Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week the Senate will vote on the nomination of Michael Brennan to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Milwaukee. Judge Brennan is a highly qualified nominee with broad, bipartisan support in his own State of Wisconsin. The Senate Judiciary Committee received numerous letters in support of Judge Brennan's nomination, including from the longtime Democratic Milwaukee district attorney. I fully support this nomination. I have heard from some of my colleagues--and especially from those on the other side of the aisle--that they believe Judge Brennan shouldn't have received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. They say this because one Senator from Wisconsin didn't return the blue slip. But their opinions are based on an incorrect understanding of the blue slip's history. As I explained last year several times on the Senate floor and several times in committee, the blue slip courtesy is just that--a courtesy. It has a history going back to 1917. Since then, chairmen of the Judiciary Committee have distributed blue slips to home State Senators to get feedback on the nominees to the Federal bench in their respective States. Chairmen have applied the blue slip courtesy differently in its 100- year history. For the first 39 years of its existence, the blue slip had no bearing on whether a nominee went through the committee process. Then, in 1956, Senator James Eastland of Mississippi became chairman. He started requiring both home State Senators to return positive blue slips before the committee would ever proceed on a judicial nomination. Scholars maintain that Chairman Eastland adopted this policy to allow southern Senators to veto nominees sympathetic to the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Then, when Senator Ted Kennedy took over the chairmanship from Senator Eastland in 1979, he went back to the original blue slip policy. Then comes along Chairman Strom Thurmond continuing that policy. Then comes along Chairman Joe Biden continuing that policy, and Chairman Orrin Hatch followed that policy. Under the policies of those chairmen just mentioned, negative or unreturned blue slips did not necessarily preclude a hearing for a nominee. When Senator Leahy became chairman during the Bush administration, he did away with this policy and resurrected Chairman Eastland's strict blue slip policy. The reason for this strict blue slip policy was obvious to everyone at that time--at least obvious to everybody on our side of the aisle--to block President George W. Bush's judicial nominees based on politics and ideology, something that never played much of a role in a lot of these nominations prior to 2002. In sum, only 2 of my 18 predecessors who extended the blue slip courtesy required signoff from both home State Senators. When Senator Leahy adopted an historical blue slip policy, that was his prerogative as chairman, and nobody argues with that. But it is my prerogative to have the same blue slip policy as Chairman Biden and Chairman Kennedy and the vast majority of predecessors. Accordingly, I have said this: Negative or unreturned blue slips will not necessarily preclude the hearing for circuit court nominees unless the White House failed to consult with home State Senators. I get all sorts of information--and I demand all sorts of information--from the White House on this sort of consultation that is going on. That is why I held hearings for David Stras, Kyle Duncan, Michael Brennan, and Ryan Bounds, despite the lack of two positive blue slips from home State Senators. This policy is completely bipartisan. I have applied it to blue slips of Democratic and Republican Senators. Some people have suggested that I had a different blue slip policy during the final 2 years of President Obama's administration. They pointed to nine judicial nominees with blue slip problems who didn't receive hearings. But five of these nominees were to district courts, and I have said repeatedly that I am less likely to proceed to district court nominees without two positive blue slips. With respect to the four circuit court nominees who didn't receive hearings during the last Congress, their nominations simply came too late in the Congress to process. They were nominated during the Presidential election year of 2016, and in Presidential election years, we have the Leahy-Thurmond rule that applies. Under the Leahy-Thurmond rule, the Senate typically stops confirming judges by midsummer. I am assuming that I gave Senators in 2016 the same timeline that I gave to former Senator Franken to return his blue slip for Justice Stras. We wouldn't have started holding hearings then until 2016, and by delaying until that period of time, we would have not had the record number of circuit court judges that we have had during this Presidency, because, then, the Leahy-Thurmond rule would have barred their confirmations. These four nominees also lacked floor support, and it would have been a waste of time and resources if we had proceeded. That was my judgment as chairman. Chairman Leahy similarly refused to hold hearings for at least six circuit court nominees for reasons besides the blue slips. He denied hearings for three nominees in the Fourth Circuit: Steve Matthews, Robert Conrad, and Glen Conrad. These nominees had two positive blue slips from their home State Senators, and two were nominated more than a year before the 2008 Presidential election, but even then, Chairman Leahy refused to process them. Chairman Leahy also refused to act on the nomination of Peter Keisler, President Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit, who was nominated in 2006. Obviously, blue slips were not the reason for my predecessor's decision to stall Mr. Keisler's nomination for more than 2 years since the District of Columbia has no Senators. These decisions allowed President Obama then to stack the DC Circuit and also the Fourth Circuit with liberal judges. Chairman Leahy also declined to hold hearings for two Sixth Circuit Court nominees to Ohio seats, even though both Ohio Senators had returned positive blue slips. The Democratic Senators from Michigan asked Chairman Leahy to halt proceedings on all Sixth Circuit nominees, not just those from Michigan. So Chairman Leahy honored this request and denied a hearing to the Ohio nominees, even though the blue slips had been returned. This was the first time ever a