Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Klobuchar in cosponsoring a resolution designating the week of March 9, 2014, as National Youth Synthetic Drug Awareness Week. The abuse of synthetic drugs has grown rapidly in a very short amount of time. Calls into poison control centers concerning synthetic marijuana, also known as ``K2,'' doubled between 2010 and 2011 and remained elevated throughout 2012. Emergency room visits connected to synthetic marijuana use more than doubled, to 28,000 visits, from 2010 to 2011. In addition, other synthetic drugs commonly known as ``bath salts'' produced over 22,000 emergency room admissions.

The serious symptoms associated with synthetic drug use range from

rapid heart rate, psychosis, and agitation which may lead to suicide, cardiac arrest, or organ failure. In 2010, a constituent of mine named David Rozga committed suicide shortly after ingesting ``K2'' with his friends. After smoking the drug, David became highly agitated. His friends calmed him down, and he decided to go home. Not long afterward, however, he committed suicide. David's death was one of the first in the United States attributed to synthetic drug use.

I worked with Senators Klobuchar, Schumer, and Feinstein, along with many others, to place many of these terrible drugs on the list of Schedule I controlled substances. I am grateful that the Senate and the House worked together to pass the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012. Our efforts were an important step in allowing the Drug Enforcement Administration to begin enforcement actions against those who are poisoning our communities.

However, new synthetic drugs have emerged since the passage of that law. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration has moved to administratively place an additional 17 chemical compounds on the list of schedule I narcotics in recent months. Included among these drugs is a compound called 5F-PB-22, which was blamed for the deaths of three young Iowans last year. Moreover, in just the past few days, police in Iowa have arrested six people and raided multiple stores in the Des Moines area for selling synthetic drugs. These tragic deaths and arrests of those pushing these substances underscore the ongoing need to raise awareness of these deadly drugs.

The good news is that people, including in my home State of Iowa, are fighting back against the scourge of synthetic drugs. The Rozga family has been active in sharing David's story. They have also started a Web site, K2drugfacts.com, which creates a forum for other parents, friends, and people who have survived terrifying experiences with synthetic drugs to share their stories and spread the word that these drugs are destructive. Other antidrug organizations and coalitions are raising public awareness in Iowa. For example, a local community group in Johnson County, Iowa called Iowans Against Synthetics has raised synthetic drug awareness throughout that county.

The National Youth Synthetic Drug Awareness Week resolution encourages other individuals and organizations throughout the country to continue their efforts to raise awareness about the deadliness of these drugs. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

I thank the Senator from New York.

The Defense Department has been promising Congress and the American people for a long period of time that they are working on this problem of sexual assault, and we are still looking for results, and the statistics get worse. So I believe what Senator Gillibrand is saying with her legislation is enough is enough.

I am proud to be a partner in this effort. It fits into an overall principle of government that I have: Greater transparency brings accountability. And I believe this legislation will make this whole problem much more transparent and, with it, accountability to hopefully get the issue solved.

I appreciate the fact that a large number of commonsense reforms were included in the national defense authorization. These changes were long

overdue. However, we are past the point of tinkering with the current system and hoping that does the trick. We have had promises about tackling the problem of sexual assault within the current system for years and years, but the problem is still not any better and, statistics show, is getting worse. We don't have the luxury of time to try some new reforms of the current system and hope they have an impact. We have had those promises before.

What is more, the current system appears to be part of the problem. I will elaborate on that.

We know from the recent Defense Department report that 50 percent of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed nothing would be done as a result of their reporting; 74 percent of the females and 60 percent of the males perceived one or more barriers to reporting sexual assault; and 62 percent of the victims who reported sexual assault indicated they perceived some form of professional, social, and/or administrative retaliation.

We can talk about protecting victims, and we can enact more protections, as we did in the national defense authorization, but the fact remains that the current structure of the military justice system is having a deterrent effect on the reporting of these assaults. If sexual assault cases aren't reported, they can't be prosecuted. If sexual assault isn't prosecuted, predators will remain in the military, which results in the perception that sexual assault is tolerated in this culture. That destroys morale and it destroys lives. If an enemy tried to sow that kind of discord among our military, we wouldn't tolerate it, but we are doing it to ourselves.

