mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: with the senator withhold his request? mr. peters: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i want to at this time respond to senator reid's juvenile attacks on my judiciary committee's investigations and to senator reid's frequent crying about my previous state department holds. over the past several months, senator reid has been obsessed with mentioning holds on nominees, holds which i no longer have. holds are often necessary to force the executive branch to comply with congressional investigations. if you want proof of that, just ask the obama administration. in a federal court filing during the "fast and furious" very, the obama administration argued that the court should not even consider that particular case. the justice department said courts should not enforce subpoenas at all. instead, the justice department reasoned that congress should use other powers to get documents. here's exactly what that government's brief said. quote -- "among other powers, congress can withhold funds f

mr. grassley: we have a unique opportunity for the american people to have a voice in the direction of the supreme court. the american people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this very important matter. our side, meaning the republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next president the type of person that should be on the supreme court. as i've stated previously, this is a reasonable approach. it is a fair approach and it is a historical approach. one echoed by then-chairman biden, senator schumer and other senators. and also, i might say, it was something that was practiced during president johnson's administration, lyndon baines johnson, and it was also something that happened during the eisenhower administration. now, the other side, meaning the democratic side, has been talking a great deal about the so-called pressure campaign to try to get members to change their position. it is no secret that the white house strategy is to put pressure on this chairman of the judiciary c

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today the senate is poised to pass the defend trade secrets act, a bill that offers practical and necessary solutions to a growing problem. i've recently had the opportunity to speak about a number of bipartisan bills that have passed out of the judiciary committee and that have been taken up here on the senate floor. that is a testament to the fact that the judiciary committee is working hard through an open process to find thoughtful solutions to problems facing our country. in fact, we processed 24 bills out of the judiciary committee, all of them bipartisan. of these, 16 have passed the senate and six have been signed into you a by the president. while any member of this body can tell you that isn't always ease sigh to find legislative agreement, the american people deserve hardworking representatives in washington who strive to get things accomplished. and the record of the judiciary committee shows that we have chosen to overcome gridlock and dysfunction to pass legisla

mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president, i'm here to join senator merkley in offering amendment 3812 regarding funding for wind energy research. this is a straightforward amendment. it simply restores funding for wind energy research to a level provided for just last year, $95.4 million. the underlying bill provides $80 million. so the merkley-grassley amendment will increase funding by just $15.4 million. these additional funds will come from within the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, so you can see there is no cost to this amendment from the -- under the bottom line of the bill. it does not raise overall spending levels. it simply redirects, simply redirects $15 million from other renewable and efficiency programs to wind energy research. this funding will allow the department of energy to continue the advancement of wind technologies and innovations. these advances have greatly increased the competitiveness of wind and facilitated rap

mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i have one unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it's been approved by the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to and that the requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today i want to pay tribute to sarah root, a young woman from iowa who just graduated from college with perfect grades. she was devoted to her family and friends, and had a bright future, but she was taken from this world too soon. this is a picture of sarah. i want to expriest my sympathies to sarah's parents -- express my sympathies to sarah's parents and acknowledge michele root, sarah's mother who is watching us today. she will be testifying tomorrow before the house committee on the judiciary at a hearing that's titled -- quote -- "the real victims of a reckless and lawless immigration policy, families and survivors

mr. grassley: we have a unique opportunity for the american people to have a voice in the direction of thereme court. the american people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this very important matter. our side, meaning the republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next president the type of person that should be on the supreme court. as i've

mr. grassley: thank you. i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: before i turn to my prepared remarks i'd note that the minority leader came to the floor this morning to complain once again that the senate is following the bidden rules on the supreme court vacancy. as i have said before, there is not much that makes a minority leader more mad than when his side is forced to play by its own rules. in other words from my point of view you can't have one set of rules when you have a republican president another set of rules when you have a democrat president. so i'm not going to dwell on his daily message. most of us around here have grown used to it and don't pay him much mind especially given his record of leading a senate where even some members of his own party were never allowed to offer a single amendment. the minority leader voted 25 times to filibuster judicial nominees including a supreme court justice and at the time argued there is nothing in the constitution requiring the senate to vo

mr. grassley: we have a unique opportunity for the american people to have a voice in the direction of the supreme court. the american people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this very important matter. our side, meaning the republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next president the type of person that should be on the supreme court. as i've stated previously, this is a reasonable approach. it is a fair approach and it is a historical approach. one echoed by then-chairman biden, senator schumer and other senators. and also, i might say, it was something that was practiced during president johnson's administration, lyndon baines johnson, and it was also something that happened during the eisenhower administration. now, the other side, meaning the democratic side, has been talking a great deal about the so-called pressure campaign to try to get members to change their position. it is no secret that the white house strategy is to put pressure on this chairman of the judiciary c

mr. grassley: we have a unique opportunity for the american people to have a voice in the direction of thereme court. the american people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this very important matter. our side, meaning the republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next president the type of person that should be on the supreme court. as i've stated previously, this is a reasonable approach. it is a fair approach and it is a historical approach. one echoed by then-chairman biden, senator schumer and other senators. and also, i might say, it was something that was practiced during president johnson's administration, lyndon baines johnson, and it was also something that happened during the eisenhower administration. now, the other side, meaning the democratic side, has been talking a great deal about the so-called pressure campaign to try to get members to change their position. it is no secret that the white house strategy is to put pressure on this chairman of the judiciary commi

