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican government. I see it this way: In other words, Madison is saying having a second Chamber of Congress designed to operate differently from the House makes it less likely that a partisan agenda that does not reflect the views of Americans will pass. That is not a function the Senate currently performs, as it has been run on a purely partisan term since 2007. For example, we will recall that the President's health care proposal did not enjoy widespread public support. Yet it passed the Senate along strictly partisan lines with little input sought or accepted from the minority party. In fact, before a final bill could be passed reconciling the House and Senate bills, a special election was held in the liberal State of Massachusetts, resulting in an election of an opponent of the health care reform proposal. Instead of moderating the proposal based upon public will and doing it maybe just a little bit so it could attract even one Republican vote, the House passed a draft Senate bill, then they used a budget tool called reconciliation to ram another bill through the Senate with a simply majority to change items in the first bill. That is not how Madison intended a bicameral Congress to work. The next point Madison makes: Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration. That describes what he thought the Senate should be, what the Senate is. But my point is, the Senate is not functioning that way. In other words, if we have just one legislative Chamber with a large number of Members, it is likely to make laws hastily based on a partisan agenda without thinking through all the long-term consequences. A hastily passed partisan agenda that ignores the long-term consequences, does that not remind you of the health care law? Remember how then-Speaker Pelosi said the House had to pass a bill to find out what was in it? They were in such a rush they could not be bothered to read it. The Senate is intended, as Madison just said, as I quoted, to be smaller, to be more deliberate, and to be less partisan. Imagine if the Senate had been allowed to operate in a deliberative fashion and craft a truly bipartisan health care proposal. If that had happened, we certainly could have come up with something more workable than the current law. Madison continues his explanation of the rationale for the Senate: Thirdly. Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust. It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted Senate? A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can best be attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficit in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first. That is a long quote. But Madison is essentially saying that the House is to be composed of a representative slice of American citizens while the Senate is supposed to be composed of individuals who have more experience and approach public policy more thoughtfully. I am sure many people might question whether individuals in the House or even in this Senate match those descriptions today that Madison lays out. But it is true that the rules of the House allow for new ideas to be quickly translated into legislation. By contrast, the process in the Senate has historically been slower and more deliberative to refine those ideas into law that can stand the test of time. Note that Madison complains about all the ``repealing, explaining, and amending laws'' that have had to be passed by the unicameral legislatures of that time--of the early days of our Republic. Our early experiences with passing bills quickly, without thinking things through, led to the understanding that we should take our time and get it right in the first place. Getting back to Madison and those quotes I gave, that is what the Senate is supposed to do. Failure of the Senate to take the time, examine, and take time to revise legislation is quite obvious. It results in bad laws that don't work. We now have a situation with the health care law where the President claims the authority to unilaterally suspend or reinterpret parts of the law that are clearly unworkable. That is very similar to the embarrassing situation Madison refers to, to have a constant stream of ``repealing, explaining, and amending laws,'' except the President is doing all of the repealing, all of the explaining, and all of the amending, unilaterally. Our constitutional system is not designed to pass a lot of legislation quickly, and that can be frustrating, particularly to any majority party anxious to enact its agenda. Still, our deliberative process is a design and not a flaw. Based on experience, the Framers of our Constitution determined that it was better to get it right the first time than to subject the American people to the upheavals of laws that need to be constantly amended or repealed. The House was designed to act quickly. The Senate was designed to be a deliberative body, implying a slower approach to legislating. The fundamental problem is that the current majority leader is trying to run the Senate like the House, and the Senate was not designed to be operated in that way. Sure--with the majority then and now the majority, the same majority when they had 60 votes--it was possible to ram legislation through the Senate without any deliberation, but that is no longer the reality. When the majority leader brings a bill to the floor, routinely blocking amendments and then rapidly moves to end consideration of the bill, that means the Senate is presented with a measure as a fait accompli and has to take it or, the opposite, leave it. In other words, the majority leadership wants their agenda approved, no questions asked, or nothing at all. The fact is, if the majority leader