The men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line deserve better, and our military readiness obviously demands it.

Taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our forces.

I know some Senators will be nervous about the fact that the military is lobbying against this legislation. I have the greatest respect for our military leaders, but Congress has given the military leadership more than enough time to fix this current system. We can't wait any longer. We should not be intimidated by people coming to the Hill because of their stars and ribbons. They deserve our respect but not deference to their opinion.

We also hear that this measure will affect the ability of commanders to retain ``good order and discipline.'' Our legislation in no way takes away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military infractions. Commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command. But the point here is that sexual assault is a law enforcement matter, not a military one.

If anyone wants official assurances that we are on the right track, we can take confidence in the fact that an advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense supports these reforms. There is an organization appointed by the Secretary of Defense which goes by the acronym DACOWITS--the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services--which voted overwhelmingly in support of each and every one of the components of the Gillibrand bill.

DACOWITS was created back in 1951 under Defense Secretary Marshall. The committee is composed of civilian and retired military women and men appointed by the Secretary to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, and well-being of our highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces. Historically, the recommendations by DACOWITS have been instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to women in the military. This isn't an outside advocacy group or ad hoc panel; it is a longstanding advisory committee handpicked by the Secretary of Defense, and it supports the substance of this legislation.

It is easier to support incremental reform. In fact, it is also prudent to try small reforms before making bigger changes. I understand why some Senators are nervous about a total overhaul of the military justice system. It isn't something I approach lightly. However, we have waited for years as various initiatives to tackle this problem have been tried.

When we are talking about something as serious and life-altering as sexual assault, we cannot afford to wait any longer than we already have. The time has come to act decisively to change the military culture. We need a clean break from the system where sexual assault isn't reported because of a perception that justice won't be done. Our men and women serving this country deserve nothing less, and they deserve it now. They shouldn't have to wait any longer for justice.

For those reluctant to take this step, I would say that if the more modest reforms proposed by others prove insufficient and we have to come back and enact our reforms at a later time, how will you justify your vote today?

Now is the time for bold action, and I urge my colleagues to join in the effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, similar to my Republican leader, I come to the floor to share my concerns about Mr. Adegbile's nomination, and I will explain my voting no today.

I begin by saying I believe the nominee possesses high moral character and personal integrity. I have met him. I am also aware he has been working on the chairman's staff of the Judiciary Committee for the last few months. Unfortunately, I have reached the conclusion that this nominee isn't the right pick to lead the Civil Rights Division.

First of all, it is no secret that I believe the last individual to lead this office, the current Secretary of Labor, was very political and extremely committed to a host of political causes. Of course, I don't expect President Obama to nominate conservatives to his political appointments, but as we all know, these are very important and powerful jobs. The individual who holds them wields a tremendous amount of power on behalf of the Department of Justice.

I expect the President's nominees to be liberal, maybe even very liberal, and in the vast majority of cases the President is entitled to have people of his own choosing serving in these important positions, but the Senate must provide its advice and consent, which is what we are doing today.

In my view the President's nominees can't be so committed to political causes and so devoted to political ideology that it clouds his or her judgment. This is particularly important here, given that this office, under the leadership of the last Assistant Attorney General, was marked by controversy, and those controversies, in my view, were directly linked to that individual's deep commitment to a host of liberal causes, regardless of how well held they were. At the end of the day I believe it clouded his judgment.

With that brief bit of background, I would first note there is bipartisan opposition to this nomination. As I will discuss in a few minutes, there is also widespread opposition from the law enforcement community.

Seth Williams, a Democrat and Philadelphia's district attorney, opposes this nomination. Many of the largest national law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations, vigorously oppose this nomination as well. This opposition is based upon the nominee's record--and the nominee's record, in my view, demonstrates that the nominee has a long history of advocating legal positions far outside the mainstream. I believe it is a record which demonstrates he is simply too deeply committed to these causes to be an effective and fair leader of this very important Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

I am not going to mention every aspect of the nominee's record I find troubling but a few will be mentioned.