chairman allowed Senators to halt committee proceedings on nominees for seats in other States. As Chairman Leahy's example shows, there isn't just one reason. There are multiple reasons for any chairman of the Judiciary Committee to deny a hearing to a nominee. Likewise, my decision not to hold hearings for the four nominees in 2016 wasn't based solely on the lack of blue slips. It is simply false, then, for my colleagues to say I changed my blue-slip policy since that particular time. As to my decision then to hold a hearing on the nominee now before the Senate, Judge Brennan, I was satisfied that the White House adequately consulted with both Wisconsin Senators. The White House sought input from the Wisconsin Senators and considered all the candidates recommended by each Senator. I understand the frustration that Wisconsin's judicial nominating commission hasn't worked out as had been planned by the two Senators, but Judge Brennan was the only candidate to receive bipartisan support from the commission process that is used in Wisconsin. Moreover, the commission's dysfunction can't be used as an excuse to deny the President his constitutional authority to make judicial nominations. I would also like to point out that each Senator who has withheld a blue slip this Congress also voted to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations back in 2013. The argument then was that 41 Senators shouldn't be allowed to block the will of a majority of this Senate, but now these same Senators have reversed themselves, saying any one Senator should have that right, through holding a blue slip, to denying the Senate an opportunity to vote. Understand, just a few years ago, they wanted to abolish 41 Senators holding up a nomination, but today they stand before us and say one Senator ought to be able to do what they said 41 Senators shouldn't be able to do. I will not allow the blue slip to be abused in this way. The blue slip is meant to encourage consultation between the White House and home State Senators. It is not a way for Senators to have veto power over nominees for political or ideological reasons. Finally, I hear a lot these days about the President stacking the courts or the Senate rubberstamping nominees. Well, I stand by our process. It gives Senators every opportunity to probe deeply into nominees' backgrounds. As five nominees from last year will attest, not everyone makes it through this rigorous scrutiny. I would like to bring attention to two recent Supreme Court decisions that the Trump administration lost. In Sessions v. Dimaya, the Supreme Court held that the government could not deport an immigrant under a vague statutory provision. The pivotal vote was cast by President Trump's own Supreme Court nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch. In another case, Chicago v. Sessions, the Seventh Circuit held that the government could not deny funding to so-called sanctuary cities. It happens the three judges who carried that case were all appointed by Republican Presidents. I bring up these cases not because I agree or disagree with their outcomes but simply to point out that the fears of the President stacking the judiciary are overblown. Conservative judges apply the law as written, regardless of the results, but I suppose liberals expect their judges to be results-oriented. That is why we can always confidently predict how a liberal judge might rule on a case. Liberal outside groups' real fear, then, is that newly confirmed judges recognize that their role is to neutrally apply the law, not to legislate from the bench. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, April 26, 2018, we celebrate World Intellectual Property Day and recognize the important role intellectual property plays in the fabric of society. We take time to recognize the innovators and creators who are making our lives healthier, safer, and more productive through their ingenuity and the robust system of intellectual property protections enshrined in our laws. This year's World Intellectual Property Day campaign in particular celebrates the women who are driving change and making our common future better though innovation in so many fields including science, healthcare, art, engineering, and design, just to name a few. Inspiring contributions from countless women are powering innovation in our world. For example, Helen Murray Free was inducted into the National Inventor's Hall of Fame in 2000 and awarded the national medal of technology and innovation in 2010 for her pioneering work in self- testing systems for diabetes. She received seven patents for her work. Iowa's own Mary Florence Potts also used the American patent system to protect three of her inventions. Her work improved the safety of common household appliances, and her novel iron design was even displayed at the 1876 World's Fair in Philadelphia. Elise Harmon holds numerous patents for technology, ranging from microprocessor production to high- altitude carbon brush performance. Our intellectual property system must continue to protect and reward the work of women like Helen Murray Free, Mary Florence Potts, and Elise Harmon. We need to continue creating an environment where innovative, creative women are empowered, connected, and celebrated. This involves ensuring a robust, inclusive intellectual property system that fosters and rewards innovation and the widespread ingenuity that has made America a leading force in the global economy. The Founding Fathers recognized that robust intellectual property infrastructure fosters creative talent and enhances innovative spark. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says ``Congress shall have power . . . 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.'' Placing this authority within Congress's enumerated powers underscores the weight that our Founding Fathers placed on intellectual property's value to the budding Nation. Although the American system of intellectual property rights has evolved since the ratification of the Constitution, its core mission of promoting innovation has remained constant. As a result, America has long been on the forefront of intellectual property and a leader in so many IP-intensive fields. Our IP system is one that rightly rewards creativity and passion, characteristics common to so many Americans. Intellectual property is also critical to our national economy because it fuels innovation that improves lives and creates jobs. 