allowed the Senate to deliberate, we could get a lot more done than we have been doing. Sure, we might not get as many laws passed as some people might like. The full Senate, through its deliberation, may alter legislation somewhat from how the majority leadership would prefer. Still, we would be able to accomplish some important legislation. But, no, that is not acceptable, we are told. One week ago today there was a strong debate on that very issue. For all the talk about getting things done, the majority leadership has demonstrated repeatedly with cloture motion after cloture motion that it would rather grind this body to a halt than allow the slightest alteration of their agenda. The latest message from the majority leadership is that they will respect the rights of Senators to offer an amendment only if they have certain assurances about the final outcome. The senior Senator from New York implied that is the way it used to be done. Well, I want to assure that Senator that in the 33 years I have served in the Senate, it has never been done that way. I have managed a lot of bills over the years, and if I had tried to impose that requirement, I would have been laughed at, to say the least. Since when did duly elected Senators have to negotiate for the right to represent their constituents? An open amendment process should be the default situation, not something that is granted at the sufferance of the majority party leadership. We must get back then to what we call in the Senate regular order. I would say do things the way Madison intended. That means an open amendment process without preconditions or special limitations on what amendments will be allowed. Cloture shouldn't even be contemplated until after a substantial number of amendments have been processed. That was the standard practice when the Senate got things done, when we accomplished things. Again, Madison describes a Senate that is to represent all Americans, not only one party. It was designed to be more thoughtful and deliberative and, whether we like it or not, slower than the House of Representatives. The Senate's purpose is to make sure that Congress passes fewer but better laws. We saw what happened when the Senate was controlled entirely by one party while the voices of the minority party and the citizens they represented were ignored. We got a deeply flawed health care law and the American people are paying the price. Yet the majority leader insists on running the Senate as if he still has 60 votes, doesn't have to compromise, and even refuses to compromise. That is not how the authors of our Constitution intended the Senate to work and, of course, it isn't working. The Senate is facing a crisis, and the only way to solve it is to restore the Senate as a deliberative body envisioned by the authors of the Constitution and express it in an explanatory way in the Federalist Papers. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator McConnell has made a very important call to restore the Senate as the great deliberative body it was intended to be. I would like to continue to add my voice to that call. In fact, I am going to expand on some observations I made previously before the Senate, I believe in the month of December last year. The Senate is a unique body designed with a very unique purpose in mind. In the Federalist Paper 62, attributed to the father of the Constitution James Madison, the unique role of the Senate is explained this way: The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. When Madison talks about ``factious leaders'' and ``intemperate and pernicious resolutions,'' he basically means what we call partisanship and the ``my way or the highway'' approach to legislating all too common these days. What might come as a shock to anyone who has followed the Senate lately is the fact that the Senate was specifically designed to check partisan passions and ensure that Americans of all stripes are fairly represented through a deliberative process. Clearly, the Senate is not fulfilling the role the Framers of the Constitution intended, in recent years. To find out what went wrong, we first have to examine how the Senate was supposed to function. About this propensity of legislatures to be dominated by factious leaders acting intemperately, Madison goes on to say: Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from history of other nations. Note that in advocating for the creation of a Senate to counter this negative tendency, Madison references examples from proceedings within the United States. Many State legislatures in the early days of our Republic were unicameral, with frequent elections and weak executives. This led to many instances where a temporary majority faction would gain control and quickly pass legislation that advantaged the majority at the expense of the minority. The Senate has been called the greatest deliberative body in the world because it was specifically designed to proceed at a measured pace and to guarantee that the rights of the minority party be protected. