Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last evening I joined many of my Senate colleagues at the White House as the President introduced Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh is one of the most widely respected judges in the country. I heard the President last night refer to him as a judge's judge. He is an outstanding choice to serve as a Justice of the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh is a former law clerk of the Justice he has been nominated to replace, and that is Justice Kennedy. I talked about Justice Kennedy's service on the Supreme Court and to the people of this country in my speech yesterday. Judge Kavanaugh earned both his undergraduate and law degrees from Yale University. He then clerked for judges on the Third and Ninth Circuit before joining the chambers of Justice Kennedy as a law clerk. He served in the Office of the Solicitor General and also the Office of the Independent Counsel. After several years in private practice, Judge Kavanaugh returned to public service, working in the White House Counsel's office and as staff secretary for President George W. Bush. In 2006, he was confirmed to the DC Circuit, where he has served since. He is also a well- regarded law professor at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown. Judge Kavanaugh is a leader not only in the law but throughout his community. As examples, he volunteers at Catholic Charities on a regular basis and coaches both daughters' youth basketball teams. The committee has received a letter from former law clerks of Judge Kavanaugh, people who represent views across the political and ideological spectrum. Many judges describe their former law clerks as adopted family members. In other words, law clerks know their judges best. So I turn to what some of those said through letters they sent to our committee. Judge Kavanaugh's former law clerks write that he is a person with immense ``strength of character, generosity of spirit, intellectual capacity, and unwavering care for his family, friends, colleagues, and us, his law clerks.'' I want to read a longer quote from that letter. He is unfailingly warm and gracious with his colleagues no matter how strongly they disagree about a case, and he is well-liked and respected by judges and lawyers across the ideological spectrum as a result. . . . He always makes time for us, his law clerks. He makes it to every wedding, answers every career question, and gives unflinchingly honest advice. That advice often boils down to the same habits we saw him practice in chambers every day: Shoot straight, be careful and brave, work as hard as you possibly can, and then work a little harder. His judicial record is extraordinary. The Supreme Court has adopted his view of the law in a dozen cases. Judge Kavanaugh's opinions demonstrate profound respect for the Constitution's separation of powers. He understands that it is Congress' job to pass laws, and where he sits, in judicial chambers, it is the role of those people--and he figures it is his role--to faithfully apply those laws as Congress intended. That is why his opinions emphasize that judges must focus on the text and apply laws as written by those of us elected to the Congress, not by unelected and, in turn, largely unaccountable, Federal judges. It is meant that they aren't to be accountable except to the Constitution and the laws of this country. Courts may not rewrite laws to suit their policy preferences. Judge Kavanaugh has a record of judicial independence. He has shown a willingness to rein in executive branch agencies when they abuse or exceed their authority. You don't have to be in Congress very long to understand that it is a daily habit of people in the executive branch of government to go way beyond--or to feel their way, way beyond--what the law allows that person or that program to do. As Judge Kavanaugh has explained in numerous opinions, executive branch agencies may not assume more power than Congress has specifically granted them, and he has emphasized that judges may not surrender their duty to interpret laws to executive branch agencies. Now, that is pretty common sense for anybody who has had eighth grade civics, high school government, or political science classes in college, but it isn't something that all judges agree with. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for Judge Kavanaugh's nomination in the coming weeks. As I noted in my remarks to this body yesterday, liberal outside groups and Democratic leaders decided weeks ago to block whomever the President nominates. They are already pushing feeble arguments to cause needless delays. For example, some Democratic leaders and Democratic Members of the Senate who aren't leaders say that we shouldn't confirm a nominee nominated during a midterm election year. Where did they get that idea? The Senate has never operated the way they would suggest. Sitting Justices Breyer and Kagan--prominent examples that I can freely give to you but also numerous of their predecessors--were nominated and confirmed in midterm election years. Where do my colleagues get that idea, that just because this is a midterm election year, you can't take up these nominations? It happens that Kagan was approved in August 2010, as an example. The American people see this argument for what it is--obstruction, pure and simple. After all, Democratic leaders announced that they will oppose anyone nominated by President Trump--anyone. In fact, some Democratic Senators announced their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh mere minutes after the President nominated him. It is clear that a number of my Democratic colleagues have chosen the path of obstruction and resistance, not, as the Constitution offers, every Senator giving advice and consent. We have a highly qualified nominee who has authored numerous influential judicial opinions. I stated how they have been respected even when those same cases got to the Supreme Court. Leading liberal law professor Akhil Reed Amar endorsed Judge Kavanaugh in the pages of the New York Times. But some of my colleagues can't even bring themselves to at least consider Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. As I mentioned yesterday, liberal outside groups and their allies are trying to convince Senators to ask Judge Kavanaugh his views on specific cases and Supreme Court precedent. I want to emphasize that these questions are inappropriate. In greater detail, I said that yesterday. Justice Ginsburg announced--a famous statement of hers--during her own confirmation hearing that a nominee should offer ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews'' of cases that can potentially come before the Court. Maybe some of my colleagues think, well, if some are going to come in a couple of months after you are on the Court, why can't you give us your views on that? But they might be asking questions about something 10 years down the road, so how legitimate are the views? Are you going to overturn this President, or are you going to rule this particular way in a particular case? We also have Justice Kagan declining to state her views on Roe v. Wade, saying: ``The application of Roe in future cases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the future.'' So you expect a Justice to look at the facts of a case, look at the law, or look at the Constitution, and leave their own personal views out of it, but you expect them to do it independent of anything they said in their hearing before the Judiciary Committee because nothing should be said there that is going to influence something 10 years down the road. I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will likewise decline to comment on his views of particular cases decided by the Supreme Court. I congratulate Judge Kavanaugh on this nomination. I had the opportunity to meet with Judge Kavanaugh earlier today. I know he looks forward to answering questions from my colleagues in the coming weeks. I look forward to hearing from him again when