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. In our modern, innovation economy, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and other forms of IP are more critical than ever. IP protections and incentives drive enormous economic activity and development, helping assure America's place as an economic and intellectual beacon to the world. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, IP-intensive industries account for more than 45 million direct and indirect U.S. jobs--that is nearly a third of the workforce--and almost 40 percent of U.S. GDP. In addition, these jobs pay well. Average weekly wages in IP-intensive industries are 46 percent higher than in non-IP intensive fields. As a society, we depend on innovators not just to fuel our economy, but to make our lives better and to solve the challenges we face. These innovators, in turn, depend on different forms of intellectual property. The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in protecting intellectual property. The committee exercises jurisdiction over our Nation's intellectual property laws, including those governing patents, trademarks, and copyrights. We consider legislation that helps to ensure that intellectual property rights continue to promote jobs and innovation. The committee also exercises important oversight of the Patent and Trademark Office, the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, and various law enforcement entities charged with protecting IP. Just last week, we held an oversight hearing with Director Iancu from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We heard about what is going well and about some of the difficulties facing the Office, as well as other intellectual property stakeholders. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to embrace my role as a promoter of intellectual property rights, innovation, and ultimately American jobs. This World Intellectual Property Day, it is important to once again recognize the significance of our Nation's robust system of intellectual property protection and enforcement. As we recognize the positive impacts IP has on innovation, let's continue to find ways to work together to ensure its protection against infringement. We want the United States to maintain its position as the most innovative and creative country in the world.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at a time when we are facing serious international challenges, from Russian meddling, to North Korean sabre- rattling, to an increasingly assertive China, it is very essential that the President have a qualified Secretary of State whom he trusts to be on the job. Mike Pompeo unquestionably understands the international challenges we face and is more than capable of being a very effective Secretary of State. When I talk to our allies, they are anxious to see him on the job. Unfortunately, some on the other side of the aisle are now claiming that he is not suited for the post of Secretary of State because of positions he took as a Member of Congress or his holding to traditional Christian teachings, as if a person's religion ought to have something to say about their being in public office or public service. Others have spoken about that, and I don't have a whole lot more to add on that point. I would note the irony, though, that many of the Senators who are most likely to vote against Cabinet nominees are also rumored to have Presidential ambitions. They should ask themselves if they truly want to live with the precedent they are setting. You don't have to like the President personally or support the President's policies, but as an American, it is in all of our interests to have a fully functioning executive branch, especially when it comes to foreign policy. If a mainstream Republican former Member of Congress is deemed unacceptable because of his beliefs, how should mainstream Republicans vote when faced with future nominees who do not share the beliefs that Republicans hold? Should Republicans just willy-nilly vote against any future nominee who does not share our political or religious views? That said, I would like to focus on other attributes of Director Pompeo's which some have criticized but which I see as assets. By all accounts, this nominee's tenure at the CIA has been a success. However, some Senators who supported him then are now arguing that he should not be Secretary of State because he is not diplomatic enough. First, let's dismiss the more radical talking points about his being a warmonger. The theory is that President Trump is liable to start a war at any moment, so we need to force him, as President, to have Cabinet officials surrounding him who will counteract his impulses. We could have a hypothetical debate about whether, if the American people elect a warmonger as President, he should be allowed to appoint a warmonger Cabinet, but suffice it to say that I don't think that label applies to Mike Pompeo or Donald Trump, and I view such accusations as simply cheap partisan talking points. On the other hand, it is fair to say that Mike Pompeo doesn't always couch his words in diplomatic niceties. He doesn't mince words about the threats that we face. And his time at the CIA has surely enhanced his strategic thinking. That is good, and that is exactly what we need at the State Department. We need less diplomatic double-talk and more clear-eyed, strategic thinking about international threats. Real diplomacy isn't always about sweet talk. Sometimes it requires taking a firm stand, and to be effective, it should be part of a strategic vision that incorporates all the elements of statecraft. For instance, I hope we have finally discarded once and for all the diplomatic impulse to make unilateral concessions to President Putin in hopes they will be reciprocated, as exemplified by the Obama-Clinton reset. We all know it didn't really reset. If you understand Russian history and Russian political culture, you know that Russians, especially from a KGB pedigree, are likely to see this as a sign of weakness to be exploited. Diplomatic overtures to the Russians without a corresponding demonstration of strength are simply an invitation to further aggression and misbehavior. I think we are finally arriving at a bipartisan consensus that Russia is a major geopolitical foe. Mike Pompeo has made clear that he has no doubts about the threat from Russia. He understands the need to