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10: Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minority party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. What is unique about the Senate is that the rules and traditions force Senators to work together to prevent Madison's ``overbearing majority'' from steamrolling the minority party. Because the rules of the Senate are built around consensus, as opposed to the House of Representatives where the majority party dominates, it forces Senators of all parties to listen to each other and to work together. While that was true most of my time in the Senate, it has changed in recent years. If anyone wonders why the tone in Washington has become so heated recently, the loss of the Senate as a deliberative body is certainly a big factor. There is an apocryphal story which may or may not be historically accurate but which certainly depicts how the Senate was intended to function. The story goes that when Jefferson returned from France, where he was serving during the Constitutional Convention, he asked George Washington why the Senate had been created. Washington supposedly replied by asking Jefferson, ``Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?'' ``To cool it,'' Jefferson said. Washington responded, ``Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.'' In the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee sets out the terms of debate for each bill. If you want to offer an amendment in the House, you have to go hat in hand to the Rules Committee and ask their permission. If the House leadership doesn't like your amendment, you are out of luck. By contrast, the Senate has a tradition of allowing extensive debate and amendments by any Senator without prior approval from anybody. However, that tradition has gone out the window under the current majority leadership. We have seen an unprecedented abuse of cloture motions to cut off the deliberative process paired with a tactic called filling the tree--blocking amendments from being considered. The Senate majority leader has effectively become a one-man version of the House Rules Committee, dictating which amendments will be debated and which ones will never see the light of day. He has done so again on the unemployment bill currently before this Senate. In fact, he has been quite unashamed about saying he is not going to allow any amendments. This strips the ability of individual Senators to effectively represent their State, regardless of political party. Blocking amendments also virtually guarantees that any legislation the Senate votes on will be more partisan in nature, violating the very purpose of the Senate according to James Madison. By empowering the majority leader at the expense of individual Senators, the people of the 50 States lose their voice in the Senate and party leaders get their way instead. The people of Iowa sent me to the Senate to represent them, not to simply vote up or down on a purely partisan agenda dictated by the majority leader. Everyone complains about the lack of bipartisanship these days, but there is no opportunity for individual Senators to work together across the aisle when legislation is drafted on a partisan basis and amendments are blocked. Bipartisanship requires giving individual Senators a voice, regardless of party. That is the only way to get things done in the Senate. In the last decade, when I was chairman of the Finance Committee and Republicans controlled the Senate, we wanted to actually get things done. In order for that to happen, we knew we had to accommodate the minority, we had to have patience and humility and respect for that minority--attributes that do not exist on the other side anymore. We had some major bipartisan accomplishments, from the largest tax cut in history to the Medicare prescription drug program, to numerous trade agreements. Those kinds of major bills do not seem to happen anymore. The Senate rules provide that any Senator may offer an amendment regardless of party affiliation. Each Senator represents hundreds of thousands to, in the case of California, 36 million Americans, and each has an individual right to offer amendments for consideration. The principle here is not about political parties having their say but duly elected Senators participating in the legislative process. Again, as part of our duty to represent the citizens of our respective States, each Senator has an individual right to offer amendments. This right cannot be outsourced to party leaders. The longstanding tradition of the Senate is that Members of the minority party as well as rank-and-file Members of the majority party have an opportunity to offer amendments and get votes in the Senate. The now-routine practice of filling the tree to block amendments has been a major factor in the destruction of the Senate as a deliberative body. This is usually combined with filing cloture to cut off further consideration of a bill, which has occurred to a truly unprecedented extent. In a deliberative body, debates and amendments are essential, so cloture should be rare. Abuse of cloture strikes to the very heart of how the Senate is intended to work. It is important to note the majority leader has tried to pass off the cloture motions he has filed, which are attempts by the majority party to silence the minority party, as nothing but Republican filibusters. There seems to have been a concerted attempt to confuse cloture motions with filibusters. But the Washington Post fact checker has caught the majority leader in this distortion, giving his claim of unprecedented Republican filibusters two Pinocchios. In fact, a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service called ``Cloture Attempts on Nominations: Data and Historical Development,'' written by Richard S. Beth, contains an entire section entitled ``Cloture Motions Do Not Correspond With Filibusters.'' The abuse of cloture, often combined with the blocking of amendments, prevents all Senators from doing what they were sent to do--not just Members of the minority party. It has even gotten worse. Even where the majority leader has decided he is going to be open to amendments, he has created out of whole cloth new restrictions to limit Senators' rights. First, he normally only opens the amendment process if there is an agreement to limit amendments. This is usually only a handful or so of amendments. Then he has magically determined that only germane or relevant