His record on First Amendment issues should give us all pause. For example, in the Hosanna-Tabor case before the Supreme Court, the nominee advocated for a position which would have infringed on the free-exercise rights of religious organizations. Specifically, he argued that a church didn't have the right to freely hire or fire individuals who were responsible for conveying the church's message and carrying out its religious mission. This is at the core of what religious freedom means under our Constitution. The nominee's view was a dramatic departure from established First Amendment jurisprudence. In fact, it was so outside the mainstream that the Supreme Court unanimously rejected it 9 to 0.

Likewise, the nominee's views on the Second Amendment to our Federal Constitution are out of step with the law. In Heller he argued, ``The Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms for purely private purposes.'' He also argued that ``the right protected by the Second Amendment are ones that exist only in the context of a lawfully organized militia.''

The Supreme Court, of course, rejected that view, as we all know, and the Supreme Court's decision very much strengthened the right of individuals to bear arms.

I have also been disappointed by the answers the nominee provided to a number of my questions. For example, I asked whether he believed voter-ID requirements--which have been upheld by the Supreme Court in the Crawford case--are the modern-day equivalent of a poll tax. I asked this question for several reasons.

First of all, according to press reports, this nominee said as much in 2005 during a discussion in Georgia regarding voter-ID laws. According to press reports, he called voter-ID cards ``a modern poll tax.'' But the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter-ID law as constitutional in the Crawford case in 2008.

So, if the nominee continues to believe that voter-ID laws are the modern-day equivalent of a poll tax and is firmly committed to that principle, I am concerned--we all ought to be concerned--that he would look for creative ways to undermine and challenge those laws, notwithstanding the Crawford case upholding Indiana's voter-ID law.

It goes without saying, of course, a significant part of this job is the enforcement of voting-rights laws, and that enforcement power should be entrusted only to someone we are confident will apply the law in an evenhanded way and, obviously, uphold what the Supreme Court has already said was constitutional.

I have also repeatedly asked the nominee whether, if confirmed, he would commit to implementing the recommendations made by the Department of Justice's Inspector General regarding the hiring process in the Civil Rights Division. The IG's report exposed a hiring process in that division which was structured in a way that systematically screened out conservative applicants. So, evidently, only one point of view is welcomed in that division. But the nominee will not commit to implementing the recommendations the IG's report has put out which addressed those issues so the office has the benefit of an ideologically diverse group of lawyers. This concerns me, and it ought to concern my colleagues. Again, this is a division in the Department of Justice which needs a clean break from the political partisanship which plagued the office under the last Assistant Attorney General.

Finally, I wish to address the nominee's involvement with and representation of Mumia Abu-Jamal. To understand why the nominee's involvement in this case is so concerning to many of us, a bit of history is in order.

Mr. Abu-Jamal is this country's most notorious cop-killer. The facts of the Abu-Jamal case are well known and cannot be seriously disputed.

Back in December of 1981 Abu-Jamal--then known as Wesley Cook--gunned down Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal first shot Officer Faulkner in the back and then several more times in his chest at close range. As Officer Faulkner lay dying in the street, Abu-Jamal stood over him and shot him in the face. At the hospital a short while later, Abu-Jamal actually boasted he had shot a police officer and said he hoped the officer would die. Ballistics evidence proved Officer Faulkner had been shot with a .38-caliber revolver registered to Abu- Jamal and found at the scene, along with spent shell casings.

No serious observer of this case can question the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Based on the evidence, he was tried. A jury-- including white and African-American jurors--convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Nonetheless, over the course of the next 25 years, opponents of capital punishment and other critics of our justice system have elevated Mr. Abu-Jamal to celebrity status. Those critics have charged that the conviction was tainted by racial discrimination. They slandered police officers and prosecutors and they have leveled accusations of police abuse. They have even organized rallies which portrayed this murderer as the victim.

Amazingly, Mr. Abu-Jamal's campaign has been somewhat successful. He has actually convinced a lot of people he is a political prisoner--if you can imagine that--and his fame isn't confined to the borders of this country. The French went so far as to name a street after him in the suburbs of Paris. In fact, it became such a high-profile issue that in 2006 the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan resolution 368 to 31 condemning the murder of Officer Faulkner and urging the French town to change the name of its street.

I must say the disgust with Mr. Abu-Jamal's celebrity status isn't defined by partisanship. In fact, five of today's Senate Democrats were in the House of Representatives in 2006 when that resolution was passed. Four of those five voted in favor of that resolution, rejecting the political celebrity of a murderer.