push back and push back hard against Russia's attempt to dominate its neighbors and sow discord in the West. The threat from Russia will need a strategic plan that integrates all the elements of statecraft, including government-to-government diplomacy alongside military deterrence, intelligence and counterintelligence, cyber security, and public diplomacy, just to name a few, and there are a lot of others. Another area where some clear-eyed strategic thinking is even more crucial is our approach to the People's Republic of China. So I just stated: Consider China a bigger threat than Russia. I just returned from a trip to China with several colleagues at the beginning of this month. It was an eye-opener. We hear a lot about how China is embracing capitalism and becoming more and more like us. Just don't believe it. The Chinese Communist Party has modified its economic policy to allow for economic growth, but it still serves the interests of the state, not the interests of the people. It is not a free market, clearly, because they admit that their economic system is what they would call authoritative capitalism, aka mercantilism. I visited with government officials at the national and local level, Chinese and American businesses, and American diplomats. The Chinese officials and the Chinese businesses had their talking points down almost too well. However, the impression that I took away from the visit is that the Chinese Government will do anything--legal or illegal, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical--to get ahead of the United States, and when they get ahead, to stay ahead. China coined the term ``peaceful rise'' to describe its drive to become a great power, which is designed to sound very benign. In fact, China later changed this slogan ``peaceful rise'' to ``peaceful development'' out of concern that the word ``rise'' sounds threatening. Just to be clear, I am not threatened by Chinese economic growth. The development of a truly peaceful, free market democracy, no matter how large, would not be threatening because democracies generally do not threaten each other, and free enterprise is mutually beneficial. The fact that so many Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty and into the middle class is a good news story for humanity. It is also good for the United States. The more Chinese people who can afford to buy our pork and soybeans, our John Deere tractors, and our advanced manufacturing, the better for Iowa and our national economy. Free trade on a level playing field enriches both participants. Unfortunately, China is not interested in a level playing field. It seeks dominance economically, militarily, and politically. Confucius said: ``Heaven does not have two suns and the people do not have two kings.'' By the same token, the Chinese leadership does not think there is room for two great powers in the world. China seeks the advantage of trade with the United States but not mutually beneficial free trade in the spirit of the WTO. Despite having a middle class that is bigger than ours in the United States in absolute numbers, China still claims to need special preferences extended to developing countries. China erects nontariff barriers in ways that just very barely skirt triggering WTO compliance in violation of the spirit of the level playing field the WTO seeks to create. The Chinese military is 60 percent larger than the U.S. military, and its efforts to claim exclusive control over the South China Sea, in violation of international law by creating artificial islands, reveals an expansionist impulse. You can't hide those islands. You know it implies dominance. However, the threat from China is not mainly military. The influential ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu focused on the role of deception over combat. He famously said: ``To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.'' Now, get this. The problem we face is, we are being treated like an enemy to be subdued without realizing it. I say all of this not to be an alarmist but to point out that China sees itself in a long-term strategic struggle with the United States. We don't need to overreact to this fact, but we do need to be aware and to apply some clear-eyed strategic thinking of our own. In that respect, Mike Pompeo's unique background seems perfectly aligned with the task ahead to develop a strategic foreign policy toward China incorporating all the elements of statecraft. Because I have mentioned aspects of Chinese culture to illuminate the strategic thinking on the part of the People's Republic of China, I don't want to give the impression that this is a clash of civilizations. On the contrary, it is not traditional Chinese culture that is the problem; it is the unreconstructed Leninist nature of the state system that is the problem. It is sometimes claimed that Chinese culture is not compatible with democracy, but that is hogwash. The proof to the contrary is the Republic of China on Taiwan. Taiwan is a fully functioning, prosperous democracy with the same Chinese culture and traditions. This same democracy is what mainland China could have also if it is able to shed its one-party dictatorship, and I hope it will shed that someday. In the meantime, we need leaders in our government who see China clearly and have the ability to think strategically. Mike Pompeo seems to me to be just that kind of a person, so I am happy to support his confirmation as Secretary of State. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Cochran and I met while serving together in the House of Representatives, but it was in the Senate that we became close colleagues. Throughout his service, Senator Cochran has remained devoted to the U.S. Senate functioning as a bipartisan, deliberative body. It is a goal I have long admired about Senator Cochran and a mission I share. As only the second Republican to be elected to represent Mississippi in the House of Representatives since Reconstruction and the first Republican to win a statewide election in a century at the time he was elected to the U.S. Senate, Senator Cochran proved that it is ideas and commitment to constituents that move communities and States forward. Throughout his career, Senator Cochran continued to prove time and again that this is the path to legislative success. You really get to know a colleague when you travel with them. I know Senator Cochran as a deliberative and thoughtful