mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i ask for a unanimous consent request, i see my colleague from arkansas is on the floor. he is right so many times, i'm sorry that we disagree on this issue, and i don't suppose you're going to make me wrong on that point, but i do want to respect your right. you are such a good legislator. so i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 649, h.r. 5963. i further ask that the bill consider -- be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. cotton: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: reserving the right to object, i share mutual disdain with the senator from iowa. i hate to find myself on the opposite side of an issue with him. we found ourselves on this issue in february, nine months ago. there are many fine points of the legislation as the chairman of the judiciary c

mr. grassley. he minced no words. let's look at the quote. your disclosure to mr.omey did not go far enough. unfortunately your letter failed to give congress and the american people enough context to evaluate the significance or full meaning of this development. without additional context, your disclosure is not fair to congress, the american people, or secretary clinton. you have dealt with the executive branch and administrative before. is this an fbi out of control? daniel: i do not know, but i agree with senator grassley. you should at least give some rationale or reason about why you are doing it. if this has something to do with a serious national security breach he should have said that. otherwise it is made language, creates uncertainty, and gives donald trump reason to go after hillary clinton without any specifics, and i think that is wrong. tom: as a congressman and democrat, i believe there are four left in kansas, maybe five. what is the matter with kansas in this sense, what is the matter with this nation in getting us back to a more even distributio

senator grassley given a lawmaker in washington for 40 years. mrs. judge user sixers in the iowa senate, eight years as he accepted it, for use at the state's lieutenant governor. senator grassley, how do you avoid it back and see our complacency which a position in washington, d.c. after four decades in the nation's capital? >> washington is an island surrounded by reality. get out of there. i come home every weekend. for 36 years in a row i've gone to every county to have a least one meeting in every county. polk county this year, 31 or 32 q&a with constituents in polk county just as one example. it's just not 99 county. keep in touch with people. representing government is a two-way street. i am one half of the process. when she was a state senator she was one half of the process. our constituency the other half. you've got to have dialogue. so i make sure that i'm on top of things by having dialogue with my constituents so i can better represent them in washington, d.c. i think one thing to do with when you're campaigning don't overpromise. and wh

senator grassley: thank you to the sponsors of this debate. to mrs. ant to say, condolences for the loss of your father. ms. judge: thank you, i appreciate that. sen. grassley: every day, my job is to work for iowans. if they do not work for iowans, no one else well. i think in terms of three approaches. number one, jobs like the wind , energy tax credit. export related jobs. pay 15% above the national average. secondly, taxpayers need accountability. so, i got the false claims act passed. that has brought $48 billion back to the treasury. lastly, national security and economic security. because national security is the number one responsibility of the federal government. to keep iowans safe from isis and terrorism. also, economic security. the failed policies of the last eight years of no growth have to be supplemented with progrowth policies. and that is what i have been doing over the last few years, these three things. i will continue them if i am reelected and i would very much appreciate your vote. matt: thank you, senator. now the questions from

mr. mcconnell: i ask don sent the committee reported amendments be withdrawn, the grassley subtiewt amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the grassley title amendment be agreed to and the motions be considered and made on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 559, s. 461. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 559, a bill to provide for alternate financing arrangements and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the committee reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the cornyn substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4419 which was received from the house. t

mrs. judge, the questioned you on the confirmation for judge garland. as consistent as senator grassleyocated for their own to take you back to june of 1992 as your senator, vice president joe biden talked hypothetically about postponing those hearings on any supreme court vacancy should there be one until after the election of that year in november of 1992. even advocacy about judge garland, do you believe the vice president, one of the leaders of your party, was wrong 26 years ago? >> i believe that we now the longest time in the history of this country between a nomination and a hearing. and that is unprecedented. i believe that it is hampering the court your we have a court that is not able to function as it was designed by the constitution. we have disrupted the balance of power. whatever joe biden said in the halls of congress some time, if that is, in fact, is his view, that is not my view. i believe that the duty of the judiciary committee is to have a hearing. and my opponent is refusing to do that. it should be done and i am really tonight troubled with his answer about a lame

respected the role chairman grassley has played in this as we deal with the vacancy that does need to be filled and will be filled. i believe when we have a new president. >> mr. miller, is this the right decision to hold up the nomination hearing? >> originally senator murkowski said the name ought to go forward and then ms. mcconnell got involved and the senate majority leader said you can't do that. senator murkowski lined up on it. i will tell you that right now it is for-4. four justices say the second amendment the second amendment is a collective right. for his faith in individual right. if merrick garland would've got to vote in the president appointed him, your second amendment rights as you know them would be over. i can assure a alaskans onto everything in my power to fight every bit i can't to stop any radical justice it's going to take away your second amendment rights. if i have to stand alone and for a whole week filibustering a judge or justice it's going to take away her second amendment rights come you can bet i will absolutely do that because that's what i'm obligated to do to serve you, satisfy your needs and of course protect individual l