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: the united states is one of the most dynamic and innovative countries in the world. our nation's success in areas such as agriculture, manufacturing, computer technology, and medicine can be traced in large measure to our respect for and protection of intellectual property. every year on this day, april 26, we have the opportunity to recognize the important role of intellectual property rights in the fabric of our society when we celebrate world intellectual property day. nearly 230 years ago our founding fathers recognized the importance of intellectual property and made provisions for its promotion and protection in our constitution. article 1, section 8, clause 8, empowers congress to -- quote -- "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." since that time and stemming from these values, intellectual property has played a vital role in our econo

mr. grassley's logic, if that is the right word, is to grassley's logic, if that was the right word, is thatonservative decisions are apolitical but liberal ones are partisan. reflectedf votes of political considerations, not legal ones, and the senator did not say which votes he was talking about, they probably included ones that challenge the affordable care act, so that happening on the floor. if you missed the beginning, go to our website. front page of "the washington journal," it has gained 15% since the 20 16th low. andprices have recovered the federal reserve has signaled a process approach to raising interest rates, and there is also this ahead of the new york primary today, let me tell you where the delegate count stands because trump has 740 four, ted cruz with 500 59, mr. kasich has 144. trump is likely to add to the lead today with polls showing him opposed to grab most of the delegates at stake in new york. host: analysts say if he keeps up winning, he will be at the which delegates humans are important. take a look at the delegates awarded in new york for democrats. this is "t

mr. grassley: a significant number of americans believe that the supreme court is highly politicized. its approval rating has fallen over the years. not surprising, its approval rating has dropped most drastically in recent years following the president's appointment of justices justices sotomayor and kagan. there are four justices who vote in a liberal way effectively every case that the public follows. there are two justices who stick to the constitutional text and who vote in a consistently conservative way. one justice votes mostly, but not always, in a conservative way and one justice votes sometimes with the conservatives and sometimes with the liberals. all of the liberals were appointed by democrats. the conservatives and swing justices were appointed by republican president. but in a speech shortly before justice scalia's death, chief justice roberts maintained that the public wrongly thinks that justices view themselves as republicans or as democrats. of course it's irrelevant to the public how the justices view themselves. what's troubling is that a large segment of the pop

mr. wilshusen: yes, sir. sen. grassley: what would be the cost of the person or persons who can administer the software configurations that control access to mainframe programs? mr. wilshusen: there really should not be much of any cost associated with that. it is one of the responsibilities the iressa -- irs should make to ensure that those individuals have been designated, and make the appropriate steps to ensure access as appropriate, to those mainframes. sen. grassley: i would like to ask commissioner koskinen, then, on findings that appear over and over about cyber security at your agency. i took special note of four areas mentioning passwords set to expire every 90 days, two monthly review of lists who should have access to computer centers, three, timely security awareness training for contractors, and fourthly, software administrators on mainframe programs. would you agree that these are low-cost changes that could improve cyber security, and if it is, why haven't they been done? comm. koskinen: they are low-cost.

mr. speaker. regarding senator grassley's comments. and that would be senator grassley made some strong positions on the floor of the senate a little over a week ago and they were published in "politico," as i recall. it would be this. the supreme court has weighed in on this nomination, and that would be chief justice roberts has intervened and made comments in this way. that before scalia had passed away argued that confirmation process is not functioning very well. that it's gotten too political. and i was very proud of senator grassley when he stepped up on the floor of the senate and rebutted that argument and he made the case that, no, the confirmation process in the united states senate has gotten political precisely because the court itself is making political decisions rather than decisions based upon the law and the supreme law of the land, the stuse constitution. so when you see -- supreme law of the land, the constitution. so when you see that, that means the confirmation process is itself political and when i sit before th

casey and purdue and grassley as well as chairman corker and ranking member carden of the senate foreign relations committee whose leadership was instrumental to this measure's passage by mr. engel in the senate. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of this legislation and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. engel: first of all, i want to thank our chairman, ed royce, for his leadership on the foreign affairs committee and pushing this bill ahead. i don't want to underestimate how important he has been in making sure that this bill reaches the floor. i also want to thank congressman chris smith for joining me as lead republican co-sponsor on this measure and also our senate colleagues for their work to help get us to this point. this legislation is another great example of a foreign affairs committee working across the aisle to get results. because we believe again that foreign policy should be bipartisan, partisanship should stop at the withouter's edge. when the