colleague. Though collegial and cautious, Senator Cochran was dogged in his pursuit to represent the interests of Mississippi. Senator Cochran and I often exchanged ideas in the Senate Agriculture Committee while he served as chairman. I can say with certainty that he represented the farmers of his State extremely well. A hallmark of Senator Thad Cochran's distinguished career has been his ability to work effectively and thoughtfully on behalf of Mississippi. He has a courteous manner but commands the attention and respect of his colleagues. His deep institutional knowledge and dedication to public office will make him a sorely missed member of the United States Senate. I thank him for his faithful service to this body and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the online sex trafficking legislation that is before us today. Immediately passing and sending this measure to the President's desk will help ensure that children and youth are less vulnerable to human traffickers and others who would profit from this terrible crime. This bill originally was introduced in this Chamber by Senator Portman, and I salute him for his leadership on the issue of online sex trafficking. Last year, I joined dozens of my Senate colleagues as a cosponsor of this measure after working with the Commerce Committee on the title 18 language in this legislation. Senator Portman, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, introduced the earliest version of this legislation after his subcommittee produced a bipartisan report exploring the link between Backpage and online sex trafficking. Entitled ``Backpage.com's Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex Trafficking,'' that report was the result of nearly 2 years of investigation by the subcommittee's investigative staff. I encourage my colleagues to review the Senate report, which is posted on the subcommittee's website. It makes a very strong case for updating the Communications Decency Act and title 18 of the U.S. Code to protect children as the bill before us proposes. I, too, have made ending human trafficking a top priority as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the first major bills our committee produced in the 114th Congress, under my leadership, was the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. It established a new fund, comprised of assessments imposed on convicted offenders, to provide resources to serve victims of human trafficking. It also equipped prosecutors with new tools to fight the heinous crime of human trafficking. Senator Cornyn introduced that bill, and I was a cosponsor. Last year, I sponsored legislation to extend the key programs authorized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Our committee cleared this bill and a related measure that Senator Cornyn introduced known as ``Abolish Human Trafficking Act'' in 2017. The Senate passed both bills without a single dissenting vote last September. These two bills would extend the authorization for a number of the victim-centered programs that Congress established years ago as part of the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act. They also include provisions to promote greater education and awareness of human trafficking in the United States. For example, the Senate-passed Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017, which I introduced, calls for training of judges, school personnel, and Federal investigators so that they can better identify and respond to human trafficking victims. It would authorize the U.S. Secret Service to offer investigative and forensic assistance to other law enforcement agencies. It would establish an Office of Victim Assistance within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ensure that the office is staffed by trained victim assistance personnel. Lastly, the measure promotes coordination among and data collection by the Federal agencies that are tasked with helping human trafficking victims and bringing the perpetrators to justice. The Abolish Human Trafficking Act, which I joined Senator Cornyn in introducing, ensures that victims will receive restitution, authorizes funding of investigations, and enhances penalties imposed for trafficking offenses, including sexual exploitation or abuse, sex trafficking of children, and repeat convictions for transportation for illicit sexual activity. We currently are working with the other Chamber on a package that would include these two bills, a related measure introduced by Senator Corker, and the House-passed version of legislation to renew and extend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Sending this package of four bills and Senator Portman's online sex trafficking bill to President Trump for his signature sends a very strong message to human traffickers that we will not tolerate the scourge of human trafficking in the United States. I close by calling on my colleague to support the immediate passage of H.R. 1865 without any weakening amendments.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention an issue that is important to millions of individuals who understand that American citizenship is something that ought to be treasured. The American people understand that our citizenship is a blessing and shouldn't be given away cheaply. Unfortunately, for too many years, this body has witnessed the perversion and degradation of a program that sells--yes, we sell citizenship to some people. This program originally had a good purpose. In return for investing money in underserved areas and creating good-paying American jobs, immigrant entrepreneurs could eventually become U.S. citizens. Sadly, in the last decade, this program has been hijacked by big-moneyed New York City real estate interests--to be specific, the Real Estate Roundtable. These developers now take almost all the foreign investment from this program, and for the last few years, they have actively prevented this body from enacting any reforms and needed reforms. For those who are not aware, I am talking about the EB-5 Regional Center Program. I have been fighting in a bipartisan way for years to reform this corrupt and scandal-clad program. I have been fighting to protect our national security, to ensure foreign investment is going to the most deserving areas, and to make sure that American citizenship isn't sold at rock-bottom prices in order to feed the addiction of New York interests to cheap money. But