he appears before our Senate Judiciary Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, tonight the President will announce his nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. That announcement is because of a vacancy created by Justice Kennedy's recent retirement. Justice Kennedy left an important legacy of more than three decades on the Supreme Court. I voted for his confirmation 30 years ago. Justice Kennedy demonstrated his deep commitment to our constitutional liberties. It is no surprise that some of his greatest opinions defended free speech and religious liberty. I hope Justice Kennedy's successor carries forward this legacy. I am optimistic that the person the President nominates tonight will be highly qualified and committed to the rule of law. I am optimistic because President Trump already appointed one such Supreme Court Justice: Neil Gorsuch. The President's selection process is the most transparent in history. He issued a list of potential Supreme Court nominees directly to the American people during his 2016 campaign. To my knowledge, no other Presidential candidate has ever done that. The list demonstrated the types of Justices he would appoint to the Bench. The American people voted for President Trump in part because of that list of names and what it reflected and his promise to nominate these types of jurists. Any of the 25 people on the President's list would be an excellent choice and worthy of the Senate's serious consideration, but already we are seeing from liberal outside groups and some of the Democratic leadership a desperate attempt to block the nominee--any nominee--by whatever means necessary. Democratic leaders have pledged to block anyone from the President's list without even knowing who that nominee is and regardless of his or her qualifications. Think about that a while. The President has a list of 25 names, but some Democratic leaders have already said that not one of them is acceptable, zero out of 25 highly respected, highly qualified individuals--not even worthy of this body's consideration. That is an incredible statement by some of the leaders on the other side of the aisle. This preemptive attack on a yet-to-be-named nominee is a preview of the obstacles and calls for needless delays we are sure to see from some of my colleagues. I have already heard several weak arguments made in an attempt to delay the confirmation hearing, but the Democratic leaders have shown their hand. The motive is to block any nominee from the President's list. Whatever reasons for delay, it is clear that their single motivating factor is blocking the nominee selected tonight, whoever he or she is. The first delay tactic I heard was that the Senate shouldn't confirm a nominee during a midterm election, but the Senate has never operated like that. Justice Kagan and Justice Breyer were confirmed in midterm election years, in addition to many Justices who served before them. Democratic leadership and outside groups are so desperate to block this nominee that they are willing to rewrite history to do it. We have a long history of confirming Justices nominated during a midterm election year. We don't have a long history of confirming Justices nominated during a Presidential election year. It has been nearly 80 years since we have done that. Former chairman Joe Biden announced in 1992 that the Senate shouldn't confirm any Justices during a Presidential election year. Senator Schumer said something similar in 2007--the year before a Presidential election. The Biden-Schumer rule pertains only to Presidential elections, not midterm election years. It is important to let the American people decide who should choose a nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy. That is why I waited until after the 2016 Presidential election to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. But the individual who selects nominees--the President of the United States--is not on the ballot in midterm elections. The rule simply doesn't apply during a midterm election, and that is this year. Another losing talking point is that we shouldn't confirm any nominee while Robert Mueller's investigation is ongoing. And who knows when that is going to end. This argument is again inconsistent with the historical precedent. Look at what President Clinton was involved in-- an investigation of that President over Whitewater. At the same time, Justice Breyer was appointed to the Supreme Court--at a time when the independent counsel was doing that investigation. At the time, his documents were under a grand jury subpoena. What other constitutional powers do the proponents of this argument believe that the President should surrender simply because of an investigation? This is obstruction masquerading as silliness. What drives this preemptive obstruction, you might ask. It is liberal outside groups' stated fear that the President's nominee will vote to invalidate the Affordable Care Act or overturn Roe v. Wade. Well, the same five- Justice majority who preserved the Affordable Care Act is still on the Court. Justice Kennedy voted to strike it down. Replacing him with a like-minded Justice would not change the outcome. We hear the same thing about Roe v. Wade every time there is a Supreme Court vacancy. It was a big deal when Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Court 37 years ago. Yet Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. It is pretty clear that Justices have a way of surprising us. Who could have predicted that Justice Scalia would strike down a ban on flag-burning? It is a fool's errand to try to predict how a Justice will rule on some hypothetical future case. This regular uproar about Roe v. Wade shows the difference between how many Democrats and Republicans view the courts. Liberal outside groups and many Democrats have a litmus test. They seem to be very results-oriented and focus on policy outcomes of judicial decisions. They expect--they even demand--their judges to rule in favor of their preferred policies. Liberal outside groups and their allies simply want judges to be politicians hiding under robes. That is why Senate Democrats were so blatant in changing Senate rules so that they could stack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Former Democratic leader Harry Reid made no bones about making sure there were enough DC Circuit judges to protect the Obama administration's policies on regulations. Republicans, on the other hand, want judges who will rule according to the law and leave policymaking to elected representatives, where the Constitution prefers and demands that it be. I don't want judges who decide cases based upon whether the results are liberal or conservative. Judges should rule according to the law, no matter what their views are on policy outcomes. Judge Gorsuch recently said that judges wear ``robes, not capes.'' I agree with that assessment. Liberal outside groups and their allies want judges who will decide cases with liberal policy results. Republicans expect judges to leave their policy aside when deciding a case. That is the fundamental difference that will become crystal clear to the American people during this confirmation debate. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for the nominee in the coming weeks. Exactly when, I don't know, and I shouldn't know at this point. I want to emphasize a few things, though. One, it is inappropriate for Senators to ask the nominee how he or she would rule on certain cases sometime in the near future or 10 years from now. Two, it is inappropriate to ask the nominee about his or her personal views on the merits of Supreme Court precedent. The bottom line is that Senators should not try to extract assurances from nominees on how they will decide particular cases in exchange for a confirmation vote because how do you know down the road--1 year or 2 years or 15 years--what the case might be at that particular time? Justice Ginsburg made it pretty simple for everybody. During her confirmation hearing in the early 1990s, she set the standard, promising, in her words, ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews.'' She said this in a further long quote: It would be wrong for me to say or to preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. This standard was reaffirmed by every Supreme Court nominee since then. For the last 25 or 26 years, the Ginsburg rule has been what is followed by other nominees for the Supreme Court. Justice Kagan said this about Roe v. Wade, following the Ginsburg rule: I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settled law entitled to precedential weight. The application of Roe to future cases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the future. I expect this nominee announced tonight to likewise follow the Ginsburg standard. I will ask the nominee how he or she views the law and a Justice's role on the Bench. I will not presume to know how a nominee will rule on any case that might come before the Court today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now. I certainly will not be basing my vote on whether I think I will agree with the majority of his or her decisions. The press has reported that the President has focused on six or seven potential nominees for this vacancy. Each one is well qualified and would make an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. The nominee will get a full and fair hearing. Under my watch, the Senate Judiciary Committee will never be a rubberstamp. Several recent nominees to lower courts learned that the hard way. The process will be fair and will be transparent, as much as I can make it. That has been my approach during my nearly 38 years in the Senate--and all of those 38 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee-- and I will not change that. The American people must be confident that this Senate has fulfilled its constitutional duty of very independently vetting this nominee before we confirm a Justice to a lifetime appointment on the highest Court in the land. I eagerly await the President's announcement this evening. I look forward to hearing from the nominee when he or she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past few days, the issue of family separation has reached a fever pitch. All you have to do is look at the daily newspapers or cable television, and you know that is true. This is a crisis that has been brewing since the surge of young migrants across our border way back in 2014 and is just now reaching a new peak. I have said it before, and I will say it again: I find it ridiculous to suggest that members of my political party--the Republican Party-- somehow support the idea of separating families. No one wants families separated. No one wants to see families exploited. To suggest otherwise is to feed the frenzy that has been whipped up over the last few days. Lost in this frenzy is the reality that the only groups standing to truly benefit while America is divided are smugglers, drug cartels, and human traffickers. They know about the weaknesses and loopholes in our current immigration law, and they aren't afraid to use those weaknesses and loopholes. For these people, it is all about profit. Smugglers, drug cartels, and human traffickers don't care about human lives. In 2015 and 2016, I questioned the Obama administration's Department of Homeland Security after receiving reports that human trafficking was increasing, and some smugglers weren't being arrested even after smuggling people across the border dozens of times. The lack of consequences emboldened these smugglers. At that time, I also asked the Obama Department of Homeland Security about a dangerous tactic used by smugglers to pair kids with unrelated adults to create the appearance of a family unit. The word ``appearance'' is key here. Knowing the legal loopholes better than most, these smugglers knew that our laws, like the Flores settlement agreement, prevented family detention. Flores vs. Reno effectively prohibits the government from maintaining custody of immigrant children even when they are with their families. Through this agreement, the government had sent the message that if you come alone, you will be detained, but if you come with a family, and as a family, you will likely be released. Understanding this, these smart smugglers knew they could sell this false freedom and build a cruel new business model. In 2015, I was horrified to learn that human smuggling rings were exploiting children and selling them to the highest bidder to get to the United States and avoid detention. That is right. Smugglers would use kids like pawns in an effort to help adults avoid detention when coming across the border. To truly help families, any solution we come up with must protect against this evil stunt by the smugglers. Department officials reported that kids were being kidnapped, or adopted, and then smuggled with their unrelated adult so-called ``family member'' to the United States. U.S. Government officials work closely with foreign officials, trying to locate and safely return these kidnapped children to their mothers and fathers. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. For example, a woman paid a smuggling organization in Brazil $13,000 in fees to smuggle her to the United States. She flew from her home country of Brazil to Mexico, where she was paired with a minor child. She was then instructed to claim the child as her own upon arrival to the United States. After learning about this scam, ICE intervened, and the woman was removed. The child, however, was never found. She will never be reunited with her real family. She is likely separated from that real family forever. That is all because the flaws in our current immigration system permitted--and even encouraged--her to be trafficked. I heard just yesterday that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has temporarily stopped referring cases for criminal prosecution, but that is exactly what the Obama administration did during their tenure. It is exactly why we are dealing with this terrible situation that separates children and families in the first place. Failure to refer cases for prosecution will only give a green light to these smugglers, once more putting at risk the very kids we are worried about protecting, and we ought to be worried about protecting them. This tactic of creating fake family units isn't new and isn't limited to just a one-time deal. Last week, Secretary Nielsen reported that this tactic is still being utilized. She stated: In the last five months, we've had a 314 percent increase in adults and children arriving at the border, fraudulently claiming to be a family unit. This is, obviously, of concern. These fake family units are often provided with fraudulent documents to support that the group is actually a family unit when we all know it is not a family unit. There is a whole industry that exists to create fake birth certificates and many other documents that show a familial relationship. As the tactic to create these fake family units has become more popular, the underground market has exploded. Smugglers are very smart, and many of them are masters of gaming our immigration system. Let me reiterate that the way the Flores vs. Reno agreement is currently applied, the government can't keep immigrant children even if they are with their parents. Flores discourages the Federal Government from keeping families together in Department of Homeland Security custody. If we remedy this situation, not only would we be able to keep families together, but we would also be telling the smugglers who profit from this that their days of making millions of dollars off the most vulnerable are over. The most vulnerable--the kids we are talking about--aren't getting the protection they ought to get when they are separated from their parents. To me, the answer to this problem appears to be very simple. We should repeal the Flores decision only as it applies to accompanied children so that the Department of Homeland Security can keep families together in