grassley: thank you, senator. senator harper? sen. carper: i want to associate myself with the comments of senator wyden earlier. the streamlined critical pay program. mr. chairman, you mentioned in by personnts that legislation was introduced. do you think it is critical that we follow through on that? mr. koskinenar, and others come to us to say, please do this. often times, we point the finger at them and say, you know, you screwed up here and there. but we have a responsibility to do, and one of the things we can do to help out is provide for the reestablishment of the streamlined critical pay program. you will hear a lot from me in the months to come. we need to do our job. about that lately. we need to do our job. this is another where we need to do our job. i want to come back to this other point that senator wyden raised. minimum standards for paid tax preparers. i know you folks have looked at this before. just give us a minute or so on what we should be doing in this regard. we made a recommendation several years ago that the irs institute regulations for paid tax preparers, which they did do. those regulations were overturned by the court, b

question i got, would you, senator grassley, be willing to go along with two or three republicans to have a bipartisan bill with obamacare at that point, and i said, mresident, the answer is no because what do you think we have been working on for nine months? we have been working trying to get a broad bipartisan agreement. it's something like 70-75 votes that you're trying to get if you really want to change social policy and have it stick. we didn't abandon this until 2009, but my idea is that probably it was that meeting at the white house early august, 2009, where this president decided we don't want to mess around with those republicans any more, we have got 60 votes, we're going to move ahead. well, that happened then in that september. the fact is we were given that deadline and we were shoved out of the room, so when we didn't bow to this pressure and agree to the democrat demands, that's -- it ended up being a partisan document, and that's why it still doesn't have majority support of the american people. i want the minority leader to know that's what happened, not what he described a couple of weeks ago. eventually, as we all know, the form

mrs. clinton anad her r lawyerers what he has tol the fbi and theyey do not want her to know that bore they interre her. that particular item tt, at you're just talkg about. senator chuck grassleyd friday, he the chair of the senate judiciary committee a you well know. heres the quote, youav interpt this. if there is political interferce i assume somebody in the fbi is s goin leak thesreports and it's either going to havan effect politiy leak to prosecution if there's e enough evidence. . he's s saying openly that the fi will lk it. ashley: in fairness to senatato grassley, he says later on i i not encouraging such a leaeak because itould be a crcrime, but humans are humans. here is what he's sayingng and anybodody who knows the law and has looked a at the evidence ca say this, , the evidence susufficient to obtain an indictment is overwhelming. . the publicly known evidence,e, never mind what the fbi knowows the publicly knonown evidence t obtain a conviction is overwhelming. soso if the j justice departmen does not present thiss to a grand jury there w will be such an outcry fueled by likekely leaks ofof the fbi that the political outcome would b be as ifif mrs. clinton was i

mr. grassley: i come to the floor today to tell a story about how a distinguished naval career was ruined by abuse of suspected whistle-blowers. the end result is a mixed bag of good and bad. in doing oversight of the defense department, whistle-blower cases, i have learned a difficult lesson. as hard as we may try, whistle-blower cases rarely have good outcomes. now, true, a wrong may be made right. a measure of justice may have been meted out, but the victims, the whistle-blowers have been left out in the cold. they may never get the remedies they seek and deserve. at the center of this case is an honored naval officer, rear admiral brian l.losey. he can only blame himself for what happened. no matter how you cut it, though, the destruction of a distinguished military career, especially one devoted to hazardous duty and special operations is very unfortunate, and very sad as well. yet, that's accountability's harsh reality. this admiral broke the law and must now pay the price. in the end, under pressure from several quarters, secretary of navy ray mabus was forced to deny admiral losey

grassley said a few years ago. let's get the job done. from the supreme court down to the district courts, let's get the job done in our nation's judiciary. mr. president, i'd like this short statement i'm going to make now appear at a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: last thursday a gallup survey revealed more good news about the shrinking rate of insured americans. 90% much adults have health insurance. obamacare has been especially helpful to working americans. for adults making less than $36,000 a year, the uninsured rate has been cut by one-third. 92% of americans making between $36,000 and $90,000 a year now have health insurance. every day more and more people who were previously without health insurance are now covered. that's especially true across the racial and ethnic lines where the uninsured rate is plummeting. according to the survey -- and i quote -- "across key subgroups, blacks and hispanics experienced the largest declines in their uninsured rates since the fourth quarter of 2013." the numbers bear that out. the uninsured rate for african-americans dropped by more than 50%. t