amendments can be considered. Of course, nowhere do the Senate rules require amendments to be germane, other than postcloture. Senators elected in the last few years appear to be ignorant of that fact. We will hear some of my colleagues argue against an amendment saying it is nongermane or nonrelevant. They have fallen totally for the majority leader's creative rulemaking, thus giving up one of their rights as a Senator with which to represent their State. I cannot count how many nongermane or nonrelevant amendments I had to allow votes on when I processed bills when Republicans were in charge. They were usually tough political votes. But we took them because we wanted to get things done and that is the way the Senate operated. You do not see that nowadays. The current majority avoids tough votes at all costs. If you wonder why things do not get done around here in the Senate, that is one of the reasons they do not get done. The American people sent us to get the work done and to represent our constituents and that means voting, not avoiding tough votes. We sometimes hear this is a question of majority rule versus minority obstruction. Again, that ignores that each Senator is elected to represent their State, not simply to be an agent of one of the political parties. There are policies that have majority support in the Senate that have been denied a vote. Understand, we have been denied votes on amendments that even a majority of this Senate supports. What happened during debate on a budget resolution proves my point. The special rules of the budget resolution limit debate so it cannot be filibustered, but it also allows for an unlimited number of amendments. A Republican amendment to the Senate Budget Committee in support of repealing the tax on lifesaving medical devices in President Obama's health care law passed by an overwhelming 79-to-20 vote, with more than half of the Democrats voting with the Republicans rather than their party leader. We also had a Republican amendment in support of the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline to bring oil from Canada, and that passed 62 to 37. Votes such as these that split the Democrats and hand a win to Republicans are exactly what the majority leader has been trying to avoid by blocking those very same amendments on legislation. Of course, that is probably the explanation of why we did not take up a budget resolution for more than 3 years prior to this year. Until we put an end to the abuse of cloture and the blocking of amendments, the Senate cannot function as James Madison and the Framers of the Constitution intended. We must bring back the Senate as a deliberative body. Our politics today desperately need the cooling saucer of the Senate, as George Washington described the Senate to Jefferson. The action by the majority leader to make it easier to consider nominations on a purely partisan basis went in the wrong direction. In the face of bipartisan opposition and with no Republican votes, the so-called nuclear option established a precedent, effectively overruling the rules on the books. A better move would be for the Senate to establish the precedent that filling the tree and abusing cloture to block a full amendment process is illegitimate. It is time to restore the Senate so it can fulfill its constitutional role. Senator McConnell has made a thoughtful and well-reasoned appeal. I hope my colleagues will listen for the sake of this institution, for the good of the country as a whole, and out of respect for the Framers of the Constitution who set up the Senate as a unique deliberative body. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask, since I just arrived on the Senate floor, is it appropriate for me to speak on the judicial nominee we will be voting on.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are going to vote on the third of three nominees to the DC Circuit. Today it will be Judge Robert Wilkins. I will oppose the judge's nomination, just as I did when the Senate rejected the same nomination in November of last year. This circuit, of course, is far and away the least busy in the country. This is one of the reasons why the Democrats blocked nominees to this very same circuit, based on the very same arguments regarding caseload, during the Bush administration. There were only two differences between then and now. Back then the caseload was even higher, and back then there was a Republican in the White House. Today, of course, there is a Democrat in the White House, and also a Democratic majority here in the Senate. Today, by pushing this nomination for a circuit where there are not more judges needed based on caseload, I say that the Senate majority-- meaning the Senate Democrats--do not want to play by the same rules they pioneered or by the same standards they established during the Bush administration. Even though the Senate considered and rejected this nomination just a couple of months ago, today once again we will be voting on Judge Wilkins' confirmation. We will vote on the judge's nomination today because, on November 21, last year, the majority leader and the Senate majority invoked the so-called nuclear option. In one fell swoop, the majority leader did more damage to the institution than I have witnessed in more than 3 decades of service here in the Senate. In fact, when the majority leader broke the rules to change the rules last November and tossed aside two centuries of Senate history and precedent, he likely did more damage to this institution than any leader who preceded him. It was a power grab. Of course it was a power grab. But it was more than that. It fundamentally has altered the way the Senate operates. It stripped the minority of its rights--under the rules, of