no matter how hard I fought, each and every time we tried to reform this program, these same moneyed interests have used their political influence and political connections to block any meaningful reforms. This is sickening and is exactly why most American people sometimes question what we do here in Washington, DC. After more than 3 years of trying to fix this broken and scandal- plagued program, I have finally come to the conclusion that it can't be fixed, and since it can't be fixed, the EB-5 Regional Center Program needs to be terminated. Let me explain to my colleagues and directly to the American people exactly how I have reached that conclusion. Several years ago, I started working with then-Ranking Member Leahy of the Judiciary Committee on reforms to the EB-5 Regional Center Program. Through the hard work and dedication of our staffers, we discovered the program is riddled with fraud and corruption and poses a real and serious threat to our national security. I will explain some of those things we discovered. First, investments can be spent before business plans are approved. Next, regional center operators can charge excessive fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments. Next, none of the jobs created have to be direct or verifiable jobs but rather are indirect and based on estimates of economic modeling; again, not knowing for sure if jobs are created. Next, investment funds from foreign sources are not adequately vetted. Gifts and loans from anyone are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals. Next, there is no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating these regional centers or projects. So let me emphasize--that is right--foreign governments can own businesses that sell our citizenship. Now, think about that. Another problem is regional centers don't have to certify that they comply with security laws. Next, there are no required background checks on anyone associated with the regional centers. Just take this example: One need look no further than the indictment last September of two Chinese fraudsters who stole more than $50 million in foreign investment and managed to sell U.S. citizenship to individuals on the Chinese Government's most wanted list. Next, gerrymandering continues in rural and urban distressed areas and, as a result, lose out. There is no transparency on how funds are spent and who is paid and what investors are told about the projects they invest in. The list can still go on and on and on, but I have given my colleagues just some examples. I could literally speak for hours about the corruption of the program. Faced with this appalling list of fraud, corruption, and national security loopholes, for 3 years, I have been working with Senator Leahy and our counterparts in the House of Representatives to produce real EB-5 reform. Our staffers have spent countless hours, nights, and weekends meeting with congressional colleagues and industry stakeholders to hammer out a compromise that is fair to all sides, but our offers have constantly been rejected by the Big Money industries, and related real estate roundtables, every single time--not just this time. We reached a compromise with the vast differences of views to start out but still ended up with a compromise. Somehow, these powerful interests are able step in and stop it. This time has been no different than at least three previous times we have gotten this far. Let me explain how we have been doing this. For the last year, my staff, along with Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Flake--these teams have worked around the clock to produce an EB-5 reform package. Everyone made numerous concessions in order to reach a compromise. After more than 20 meetings, and of course countless hours of drafting, we produced a reform package that was fair to all sides. Our reforms would reauthorize the Regional Center Program for 6 years, providing the certainty that industry has long said it craves. Our compromise would have permanently set aside 3,000 visas for rural and underserved urban areas and would have increased the minimum investment amount to $925,000. In recognition of longstanding industry concerns, we agreed to reduce the investment differential between nonpriority areas and priority areas to a mere $100,000. Finally, we would have implemented a host of badly needed integrity measures that would have cracked down on investment fraud, cracked down on foreign corruption, and cracked down on bad business practices. Our reforms had the unanimous support of Invest in the USA, the largest EB-5 trade association. Our reforms had the support of the EB-5 Rural Alliance, a group working to ensure that rural America has a fair shake at attracting EB-5 money. Why are rural areas such a high concern? Because, quite frankly, way back in the 1990s, that was one of the goals of the EB-5 program--to help economic development in rural America, but these reforms weren't acceptable to the Big Money New York industry stakeholders that currently dominate the program. Because Big Money interests aren't happy with these reforms, we have been told they will not become law. I have laid out a lot here, letting it sink in for a minute. In spite of the fact that reforms were agreed to by congressional offices and had the support of the largest EB-5 trade association, they will not become law because a few EB-5 businesses, with lots and lots of money and lots and lots of political power, have used their political connections and influence, once again--for the third time; maybe even the fourth time over a period of that many years--to reach some sort of reform on a program we have demonstrated-- I shouldn't say we have demonstrated--we have repeated what the FBI and national security people and people in the Justice Department have said about the shortcomings of this program. I said, at the beginning of my remarks, I finally realize this program cannot be reformed. I would have to say this for my present ranking member, Senator Feinstein, she has been telling me that for three or four years: Forget about reforming it; we ought to do away with it. The Regional Center Program is simply too corrupted to be saved, and it needs to be ended. The American people deserve better than what we are seeing as a result of hard-working Members of the House and Senate trying to reform this program and getting nothing done. So what happens here at the last minute? It