In short, this case is about much more than hyper-technical legal challenges to the imposition of the death penalty. It has become, quite plainly, a cause. So it is with that background that I would like to discuss the nominee's involvement in that matter.

In 2009, Mr. Adegbile was Director of Litigation for the NAACP's legal defense fund, and it was in that role that he worked as an advocate on Abu-Jamal's behalf. The nominee and the legal defense fund first got involved when they volunteered as an amicus and then later as lead counsel for Abu-Jamal's post-conviction proceedings.

In this first phase, the legal defense fund alleged that Philadelphia prosecutors discriminated against African-American jurors in the jury- selection process during the trial. After the Third Circuit rejected that argument, the nominee submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to take the case and hear the same arguments. The Court declined to hear that case.

After this effort failed, in 2011 the legal defense fund signed on as Abu-Jamal's lead counsel for his post-conviction challenges. It was at this point the nominee again challenged the conviction in the Third Circuit but this time under a different theory.

The nominee argued that the jury instructions were constitutionally infirm. The Third Circuit agreed, and the Supreme Court refused to hear further argument.

Now, keep in mind that Abu-Jamal never ran the risk of lacking adequate legal counsel. Highly motivated attorneys, highly motivated law professors, and legions of activists have represented him for years. They have filed literally hundreds of motions and briefs on his behalf. So this isn't a case of the nominee and the legal defense fund intervening to vindicate the rights of an indigent defendant who has been denied due process, nor is this a case of a lawyer stepping in to defend an unpopular client who couldn't otherwise find a lawyer. Abu- Jamal has enjoyed the zealous representation of some of the country's best lawyers for almost three decades.

In short, this is not John Adams defending the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. That is not what is happening. The first attempt to challenge the conviction was unsuccessful, so the nominee and the legal defense fund redoubled their efforts and mounted a second challenge under a different theory. This was a cause in search of a legal justification.

We know this, of course, because the statements and press releases that the legal defense fund made at the time confirmed the understanding that this was a cause.

The nominee's colleagues and co-counsels explained the legal defense fund's motivations for getting involved in this case at a rally for Abu-Jamal in 2011. A lawyer with the legal defense fund said:

There is no question in the mind of anyone at the legal

defense fund that the justice system has completely and

utterly failed Mumia Abu-Jamal, and in our view, that has

everything to do with race, and that is why the legal defense

fund is in this case.

In fact, when the legal defense fund signed on as lead counsel in 2011, their press release declared:

Abu-Jamal's conviction and death sentence are relics of a

time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial

discrimination.

Again, this is, in fact, a cause. It was a cause premised on the notion that this country's most notorious cop killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal, was a victim rather than a murderer, and the police officers and prosecutors and the entire judicial system were to blame, not the person who did the killing.

At bottom, this is why the law-enforcement community is so staunchly opposed to this nomination. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police calls this nomination a ``thumb in the eye of our Nation's law enforcement officers.''

That is why Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams wrote this in his letter of opposition:

Despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt, his lawyers

have consistently attempted to turn reality on its head,

arguing that Abu-Jamal was framed, and that it was he, rather

than Officer Faulkner, who was the victim of racism.

District Attorney Williams went on to say:

Aside from being patently false, moreover, these claims are

personally insulting to me. As an African-American, I know

all too well the grievous consequences of racial

discrimination and prejudice. I also know that Abu-Jamal was

convicted and sentenced because of the evidence, not because

of his race.

Finally, that is why Maureen Faulkner, whose husband was murdered by Abu-Jamal, wrote two letters to the Judiciary Committee, and why she wrote this:

Officers who knew Danny and who, like him, put their lives

on the line every day, must now witness Adegbile, a man proud

to have chosen to aid the murderer of their friend, singled

out for honors and high office by the Government of the

United States. It is an abomination to now reward Adegbile as

if he had done something wonderful.

So to my colleagues and to the President of this body, for the reasons I have outlined here, I cannot support this nomination. I don't believe he is the right nominee to lead this office at this time. I will oppose this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in quorum calls this morning be divided equally between the two sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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. 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.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

I yield back my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

I yield back our time.

Cloture Motion

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. 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. 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.

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.