course--but it was more than that as well. It cheapens the world's greatest deliberative body. About 2 hours ago I spoke on this subject to the Senate based upon what James Madison said was the function of the Senate--to be a deliberative body, to bring stability to our political system, not to do things the same way the House of Representatives does. As a result of the nuclear option, the Senate design has been forever altered, and it was done via brute force with zero buy-in from the minority. The result, as we have seen over the last 2 months, is less cooperation and more partisanship, something the people of this country abhor. That is before you consider the current state of affairs regarding amendments here on the Senate floor. The majority leader routinely blocks all Senators from offering amendments by doing what we call ``filling the tree'' with amendments, and then sets aside his ``blocker amendments'' for only those amendments that the leader considers appropriate for us to discuss. When you take into consideration the inability of Senators to offer amendments of their choosing and combine it with the leader's decision to strip the minority of their right to extend a debate on nominations, it becomes clear why today's Senate operates the way it does. There are two great rights Senators have: the right to debate and the right to amend. That is what makes us a deliberative body. That is what makes us so much different from the House of Representatives. By stripping away, on one hand, the right to extend the debate on nominations, and denying Senators, on the other hand, the right to offer amendments, the leader has taken those two rights and shredded them. It is to a point where some Members of this body don't even have a full appreciation for the way the institution used to operate. Is it any wonder that it is difficult to get things done in today's Senate? Is it any wonder Senators don't feel compelled to work and consult together? Today we will vote on a nomination the Senate rejected a couple of months ago. Now--perhaps because the other side is having a bit of buyer's remorse--some of my colleagues have been doing their best to rewrite history. Senate Democrats claim that Republican opposition to the DC Circuit nominees was, in their words, unprecedented, but conveniently failed to mention that Senate Democrats set the standard during the Bush administration when they blocked qualified nominees to the DC Circuit based on caseload, which is the same argument I used, but in those days the caseload was even heavier than it is today. As I have said, back then the caseload was higher. You can't say that too often. The fact is that DC is the most underworked circuit in the Nation. I have given previous speeches on this subject, and I have given a lot of statistics, so I won't go through all those statistics again today, but with the most recent data released by the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the numbers still show the DC Circuit has the fewest number of appeals filed and appeals terminated among all of the Federal circuit courts. On a per-active-judge basis, the DC Circuit now has 111 total appeals filed per active judge. The national average is over three times higher, at 377. The busiest court, the Eleventh Circuit, comes in at over seven times higher than the DC Circuit, at 796. In other words, a Federal appellate judge sitting in Florida has a workload seven times heavier than the circuit judge sitting here in DC. I hope people don't fall for the phony argument that cases in the DC Circuit are more complicated. There are other circuits that handle more of these so-called complex cases than even DC. The bottom line is the empirical data has shown, and continues to show, that these judges could have been better used in other circuits. I have a piece of legislation that would move these three judges from the DC Circuit to other circuits where the caseload is greater. To confirm what the statistics show, early last year I decided to go straight to the source, the judges who serve in DC on this circuit. Before these nominations to the DC Circuit were even made, I submitted a questionnaire to each DC Circuit judge asking them about their workload. Their responses independently confirmed that the data showed that the court is severely underworked. One judge responded: ``If any more judges were added now, there wouldn't be enough work to go around.'' I hope you understand that the vacancies that are being filled are going to cost the taxpayers $1 million-plus a year forever as long as these seats are filled. After looking carefully at the data, and, of course, confirming my understanding with the judges themselves, I opposed these nominations based, in part, on the same standards established by the Democrats during the Bush administration when they blocked nominees to the DC Circuit. Then, of course, there was a Republican President, and now we have a Democratic President. Of course, that wasn't the only reason for opposition to these nominees. For instance, gun rights supporters are opposed to Judge Wilkins, not based on caseload but because of the Dearth v. Holder case where Judge Wilkins held that nonresident U.S. citizens don't have the Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm. The last nominee we confirmed to the DC Circuit was about the farthest thing from a mainstream nominee as you can get. I won't repeat everything I said about that nominee in previous speeches or what that nominee has said or written, but I will give one example. Consider former Professor Pillard's view on religious freedom. She argued that the Supreme Court case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church, which challenged the so-called ``ministerial