will get stuck in an omnibus appropriations bill to extend it again for a period of time with the same bad practices that are going on. Why does that have to happen when it is so obvious what is wrong? I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would implement the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (``Marrakesh Treaty''). I'm pleased that Senators Feinstein, Corker, Menendez, Hatch, Harris and Leahy are joining me as original cosponsors. The Marrakesh Treaty was signed by the United States in October 2013. It seeks to help address the global ``book famine'' and facilitate access to printed works for visually impaired individuals by providing, with appropriate safeguards, that copyright protection should not impede the creation and distribution of accessible format copies, including the exchange of such copies internationally. The Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act represents a consensus approach developed by the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees with stakeholders within the publishers, libraries and print disabilities communities, in consultation with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office as well as other interested industry and public interest stakeholders. I particularly want to commend the National Federation of the Blind, the Association of American Publishers and the Library Copyright Alliance for working with us in reaching an agreement on legislative text and proposed legislative history. We would not be here today without their efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Menendez, on ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty in the Senate, and with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Feinstein on passing the Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would implement the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (``Marrakesh Treaty''). I'm pleased that Senators Feinstein, Corker, Menendez, Hatch, Harris and Leahy are joining me as original cosponsors. The Marrakesh Treaty was signed by the United States in October 2013. It seeks to help address the global ``book famine'' and facilitate access to printed works for visually impaired individuals by providing, with appropriate safeguards, that copyright protection should not impede the creation and distribution of accessible format copies, including the exchange of such copies internationally. The Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act represents a consensus approach developed by the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees with stakeholders within the publishers, libraries and print disabilities communities, in consultation with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office as well as other interested industry and public interest stakeholders. I particularly want to commend the National Federation of the Blind, the Association of American Publishers and the Library Copyright Alliance for working with us in reaching an agreement on legislative text and proposed legislative history. We would not be here today without their efforts. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Menendez, on ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty in the Senate, and with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Feinstein on passing the Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Jason Klitenic, of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), until the ODNI and the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) provide fulsome responses to questions posed and documents requested concerning the Acting IC IG's efforts to terminate the Executive Director for Intelligence Community Whistleblowing and Source Protection and to hamstring the whistleblower protection program in the intelligence community. To be clear, I have no concerns regarding Mr. Klitenic's capabilities or qualifications, and ultimately no intent of withholding my support for him as soon as this matter is resolved. On November 29, 2017, I sent a letter to ODNI Director Daniel Coats and to Acting IC IG Wayne Stone noting disturbing allegations my office received that the IC IG was moving to terminate the Executive Director as part of an effort to significantly weaken the IC IG's role in ensuring consistent and effective whistleblower protections throughout the intelligence community. I requested that the offices seek to preserve all information contained in the Executive Director's office, much of which concerned highly sensitive protected disclosures made by individuals within the intelligence community, as well as allegations of wrongdoing against senior officials within the IC IG. I also sought all documents related to the IC IG's efforts to place the Executive Director on administrative leave and pursue personnel action against him. At that time, I informed the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that I would object to any unanimous consent request to confirm Mr. Klitenic until I received an answer to my letter. To date, I have received no response. Since that time, the IC IG has indeed moved to terminate the Executive Director, and I have continued to receive reports that this process has been marked by significant irregularities, conflicts of interest, and ongoing efforts to ``stack the decks'' in hiring prior to the arrival of a new permanent, Senate-confirmed head of that office, who rightfully should have the authority to make such decisions. Moreover I have reason to believe these latest efforts may be a direct response to displeasure within the IC IG with Congress's exercise of its constitutional responsibility to provide fully informed advice and consent with respect to the President's nomination of a permanent IG. If true, such behavior is totally unacceptable. It is an affront not only to this institution but to the President's prerogative to choose nominees, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to lead the agencies under his authority. On the contrary, I would note that there is no independent authority anywhere in the Constitution granted to freewheeling bureaucrats. Based on these ongoing concerns, Senator Ron Wyden joined me in sending a letter on March 6, 2018 to Director Coats following up on my original letter and seeking a stay of any personnel action against the Executive Director until Congress has an opportunity to review this action and fully understand