family residential centers. That is very simple, and that is very quick. That is why, last week, I worked hand in hand with Senator Tillis to produce a bill that would do just that. Senator Tillis's thoughtful bill, in addition to repealing parts of the Flores decision, would also allow more immigrant court judges to be hired and would provide for detained families to have their cases heard first. Senator Tillis's bill would immediately end this crisis and wouldn't return us to the failed catch-and-release policies that even the former Obama Department of Homeland Secretary, Jeh Johnson, has acknowledged are poor public policies. I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Tillis and this Senator to fix this problem. The American people are counting on it. Thousands of families are depending upon it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come here to raise an issue, not with the actual bill we will be voting on today but with language included in a committee report accompanying the bill. The Environmental Protection Agency has reportedly given out unprecedented numbers of so-called small refinery hardship waivers to the renewable fuel standard. These are given, in some cases, to huge multibillion-dollar companies that probably would not be entitled to what is really a hardship. The EPA has yet to disclose what waivers it has granted and the rationale, but based on what has been reported, its actions seem pretty darn fishy, from my point of view. Refiners speaking with the press have noted: Anyone with a brain submitted an application. The EPA was handing out those exemptions like trick or treat candy. The EPA is hiding behind a very narrow court case for specific refineries, as well as report language accompanying last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill. Neither I nor any other Senator voted for this report language. Report language accompanying bills are not actually law so they are not legally binding. Still, I wrote to the subcommittee that it should not include language purporting to tell the EPA to do anything other than follow the law. The law mandates blending 15 billion gallons of renewable fuels into our fuel supply. Estimates are that these retroactive waivers have reduced that by as much as 1.63 billion gallons. Every billion gallons lost equates to a loss of more than 2 million acres of harvested corn and an increase in emissions. My constituents are outraged at this activity by the EPA. Agriculture Secretary Perdue has called these waivers, in his words, ``demand destruction'' for biofuels. I wrote to the Energy and Water Subcommittee that it should urge the EPA to disclose the waivers it gives and the rationale for any of these grants and that any waivers should not result in a lowering of the 15 billion gallon renewable volume obligation in the law. I am disappointed that the appropriators didn't include my commonsense language about transparency, but I am very upset that it renewed the previous language purporting to direct EPA how to consider small refinery waivers. The Appropriations Committee should drop the controversial report language and EPA should simply follow the law. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 6 months ago, Congress passed historic tax legislation that fundamentally reformed our Tax Code and provided tax relief to middle-income Americans and also to small business job creators. At the time, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle attempted to derail our efforts through a campaign of misinformation and demagoguery. They tried to argue that up was down and that tax cuts were tax increases. They even suggested the bill's passage was a sign of Armageddon. Of course, such fearmongering was always nonsense. At the time, analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation had made it clear that the vast majority of taxpayers across every income group would experience tax cuts. In fact, it made clear that middle-income groups would experience the largest percentage of tax cuts. In even looking at the liberal Tax Policy Center's analysis of the bill, the tax relief for the middle class is unmistakable. Its analysis found that more than 80 percent would experience tax cuts that would average more than $2,100. In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we made good on our commitment to fix our broken Tax Code. It makes filing simpler, provides middle-income tax cuts, and reinvigorates our economy through pro-growth business tax reforms. The positive effects of the tax cuts began almost immediately with companies announcing bonuses, pay raises, higher retirement contributions, new hiring, and increased investment as a result of the law. To date, the list of such companies has climbed to over 600, with there being more than 4 million employees who are benefiting. This has included a number of businesses in my State of Iowa, which range from the small, like the Anfinson Farm Store, which has invested back into its employees in the form of $1,000 bonuses and a 5-percent increase in wages, to the very large, like Wells Fargo, which has raised its base wage from $13.50 to $15 per hour and benefited more than 1,300 employees. Higher wages and bonuses are not the only ways that taxpayers are benefiting from the historic tax relief. Taxpayers across the country are seeing the benefit in the form of lower electric, gas, and water bills. Nationally, utility customers have experienced more than $3 billion in savings thanks to lower utility rates as a result of tax cuts. In my State of Iowa, Alliant Energy has estimated its customer savings to be between $18.6 million and $19.6 million for electric and from $500,000 to $3.7 million for gas. MidAmerican Energy has estimated between $90 million and $112 million in customer savings, and Iowa American Water Company has estimated customer savings to be between $1.5 million and $1.8 million. The hundreds of businesses and utility company announcements were only the beginning of the positive news for American taxpayers. In February, taxpayers began seeing the effects of tax reform directly in their paychecks as less was taken out of their pay by the IRS. In all, about 90 percent of taxpayers are seeing less being withheld from their paychecks as a result of the law. As it became evident that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was delivering meaningful benefits to working families, our Democratic colleagues were in search of new talking points on the law, considering the fact that their old talking points were not working. They could no longer, with a straight face, argue that tax cuts were really tax increases. Instead, they wanted hard-working Americans to believe that an extra $50 a week in their paychecks or a $1,000 bonus was ``crumbs.'' With all due respect to my colleagues who believe that this is true, they don't have a doggone clue what it is like in the real world where people have to work for a living. That $1,000 bonus means a lot for a father or a mother whose children need new school clothes or who has a car that could use some repairs or who, simply, wants to take the family on a vacation. For a family on a tight budget, every additional dollar in a paycheck really counts. It means an additional dollar that can be put away for unexpected emergencies or for a child's college savings or, maybe, even for one's own retirement. As important as the immediate middle-income tax benefits are that have been afforded by the law, the benefits that will accrue for everybody in this country as a result of the long-term, pro-growth effects of the bill are as important, if maybe not more important. Thanks to this historic tax measure, as well as to regulatory relief, Congress and the administration have declared that America is open for business. When Congress delivers historic tax cuts and, particularly, regulatory rollbacks, the American people enjoy the sweet taste of prosperity. That is how the cookie crumbles. Despite critics in this town calling the tax cuts