exception'' to employment discrimination represented--in her words--a ``substantial threat to the American rule of law.'' The Supreme Court, on appeal, rejected her view 9-0, and the Court held that ``it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church's determination of who can act as its ministers.'' Think about that. Former Professor Pillard argued the challenge to the ministerial exception to employment law represented a ``substantial threat to the American rule of law.'' Yet the Court rejected the view 9-0, and held ``it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church's determination of who can act as its ministers.'' Do my colleagues honestly believe it is within the mainstream to argue churches shouldn't be allowed to choose their own ministers? I don't believe it is in the mainstream. We know these judges aren't needed. Far from it. We know these nominations aren't mainstream. Far from it. Then why did our Senate Democrats go to such lengths to stack this court? Why go so far as to change the Senate rules in order to fill these vacancies? Why go so far as to abuse and violate the Senate rules to change the rules? Well, because the President and his allies will do whatever it takes to get their way even if it means breaking Senate rules, silencing debate, circumventing Congress, or stacking the judicial deck in their favor to ensure that their executive actions are rubberstamped by the courts. It is no secret the President has decided to circumvent Congress by relying heavily on Executive orders and regulatory action to carry out an unpopular agenda. We all heard the President pledge repeatedly, ``If Congress won't act, I will.'' What he means, of course, is that he is going to do it all by executive action. He won't go to Congress. He won't negotiate. In fact, he will go around Congress. He decided he doesn't need legislators to make these changes. He will just issue an Executive order or issue new agency rules. As I have explained before, in effect, the President is saying: If the Senate won't confirm who I want, when I want them, then I will recess-appoint them when the Senate isn't even in session, or at another time, the President would say: If Congress won't pass cap-and- trade fee increases, then I will go around the Congress and do the same thing through administrative action at the Environmental Protection Agency or, again, if Congress won't pass gun control legislation, then I will issue a series of Executive orders. Quite simply, that is what the President means when he says: If Congress won't act, I will. But remember. Under our system, it is the courts that provide a check on the President's powers. It is the courts that decide whether the President is acting unconstitutionally. So the only way the President's plan works is if he stacks the deck in his favor. The only way the President can successfully bypass Congress is if he stacks the courts with ideological allies who will rubberstamp these Executive orders. That is why it is so important for the President that he and his Senate allies stack the DC Circuit even though the DC Circuit doesn't have enough work, and it will be an additional $1 million for each of the three judges who are now being stacked into this court. As I have said, in the last few weeks the other side has attempted to rewrite history in an effort to justify the actions they have taken, but the other side's effort to rewrite history isn't limited to the history of the DC Circuit in particular. It extends to the number of so-called filibusters during the past few years. Several times last week the Senate majority claimed that the Republicans filibustered 20 of Obama's district court nominees. According to their narrative, only 23 nominees have been filibustered in the history of the Senate, and 20 occurred in the past 5 years. That is not remotely true, and the majority knows that. As near as I can tell, this claim is based on the number of times a cloture motion has been filed on district court nominees. Of course, everyone knows a cloture motion isn't a filibuster. A filibuster is a failure to end debate. Nonetheless, let's look at those 20 nominees. Seventeen nominees were filed at one time back in March of 2012. That maneuver, of course, was a transparent effort to manufacture a crisis where no crisis existed. Every single one of these cloture motions was later withdrawn. As a result, not 1 of those 17 nominees even had a cloture vote, let alone a failed cloture vote. In fact, of these 20 so-called filibusters of district court judges, the Senate held only 1 cloture vote on a district court judge, and that cloture vote passed the Senate. Yet the Senate majority still claims we filibustered 20 district court nominees. That is revisionist history if I have ever seen it. Let's review the alleged Republican obstruction of the President's nominees. Since President Obama took office, the Senate has approved 218 of the President's lower court judicial nominees. That is 99 percent. So we have rejected only two. If the majority leader hadn't invoked the nuclear option, the number would have, in fact, been 5 instead of 2, but not 20, and not 34, as I have heard some claim. It would not have even been 10, which was the number the Senate majority blocked by the fifth year of President Bush's administration. Five nominees. At the end of the day, the majority was willing to toss aside two centuries of Senate practice and tradition over just five judicial nominees. So I continue to oppose this nominee, just as I did when the Senate rejected the nomination before the Senate Democrats broke the rules to change the rules. This judgeship wasn't warranted before the majority leader and the Democrats invoked the misguided nuclear option, and it certainly hasn't suddenly become warranted in the weeks since that time. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask permission to speak for about 10 minutes on the Yellen nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, over the past 5 years the Federal Reserve has pursued unconventional and unprecedented monetary policy. As Vice chair of the Fed, Janet Yellen has been a strong proponent of these policies. As chair, she is likely to continue these same easy- money policies with the same, if not more, vigor as her predecessor. I have deep concerns about the long-term effects of pursuing these policies. Historical evidence suggests that failing to rein in easy- money policies on a timely basis risks fueling an economic bubble or even hyperinflation. It is true that one of the lessons learned from the Great Depression was that an overly tight monetary policy in a recession risks economic debilitating deflation. Thus, understandably, when the recession hit in 2008 the Fed sought to avoid the mistakes of the past by lowering interest rates to encourage investment. However, this expansionary monetary policy cannot continue into perpetuity without causing real and lasting damage to our economy. Just as we should not repeat the mistakes of the Great Depression, we need to be careful not to repeat the mistakes that fueled our recent recession. Let us not forget that our current economic stagnation began with the bursting of the housing bubble in late 2007--a housing bubble fueled by rampant speculation that was driven, in part by historically low interest rates maintained by the Fed between 2001 and 2004. Yet once again we see the Fed embarking on a policy of sustained historically low interest rates. The Fed has now maintained the Federal funds rate essentially at zero for over 5 years. What may be the future consequences of this policy? What new bubble will arise? At this point, I do not think anyone can answer these questions definitively. But no one can deny that the risks are real and could be devastating. The Fed, though, has not just sought to maintain record-low interest rates. With its traditional monetary tool tapped out, the Fed has turned to a less conventional and more aggressive program in an attempt to jump-start our economy and lower unemployment. The Fed is now engaged in an open-ended policy it has termed quantitative easing. Essentially, this is a fancy way to say the Fed is flooding the economy with trillions of dollars through large purchases of mortgage-backed securities and longer-term Treasury securities. As a result of this program, the Fed has seen its balance sheet more than quadruple from around $800 billion to nearly $4 trillion. Vice Chairman Yellen has not presented a plan to Congress on how the Fed plans to deal with this issue. While I welcome the news from the Fed's December meeting that they intend to reduce the monthly purchases, I fear they may already be in too deep. It remains unclear how the Fed will be able to go about unwinding its nearly $4 trillion balance sheet without spooking investors. The stock market has become addicted to the Fed's easy-money policies. This has led one notable investment advisor to question whether the Fed will ever be able to end the quantitative easing program. While the stock market has become addicted to easy money, the benefit to Main Street has been questionable at best. Unemployment remains high, bank lending remains tight, and savers discouraged. While the benefits to Main Street remain unnoticeable, they most certainly will feel the pain should the Fed carry on their easy-money policy for too long. For an example of what Main Street could be in store for one need look no further than the late 1970s and early 1980s. The easy-money policies of the 1970s intended to spur employment resulted in stagflation, a period of hyperinflation and high unemployment. During this period unemployment topped 10 percent while inflation exceeded 14 percent. The experience of the late 1970s and early 1980s made it clear that once you let the inflation genie out of the bottle it is very difficult to stamp it out. After suffering years of stagflation, Americans were then subject to the pain of unprecedented interest rates as high as 20 percent just to get hyperinflation back under control. Statements by Ms. Yellen indicate she would be open to inflation exceeding the Fed target of 2 percent as a means to achieve full employment. While achieving full employment may be a noble goal, the Fed has a dismal record at being able to produce sustainable job creation through expansionary monetary policy. While inflation may aid employment in the very short term, our experience with stagflation in the 1970's shows this tradeoff falls apart quickly as people's expectations change. Sustainable job growth comes not from inflation, but price stability that promotes long-run economic growth. We need a chairman focused on a strong dollar and low inflation. My concerns about the Fed's easy-money policies and inflation led me to vote against Chairman Bernanke for his second term at the Fed. Because it appears that Ms. Yellen will continue to pursue these misguided policies, I cannot in good conscience vote in favor of her confirmation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today we consider the nomination of Brian Davis to be a District Court Judge for the Middle District of Florida. I will vote for him today (although there has been some controversy surrounding his nomination). I wish to take a minute to discuss the nomination. Judge Davis made a number of controversial remarks a few years ago. During his hearing last Congress, Judge Davis was asked to provide some clarification regarding those comments. After