mr. grassley: mr. president, webster's dictionary defines the word "success" as the correct or desired result of an intent." i want to discuss the definition of the word "success" as we debate the affordable care act. on the day the bill was signed into law president obama said the following -- quote -- "today we're affirming that essential truth, a truth every generation is called to discover for itself, that we're not a nation that scales back its aspirations." end of quote. such grand words for where we are today on that piece of legislation. today the success of the law that now bears his name obamacare is defined in much more meager terms. today success is that when the folks at health and human services got up this morning, obamacare had not shut down. and when the folks at h.h.s. go to sleep at night, their day will have been a success if obamacare did not have to shut down. think of all that. think of all that we've been through to this point after four years. the fight over the bill and the ex

mr. grassley: plap? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. grass dpras wmr. grassley: we da chance to debate the change in rules, and we should have had, so i'm going to speak now on some things that i think should have been said before we voted, not that it would have changed the outcome but because we ought know what we're doing before we vote rather than afterwards. so i'll spend a few minutes discussing what the majority leader called -- just did on the so-called nuclear option. unfortunately, this wasn't a new threat. over the last several years, every time the minority leader has chosen to exercise his rights under the senate rules, the majority has threatened to change the rules. in fact, this is the third time in just the last year or so that the majority leader has said that he didn't get -- if he didn't get his way on nominations, he'd change the rules. ironically, that's about as many judicial nominees as our side has stopped through a filibuster. three or so. prior to the recent attempt by the president to simultaneously add three judges to the d.

thank you, mr. president. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the snrr iowa. mr. grassley: if you like your health plan, you can keep it. it is a nice sound bite, isn't it? but it's also not true. my constituents have learned that the very hard way. like this one from perry, eye ia who wrote, "my husband and i are farmers. for nine years now we have bought our own possments we recently received a letter that our ambulance going away and effective january 1, 2014, we will be updated to comply with the mandates of obamacare. we did not get to keep our current policy. we did not get to keep our lower rates. i now have to payer to coverage that i do not want and probably will never use. we're the small business owners that are trying to live the american dream. i do not believe in large government that wants to run my life." end of quote. this failed promise is hitting home. but, more importantly, when the president promises something and doesn't keep that promise, it goes way beyond a promise to hurt an individual; it goes to the lack of credibility of all government

mr. grassley: plap? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. grass dpras wmr. grassley: we da chance to debate the change in rules, and we should have had, so i'm going to speak now on some things that i think should have been said before we voted, not that it would have changed the outcome but because we ought know what we're doing before we vote rather than afterwards. so i'll spend a few minutes discussing what the majority leader called -- just did on the so-called nuclear option. unfortunately, this wasn't a new threat. over the last several years, every time the minority leader has chosen to exercise his rights under the senate rules, the majority has threatened to change the rules. in fact, this is the third time in just the last year or so that the majority leader has said that he didn't get -- if he didn't get his way on nominations, he'd change the rules. ironically, that's about as many judicial nominees as our side has stopped through a filibuster. three or so. prior to the recent attempt by the president to simultaneously add three judges to the d.

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 236, the drug compounding legislation. the president pro tempore: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3204, a an act to amend the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act with respect to human drug compounding and drug supply chain security, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following leader remarks, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 4:30 this dwraafternoon. at 4:30, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of cornelia pillard. at 5:30 there will be a cloture vote on the pillard nomination. if cloture is not invoked, there will be a second roll call vote on the motion to proceed to the drug compounding bill. i'm told that s. 1661 is due for a second reading. the president pro tempore: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: a bill to require the secretary of state to offer r

mr. grassley: i'm going to vote not to bring up the nomination of judge wilkins. i have some concerns about his record but i'm not going to focus on those concerns today because there's a lot bigger issues that we're dealing with. i have said it before and i'll say it again, by the standard the democrats established in the year 2006, we shouldn't confirm any more judges to the d.c. circuit, especially when those additional judges cost approximately $1 million per year, per judge. the fact of the matter is that this d.c. circuit that they want to make three more appointments to -- and this will be the third of these appointments we've dealt with -- that that circuit is underworked. the statistics makes i make it abundantly clear, but i'm not going to go through them all again, as i have in the past. i will mention a couple of brief points regarding the caseload. d.c. circuit ranks last, for instance, in both the number of appeals filed and the appeals terminated. these are the cases coming to the court and going out. not only does d.c. rank last but it isn't even c

mr. cardin: mr. president, first let me thank senator gillibrand for her leadership on this issue of sexual assaults in our military. i support her amendment. i believe we need to look at a new way to deal with this issue so there's not only confidence within the military but within our country that sexual assault will not be tolerated in our military and that we have an effective way to deal with it. i want to thank senator gillibrand. it is quite clear as senator reed said, without her leadership we would not be having these discussions on the floor of the united states senate today and i applaud her for that. madam president, if i could ask that the remainder of my comments be separated in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, we are now dealing with the ndaa bill, the national defense authorization act. it's our opportunity as a senate to weigh in on one of the primary roles of government, the security of our country, how we can support our