crumbs, I would invite them to chew on a few facts: National unemployment has fallen to 3.8 percent--the lowest level since April 2000. Wages have risen at the fastest pace since the end of the recession. For the first time on record, the number of job openings has exceeded the number of job seekers. U.S. manufacturers report historically high investment and hiring numbers as 86 percent report they intend to increase investment, and 77 percent report they plan to increase hiring. Small business confidence has hit record highs. Consumer confidence has reached its highest level in 18 years. All of this good economic news points toward higher economic growth moving forward. This is key to sustainable long- term wage growth, which is the most powerful anti-poverty measure there is. This should be welcome news to all after the years of stagnant wage growth during the Obama years. With all of this positive news, Democrats have been searching for a talking point that they hope will take hold. They are looking for a big distraction from the prosperity that results from this tax bill. Toward that end, they have lambasted corporate stock buybacks. Their hope is that the American public will disregard all the positive signs they have seen in their paychecks and in the economy generally and be outraged by the benefits accruing to stockholders--more class warfare on their part versus the compassion and social justice that this tax reform brings about. It is a play out of their old playbook, in other words. When all else fails, engage in the historic rhetoric of class warfare. But I have news for some of my Democratic colleagues: That dog no longer hunts either. Millions of middle-class Americans own stock-- if not directly, through their 401(k) or pension plan. According to the Tax Policy Center, 37 percent of stock is held in retirement accounts. Thus, the idea of stock buybacks being a boon only to corporate fat cats is hogwash. It is a boon to the millions of middle-class Americans who are longing for secure and comfortable retirements. Moreover, the Democrats' concerns with stock buybacks demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Stock buybacks are fully consistent with one of the main objectives of tax reform; that is, promoting economic growth through capital formation that makes workers more productive, which in turn leads to increased wages. When a company repurchases stock, that money is not stuffed into a mattress; it frees up dollars that can be reinvested in a growing economy or maybe a new startup small business. This in turn promotes the type of business expansion and capital investment necessary to grow our economy, boost productivity, and increase wages over the long term. Although the economic landscape looks more promising than ever, there is more work to do. Those of us from Iowa are particularly focused on trade agreements and renewable energy policies that impact our home State. So I hope overall that our colleagues across the aisle will finally put an end to their tired attacks on the tax bill and begin working with us to promote further economic growth that has already started at a high level as a result of this tax bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a very disastrous thing happened 10 years ago in Iowa. The whims of Mother Nature tested the State of Iowa 10 summers ago when deadly tornadoes, storms, and floods caused more than $10 billion in damage to communities, homes, and businesses. It caused a lot of distress. National disasters test the mettle of humanity by every measure. Iowans were tested in 2008. Unfortunately, parts of Iowa, like Mason City, are experiencing flooding once again, almost 10 years to the day. Ten years ago, 88 of our 99 counties were declared a natural disaster. Epic floods and EF5 tornadoes ripped holes through the center of many neighborhoods. Thanks to civic leadership and thanks to bootstrap mentality, tireless volunteers and members of the National Guard answered the call to survive and thrive from the crisis. The rallying cry to rebuild and recover has driven a decades-long drive to restore and revitalize these Iowa communities hurt 10 years ago by these massive natural disasters. It was a tough row to hoe. Orchestrating the massive cleanup is one thing; paying for it is another. Congress, as we often do for natural disasters, approved nearly $800 million in Federal block grants within the first year to help homeowners with restoration and buyout efforts. However, the wheels of the Federal bureaucracy too often are painstakingly restrictive to navigate. From Housing and Urban Development to FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, local residents got a firsthand taste of the Federal alphabet soup. When community leaders, businesses, and homeowners got mired in bureaucratic molasses, I worked with our entire congressional delegation to take care of these immediate needs and to help develop long-term planning for the flood plain, such as levee improvements and flood protection systems to avert future catastrophes. In addition to directing Federal disaster assistance to recovery and rebuilding efforts, I wrote the Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act to give flood-ravaged homeowners and businesses a fresh start. Just as Congress acted to help victims from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, 3 years before the disaster in the Midwest, I made sure that midwesterners also received a much needed break similar to what we provided at Katrina time. Moving forward after a natural disaster isn't easy. Volunteers affirmed Iowa's treasured heritage of neighbor helping neighbor, rescuing residents and pets from flood-ravaged neighborhoods. Voters across the State voted on measures to help their communities rebuild, and the State legislature passed laws to help areas mitigate against future disasters. City planners developed a strategy to revitalize their cities and towns. Recovery efforts stumbled along the way, to be sure. It takes time to see sunshine and rainbows after one of the State's worst disasters in history. Collaborating and finding consensus isn't easy. In fact, governing isn't easy. Despite the incalculable loss of personal belongings, blended with the physical, emotional, and financial toll of starting over, the people of Iowa didn't quit, and we are more resilient and better prepared now than we were before these disasters. However, work remains to be done. Working alongside civic and State leaders for the last decade, we have identified specific needs and places where redtape gets in the way to improve flood protection in local communities. That is why I have worked with my sleeves rolled up alongside former Senator Tom Harkin and now Senator Joni Ernst and the rest of the Iowa delegation to ensure local infrastructure needs get up to snuff, including flood risk projects on the Cedar River and elsewhere. Recently, the Committee on the Environment and Public Works approved a bill that, once again, highlights the importance of the Cedar River flood protection project and includes a secondary budgetary process that could lead to construction funds for this project and other Iowa priorities in the future, cuts redtape, and also improves public input, transparency, and accountability. The people of Iowa have earned a well-deserved salute to civic participation. It is a good day to share pride with your fellow citizens. Thanks to our people's resilience and hard work, even better days are yet to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote right now.