carefully reviewing his answers from the hearing, many of us concluded that they didn't provide the clarity that we had hoped he would provide. For that reason, following his hearing, I asked Judge Davis some follow-up questions for the Record, hoping to get the clarity, in writing, that I didn't hear him provide during his hearing. Unfortunately, after reviewing his written answers, I concluded that Judge Davis didn't fully appreciate why many found his comments so troubling. For instance, when I asked him about these statements he wrote that a ``number of my statements could be misunderstood'', but he neither apologized for them nor said anything to demonstrate that he fully appreciated why his comments were so problematic. As a result, in the last Congress I reluctantly opposed his nomination. Judge Davis, of course, was renominated this Congress. On September 12th, he submitted a letter to the Florida Senators. In that letter, Judge Davis apologized for his comments--without qualification. He wrote, ``I believe that several of the statements I made in the past were inappropriate and improper.'' He went on to write, ``I apologize for any inappropriate statements and deeply recognize the harm that they could cause if they gave the misimpression that I am anything other than impartial or that I maintain any bias or prejudice.'' As I wrote to Judge Davis in a follow-up letter on September 25th, unlike the last Congress, I believe the apology Judge Davis transmitted on September 12 for those comments was without qualification. Therefore, in my view, it demonstrated both courage and humility. In my letter to Judge Davis, I asked him simply to confirm that he was apologizing for his comments regarding Dr. Henry Foster, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and Justice Thomas. In a follow-up letter he wrote to me on September 26, he confirmed those were the ``inappropriate comments'' he referenced in his letter to the Florida Senators. I ask consent that both my letter to Judge Davis, and his response, be made part of the Record. I have given this nomination a great deal of consideration. I believe Judge Davis has taken steps this Congress that, in my view, he didn't appear willing to take last Congress. Taking this into consideration, together with the fact that he enjoys the support of his home State Senators, I am willing to give Judge Davis the benefit of the doubt and will support his nomination today. I yield the floor. Washington, DC, September 25, 2013. Judge Brian J. Davis, Nassau County Courthouse, Fernandina Beach, FL. Dear Judge Davis: I write to follow up on your September 12th letter to Senators Nelson and Rubio, copying me and Chairman Leahy, regarding concerns with your record Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including me, raised last Congress. As you alluded in your letter, during your hearing last Congress, Senator Lee asked you a number of questions regarding various remarks and speeches you made throughout your career. After carefully reviewing the answers you gave during the hearing, I concluded your responses lacked the breadth and clarity I had hoped you would provide when afforded the opportunity. For instance, you conceded that some comments were ``inappropriate,'' but then stated ``they were inappropriate for the reason that an impression could be gotten from them that somehow the court maintained a racial prejudice.'' That response troubled me because it did not appear to fully recognize the reason some find those comments concerning. Specifically, the comments appeared quite plainly to assign a racial motivation to those who opposed particular nominees on purely policy grounds. Consequently, following your hearing I sent you a number of follow up questions for the record. Again, I was hopeful to receive some clarity regarding those comments. But after carefully reviewing your responses, I reluctantly reached the conclusion that you still did not fully appreciate why some viewed your comments as inappropriate. For instance, I asked about your comments regarding President Clinton's nomination of Dr. Henry Foster's nomination to be surgeon general. But rather than concede what appears to be apparent by the words you used, you answered instead that the comments were inappropriate because they ``could be interpreted'' in a particular way, and therefore that you lacked impartiality. In my view, your answers to several other questions lacked clarity in a similar fashion. For these reasons, among several others, reluctantly I opposed your nomination last Congress. With this background, I received your letter of September 12th, 2013. In your letter you wrote, without qualification, ``I believe that several of the statements I made in the past were inappropriate and improper.'' You went on to write, ``I apologize for any inappropriate statements and deeply recognize the harm that they could cause if they gave the misimpression that I am anything other than impartial or that I maintain any bias or prejudice.'' I note that these two statements represent a step that you did not appear willing to take last Congress. In my view, this demonstrates both courage and humility. Thank you for that letter. As your nomination is now again pending before the Committee, I write to seek one further clarification. As I noted, you wrote in your recent letter that you apologize for ``any inappropriate statements,'' but you did not specify the statements to which you referred. I want to confirm that you are referring to your comments regarding Dr. Henry Foster, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and Justice Thomas. Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Sincerely. Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.