. >> senator grassley. >> thank you mr. samuels for being here and thank you mr. chairman. we have 25% of the federal prisons are foreign citizens. anyone concerned about reducing prison costs should make lowering that number a priority. what can your agency do the bureau do more effectively to use the international prisoner program to make more of the foreign citizens serve their sentences than their home countries rather than at u.s. taxpayer experience? >> all right. thank you senator for this question. 25% of the population comprises nine u.s. citizens. that number equates to 55000 criminal aliens in our population. we have a treaty transfer program that we are actively using, and there is room to ensure that we are increasing the numbers as far as the participant for the program. we are reaching out throughout the bureau to ensure the staff are explaning this program in its entirety to the inmates who would benefit from being removed from within the bureau prison and given an opportunity to serve their time through the agreements that we have with the international com

>> thank you, mr. chairman. and to senator flake, i'm real pleased to be here today. i'd like to thank you also for inviting me to testify. i want to thank you for holding this hearing. and mr. chairman, i want to thank you for your leadership that you bring to the table on transparency to both collection programs run by the nsa. this is a strong bill rooted in the belief that nevadaens, minnesotans and all americans should be provided access to reports that explain the personal communication records that the government has collected and how many american. s have had their information caught up in that collection. by now most people are aware of the collection practices by the federal government that are authorized by sections of the patriot act and sections of the fisa amendments act. i'm confident the full judiciary committee will have a robust debate on the collection practices and whether or not this program should continue. i believe that the collection program mostly authorized under section 215 of the patriot act should come to an end. subsequently, i agreed to

now, mr. johnson right now in the united states it takes more information to get a drivers license or open a u.s. bank account than to form a u.s. corporation. and what i'm asking you is, whether or not in light of the president's national action plan calling for legislation that requires states to request beneficial ownership information and impact on our homeland security that, the negative impact, that exists when we don't have that information and law enforcement doesn't have it, will you support the 11-grassley incorporation bill, senate bill 1465? >> i could just interject, i love carl levin. mr. levin, the legislation is championing opposed by most of the states. i would urge you to be careful in your response. >> i would be urge you to be careful in your response as well. [laughter] >> president of the united states wants beneficial ownership listed. only opposition we have is from a whole bunch of secretaries of state. but at any rate, we won't debate that here. i just would ask you t

quorum call: mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask consent to lift the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president, would i be in order to speak about judges we're going to vote on? the presiding officer: you would be in order. mr. grassley: okay. i rise in support of the nominations of debra m. brown to be u.s. district judge, northern district mississippi, and gregory howard woods to be u.s. district judge for the southern district new york. before we vote on these nominations, i want to inform my fellow senators and the american people, and inform them again on the excellent progress that we made on nominations and fair treatment of president obama's nominees and confirming the nominees of the president. with these confirmations today, the senate will have confirmed 38 lower court article 3 judicial nominees this year, despite what i frequently hear that this president is being treated differently than president bush, president obama is clearly ahead of where president bush was at

mr. president. mr. levin: i have a unanimous consent request. i would ask unanimous consent that letters from secretary hagel, secretary kerry, attorney general and the -- and director clapper be put in the record at this point. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, the question occurs on the ayotte amendment number 2255. mr. levin: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: on this society, the yeas a 43, the nays are 55. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed -- is not agreed to. is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the levin-mccain amendment 2175. the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from michigan. mr. levin: madam president -- the presiding officer: th

mr. president with a piece of legislation that haas hot-lined -- that means that both sides have sent it around to every single office -- and all but one senator has agreed that we can pass it by unanimous consent. now, the senator has that right, has that right, and just as i have that right or the senator from west virginia or the senator from iowa has that right. and sometimes we exercise that right. but later this afternoon, we're going to be having a cloture volvote, a vote to move to this bill, and that cloture vote is going to succeed. there will be sufficient number of republican votes and a sufficient number of democrat votes to say, we're ready to deal with this. and why are we ready to deal with this? because commissioner hamburg of the food and drug administration told us at our hearing what would happen if we don't. she said this -- quote -- "we have a collective opportunity and responsibility to help prevent further tragedies. if we fail to act," the f.d.a. commissioner said