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of William R. Evanina, to be Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, PN1548. During the course of the Judiciary Committee's inquiry into how the Justice Department and FBI handled the Clinton and Russia investigations, committee staff have reviewed text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. In some of the text messages, an individual named ``Evanina'' is mentioned in the context of government officials having briefed then Vice President-Elect Pence on national security related issues and planning to brief him a second time. The name was redacted from text messages initially provided to Congress. ``Evanina'' most likely refers to the nominee who is and was at that time Acting Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. The committee needs to more fully understand the meaning of the apparent references to Mr. Evanina in the Strzok-Page texts and will need to obtain further context from him and the Justice Department in order to do so before I could consent to proceeding to consider his confirmation. The committee has recently experienced increasing difficulty in obtaining relevant documents and briefings from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. For example. Deputy Attorney General, DAG, Rod Rosenstein personally assured me that the Senate Judiciary Committee would receive equal access to information provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI, with regard to any concessions in its negotiations regarding pending subpoenas from that committee. Two weeks ago, the ODNI and the DAG provided a briefing in connection with a pending HPSCI, subpoena to which no Senate Judiciary Committee member was invited. Thus far, the committee's attempts to schedule an equivalent briefing have been ignored. Additionally, beginning November 29, 2017, I made requests for information from the inspector general of the Intelligence Community and ODNI regarding the diffusion of the IC whistleblower program and the highly unusual and problematic termination of the IC IG's former Executive Director for Whistleblowing and Source Protection. In March, having received none of the information I asked for, I formally and publicly objected to the confirmation of the ODNI general counsel nominee. To date, I still have received nothing. Therefore, I also object to Mr. Evanina's confirmation until and unless the ODNI provides a fulsome response to my letters. Additionally, I understand that Mr. Evanina was responsible for developing policies and procedures to address retaliatory security clearance actions pursuant to a statutory directive, but that it is not clear whether such policies and procedures have been implemented. I would like for Mr. Evanina to explain the status of those efforts. Thus, unfortunately, I must object to any consideration of this nomination. My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Evanina in any way. However, the executive branch must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I often have to come to the floor to clear things up, I am back once again. I have been seeing reports--reports that are wrong--that individuals within our Federal law enforcement agencies who want to talk to Congress about problems they have seen on the job have a fear that if they do that, they could be punished. The reports say these individuals then want to be subpoenaed by congressional committees rather than come forward voluntarily. There is a perception that without a subpoena, they have no legal protection against retaliation for their cooperating with Congress. That is nonsense, and that is a misrepresentation that has been fomented by the FBI's and the Department of Justice's leadership for many years under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I have worked hard to strengthen legal protections, especially for FBI employees. FBI employees have a right to cooperate with congressional inquiries just as they have a right to cooperate with the inspector general. Anyone who tells these FBI agents anything else is lying. FBI agents and all Federal law enforcement are protected if they want to provide information to the Congress. That is true whether it is by subpoena or not. If that is news to law enforcement people, including the FBI, I would encourage you to research the law individually. It is found at title 5, U.S. Code, section 2303. As you will see in the law, nowhere in that language do its protections require a subpoena, nor do they require the approval of an agent's chain of command or congressional affairs staff approval. Moreover, Federal appropriations law also forbids the use of taxpayers' dollars to pay the salary of any individual who interferes with or attempts to interfere with a Federal employee's right to communicate directly with Congress. The Government Accountability Office recently found that an Obama Housing and Urban Development congressional affairs official did interfere that way in 2013, so paying that salary violated the restrictions Congress had placed on the money. Based on that ruling, Housing and Urban Development initiated collection efforts to recover a portion of the salary paid illegally, as a debt owed back to the United States from this executive branch staffer, as a result of interfering with somebody's right to talk to Congress. Congress has the power of the purse, and bureaucrats need to understand that funding for their salaries comes with strings attached. Federal employees cannot be prevented from talking directly to Congress--pretty plain--period. There can be no interference with any Federal employee talking directly to Congress. I should add that you shouldn't even try. If unelected bureaucrats have so much contempt for an employee who voluntarily informs the people's elected representatives of facts necessary to do our constitutional responsibility of oversight, then we still have a lot of work to do. That kind of thinking is dangerous. It leads to irresponsible government, and is totally contrary to law. If that perception is persisting throughout law enforcement, including the FBI or, indeed, throughout government generally, then the leaders of those agencies are not doing their job. They are failing in their responsibility as leaders, they are failing the workforce, and they are failing the American taxpayer. I don't want anyone out there to be confused. It is pretty simple. If you are a Federal employee and you want to disclose wrongdoing and waste to the Congress or you want to cooperate with a congressional inquiry, you are legally allowed to do so. You should not have to fear retaliation. No FBI agent or other government employee should be afraid to cooperate with Congress or with the inspector general. Any FBI agent who has information to provide, or questions about their rights to provide it, should not hesitate to reach out and ask. Contact the committee. Contact the inspector general. There are people there who can tell you more about what protections may apply to your specific situation. It seems to me that if you know something is wrong, you have a patriotic responsibility to expose it. Transparency brings accountability, and what we don't have enough of in the U.S. Government is accountability. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon be taking up my resolution recognizing this month of May as National Foster Care Month. For over 20 years, National Foster Care Month has been recognized as a time to raise awareness about the challenges that young people in foster care experience and to celebrate their resilience in the face of these obstacles. There are over 438,000 children in foster care nationwide. In Iowa alone, over 4,000 kids entered foster care in 2016. Due to the opioid crisis, there are more children entering foster care than many child welfare agencies are equipped to handle. In 2016, over 92,000 kids entered foster care due to parental drug abuse. I salute all of those who dedicate their time and their resources to helping these young people. This induces social workers, advocates, and alumni of the foster care system, who inform lawmakers and the public and, more importantly, who fight to secure better outcomes for these young people in care. Of course, this also includes foster parents, who open their homes and their hearts to children in need. Without foster parents, children unable to remain with their biological parents would have nowhere to go. Unfortunately, this is becoming a reality for children across the country, as many States are experiencing a critical shortage of foster parents. In my home State of Iowa, many counties are facing a shortage of foster care homes, causing young people to be housed in shelters instead of with families. The solution is not simply recruiting more people to serve as foster parents. Between 30 and 50 percent of licensed foster parents choose to stop being foster parents after only 1 year of doing that. That is why this year our resolution also designates the single day of May 31 as ``Foster Parent Appreciation Day.'' It is my hope that communities, child welfare agencies, and other organizations will use this day to recognize the sacrifices foster parents make. Those who do not choose to continue being foster parents often report that their reason is a lack of support and training. At a time when foster parents are needed more than ever, it is important for communities and child welfare agencies to support foster parents and ensure that they are trained to help the kids entrusted to them. Through my work on the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have had the opportunity to hear firsthand what children in foster care need. I would advise Senators to take advantage of listening to that group of people we call foster youth. They need love, they need permanency, and they need stability and support. In short, all they need is a family. They often express to me: ``I would like to have a mom and a dad.'' That is why I am pleased that Congress recently passed the Family First Prevention Services Act. This legislation works to keep more families together by allowing Federal reimbursement for services to families before children are put in foster care, not afterward. These services include substance abuse treatment and in-home parenting skill programs. When it is truly in a child's best interest to be removed from their parents, this bill ensures that more kids will be placed with supportive families instead of in group homes. Of course, there is still work to be done. Far too many children still experience the trauma of neglect and abuse, and far too many youth in foster care age out without meaningful connection to a caring adult. Moving forward, Congress must continue to listen to the voices of foster youth, foster parents, and other advocates by working to find better solutions and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address an issue that was brought up by the minority leader on the floor this morning. I want to respond to the false statements made by the very misinformed minority leader this morning--and I mean really misinformed. He criticized the Judiciary Committee's release this morning of about 2,500 pages of information about the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump, Jr. First, he mischaracterized the release as solely a Republican move. That is false. In fact, that is absolutely false. This release was done with the support of the ranking minority member. On January 25 of this year, at the committee meeting where I announced my desire to release the transcripts, the ranking member publicly supported the decision. I have three quotes. She said, ``I am delighted.'' She said she had ``no disagreement.'' She said, ``I am very grateful for your decision to proceed.'' Second, he accused me of deciding not to interview two participants in the meeting. That is false. In fact, it is absolutely false. I would like to have interviewed both Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner. An interview of Mr. Manafort was scheduled a day before he was raided. We--meaning Senator Feinstein and this Senator--had subpoenaed Mr. Manafort for a committee hearing set for July 26, 2017. Mr. Manafort instead offered to appear voluntarily for a staff interview the day before the hearing, and the ranking member asked me to withdraw the subpoena. Then the FBI raided his home, and Mr. Manafort indicated he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and then consequently declined to answer the committee's questions. However, we did review the transcript of his earlier interview with the Intelligence Committee. The ranking member refused to participate in a voluntary interview when we had the chance. She said Democrats on the committee objected that the scope would be focused on the Trump Tower meeting. For all I know, the minority leader's office objected as well, but political leadership should not be dictating bipartisan committee oversight. As for Mr. Kushner, he refused to participate in a voluntary interview after the ranking member unilaterally and prematurely released another witness transcript. There was no consultation with me at all by the minority on that point. That is the opposite of how this Senator handled this morning's transcript release. Mr. Kushner's attorney demanded promises of confidentiality that we could not provide. Transparency is too important to keep all this information under wraps. We could keep it all secret for many more months while we fight over trying to force people to testify against their will. But we decided to put out the voluntary testimony now for the sake of transparency, and the ranking member, as I said two or three times, supported that decision. Third, the minority leader claimed that the release of this information was motivated by the Republicans' desire to ``let the President and his lawyers interfere with the Mueller probe and get a peek at any potential evidence.'' That is false. In fact, it is absolutely false. Again, the Democrats on the committee did not object to the release, and the ranking member affirmatively supported it. She and her staff were fully consulted and worked cooperatively with us in preparing the release. So the claim that there was some secret plan to help one side or the other in the Mueller probe is absurd. My only motivation was the same as that of the ranking member--transparency for the American people on this controversy. Let the people read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Fourth, the minority leader claimed that ``Republicans are rushing to declare their investigation complete.'' That is false. In fact, it is absolutely false. The minority leader should not try to put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. Anyone who knows me knows that oversight is never done and should never be done. It is our core constitutional duty. Now as to the Trump Tower meeting, Congress has learned as much as we are likely to learn, unless some new information comes to light. That might happen. We have to be ready for it if it does. Other committees, the press, and the special counsel are all over this as well. So there is no lack of scrutiny. But there is a lack of transparency, and these 2,500 pages or so do more to give the public a picture of what happened than anyone else has done. I would just ask my friend the minority leader: What have you done to answer the questions our constituents may have had about the Trump Tower meeting? What good-faith efforts have you undertaken to give the American people transparency about the investigation relating not just to the Trump Presidency but Presidential contenders in 2016? Have you done anything to support or assist Republicans in getting to the bottom of questions that concern them and their constituents back home? The answer is, nothing. In fact, the answer is, absolutely nothing-- absolutely nothing but speculation and frenzy. It is nothing but pure political frustration for losing the Presidential election in 2016. It also fundamentally misunderstands the role of congressional oversight and congressional investigations. We don't prosecute crimes. We can't indict suspected criminals. Our job is to act as a check on the executive branch. Do you know who has not come to sit for long, transcribed interviews before the Judiciary Committee staff? Well, the answer to that is current or former Department of Justice and FBI officials--not a single one. Our job is to oversee the Justice Department and to oversee the FBI, but Judiciary Committee Democrats have not been supportive or interested in questioning those officials. The minority leader seems to believe that it is our job to waste taxpayers' dollars retreading the special counsel's investigation or duplicating the Intelligence Committee's work so he can bludgeon his political opponents. Well, that is not my job. I am going to focus on our constitutional duty to act as a check on the executive branch. I am going to keep digging and keep fighting for answers from the Justice Department and from the FBI. We will be having a hearing on the controversies in 2016 that undermined Americans' faith in the objectivity of these vital institutions. I have great faith in the inspector general appointed by President Obama and the nonpartisan office he leads. As soon as the inspector general's report is out, we will learn a lot more about what happened before and during the election from an independent and objective source, and we will follow up. The minority leader was right about one thing--when he said: ``There is much left to investigate. Many witnesses still to be heard.'' I agree. This is not over. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is no more noble sacrifice than laying down your life in the service of others. Every year, more than a million law enforcement officers work to keep our country safe and to serve the needs of our communities. Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line as they fight crime, and each year, law enforcement officers die in the line of duty. Many of these deaths occur while these officers are investigating crimes and enforcing our laws. Some are even the result of targeted violence against police officers. Other deaths involve tragic accidents, such as Sheriff's Deputy Julie Bridges and Sergeant Joseph Ossman--two police officers who were killed in a traffic accident while working to help their communities weather the onslaught of Hurricane Irma. On Friday, I spoke at the Iowa Peace Officer Memorial Ceremony in Des Moines, where we honored six law enforcement officers from Iowa who lost their lives in the line of duty. It was my honor to pay tribute to these brave Iowa heroes, along with their families. Losing members of our law enforcement leaves a hole in families and communities that no one else can fill, but we can honor them and remember them and work to support the efforts of other law enforcement officers who carry on their mission, officers who, despite the risks and the rigors of their work, work tirelessly to protect and serve their communities. Yesterday, in memory of those who have fallen in the line of duty over the past year, I was proud to submit a resolution designating this week ``National Police Week.'' This resolution is cosponsored by 76 of my Senate colleagues. I am also working to clear the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization Act through my Judiciary Committee so that the bill can be sent to the floor for consideration of the full Senate. This bill authorizes a nationwide partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutors dedicated to the reduction of violent crime. This partnership will use evidence-based and data-driven approaches to policing. It emphasizes initiatives designed to build trust and collaboration with community leaders and organizations addressing violent crime. A companion bill is working its way through the House of Representatives, and I look forward to voting to support it. In addition, I have been a longstanding supporter of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, which provides death and education benefits to survivors of fallen law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other first responders. It also includes disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty. I introduced a bill to strengthen the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, and that bill was signed into law last year. We worked hard on oversight efforts of this program to make sure that beneficiaries' claims don't linger forever but are timely paid. Today, as I stand here on the Senate floor, my thoughts turn to my own home State of Iowa, where on March 1, 2017, Sheriff's Deputy Mark Burbridge went to work for his employer, Pottawattamie County. He and fellow deputy Pat Morgan were assigned to transport a man to prison who had just been sentenced to 45 years for voluntary manslaughter. On the way from the court to the prison, the prisoner assaulted Deputy Burbridge with a homemade knife, grabbed one of the deputy's guns, and shot both deputies. Deputy Morgan was seriously wounded in the attack. Deputy Burbridge was critically injured and died an hour later. The prisoner fled the scene, making it as far as Nebraska. Other brave law enforcement officials tracked him down and brought him to justice. Deputy Burbridge was a family man who loved to work on cars and motorcycles. He also loved to fish and tell jokes. He is survived by his wife Jessica, daughter Karley, son Kaleb, and stepdaughter Kelsey Brant. We mourn his loss and remember his legacy of sacrifice and service this week. Our law enforcement officers in Iowa deal with many of the same problems facing law enforcement officers throughout the United States. They work every day to stop violent crime, and they are on the frontline of the fight against illegal drugs and the opioid addiction crisis that every State faces. To help law enforcement officers in Iowa and in the rest of the country, we need to optimize our justice system so it puts resources where they are needed most. Law enforcement should target the worst offenders, like violent criminals, major drug traffickers, and criminal masterminds. We should do more to help those who have done their time reenter society in productive ways so they don't backslide back into a life of crime. A bill I introduced this Congress--the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act--does just that, and I appreciate Senator Durbin standing with me on its introduction. It is a vastly bipartisan bill that improves fairness in sentencing, while permitting law enforcement to devote resources to tackling their top priorities. It also increases incentives for criminals to cooperate with police and to put into place tougher criminal penalties for fentanyl distribution, for crimes of terrorism, and for crimes of domestic violence. In addition, the Grassley-Durbin bill provides for recidivism- reduction programs to prepare inmates to leave prison and live a productive, law-abiding life. On that point, I give particular credit to Senator Cornyn and Senator Whitehouse for their work on that part of the bill. Similar sentencing and prison reform initiatives at the State level have closed prisons, reduced crime, and increased public safety. On a final note, I would like to take a moment to thank the Capitol police who serve right here in the Halls of Congress. The President, the Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and thousands of visitors from around the country visit the Senate every year. We Senators come and go several times a day with our staff. It is easy to take our feelings of safety and security for granted in this Capitol Complex, but we are able to carry out our duties because of the continued hard work of these Capitol Hill police officers. So thank you to the Capitol police for your dedication and your service. Our law enforcement officers deserve our respect, surely our support, and our admiration for putting their lives on the line. We honor all law enforcement officers this week--especially those who died in the line of duty in the past year. We thank their families for their sacrifice, and we will remember the values of public service, of diligence, and the bravery they stood for. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Minchin and Tim Rodriguez, two law clerks with my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for today's session, May 15, 2018.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.