exactly how the IC IG is, or is not, appropriately administering the IC whistleblowing program. Until we have answers, I will object to Mr. Klitenic's confirmation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus has been without a Republican cochair. This is a critical time to show solidarity with our Baltic allies, given Russian aggression against Ukraine starting in 2014, following on Russian military intervention in the Republic of Georgia in 2008. It is also a significant milestone year for all three Baltic countries as they celebrate the 100th anniversary of their statehood. As such, it is important that the Baltic Freedom Caucus have its leadership in place. I have been a member of the Baltic Freedom Caucus for some time, and I have now agreed to be the Republican cochair, along with Senator Durbin, who is the longtime Democrat cochair. So, in my new capacity as cochair of the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus, I would like to offer congratulations first to the Republic of Lithuania, which celebrated 100 years since the establishment of the modern Lithuanian state on February 16. I say the modern state because Lithuanians trace their country's history to 1253. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania controlled a large amount of territory from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea during medieval times. It later joined with Poland as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Then, with the partitions of Poland starting in the 18th century, it came under the control of the Russian empire. In the wake of World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, on February 16, 1918, representatives of the Lithuanian nation signed the Act of Independence of Lithuania ``reestablishing an independent state, based on democratic principles.'' Lithuania today holds true to those principles. This makes it a natural and close ally of the United States and other freedom-loving nations. In fact, the Lithuanian Government has become a particularly outspoken defender of democratic principles in the face of attacks on those principles by its large neighbor, Russia. I would also like to recognize the Republic of Estonia, which marked 100 years of statehood on February 24. Like the United States, Estonia counts its statehood starting with its declaration of independence. Also like the United States, Estonia had to fight a war against an empire with a much larger army to secure its independence. Actually, Estonia had to fight both the German empire and Bolshevik Russia. Germany gave up when it lost World War I, and Soviet Russia was pushed back by the new Estonian army, ultimately signing the Treaty of Tartu that recognized the independence of Estonia in perpetuity. More recently, the Estonian army has fought side by side with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Estonia is one of the few NATO allies that meets its commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. I should add that Latvians will celebrate their 100th anniversary of statehood in November, so there will be time to congratulate them in due course, but I should mention that there are many connections between Latvia and Iowa. Iowa was partnered with Latvia in a civic education exchange program a number of years ago; a prominent Iowan, Chuck Larson, served as Ambassador to Latvia from 2008 to 2009; and we have a Latvian-American community in Iowa. Some people may have a vague notion that the Baltics are breakaway Soviet republics, but that is not accurate if you know your history. On the eve of World War II, the Soviets and the Nazis signed the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact, which contained a secret protocol agreeing to divide up several sovereign countries between them. The Nazis were to get western Poland, and the Soviets claimed the Baltic countries and Finland, eastern Poland, and the part of Romania that is now the Republic of Moldova. Then both totalitarian governments proceeded to take those territories by force, although the Finns only lost part of the Karelia region after repelling the Soviet invasion in the Winter War. The Soviets organized rigged elections and claimed that the Baltic countries voluntarily joined the Soviet Union. However, the United States never recognized the annexation of these countries, and we continued to maintain diplomatic relations with the three Baltic countries throughout the Cold War. The Lithuanian Embassy is still in its original location, and during the Soviet occupation, the Estonian representative to the United States became the longest serving member of the Washington diplomatic corps. In 1989, on the 50th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, citizens of the three Baltic countries formed a human chain connecting the capital cities protesting the continued occupation and highlighting the history of how it came about, which was officially denied by the Soviet regime. Vladimir Putin's regime continues to deny that the Baltic countries were illegally occupied and to insist that they ceased to be independent states when they were annexed in 1940. In 2015, a member of the ruling party in Russia even initiated an inquiry with the Russian Prosecutor General as to the legality of the decision allowing the independence of the Baltic states from the Soviet Union in 1991. That decision was declared illegal. Since the entire 50- year occupation of the Baltic countries was illegal, the legality of a decision by a defunct evil empire is hardly relevant. What is relevant is that the current regime in Russia is continuing the Soviet legacy of rewriting history to fit its agenda. That is a form of political warfare. Many Americans are now waking up to the fact that the Putin regime is bent on undermining Western democracies. Well, the Baltic countries have been warning about that for years while leaders of our government were cozying up to Putin and playing around with reset buttons. Estonia was the subject of a massive propaganda campaign combined with a cyber attack back in 2007 when it moved a Soviet war memorial to a less conspicuous location. Estonia's experience of weathering a cyber attack and its strong IT sector have made it a cybersecurity expert, and it now hosts the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. What Russia is doing now is out of the same KGB playbook it used throughout the Cold War. For instance, the Soviets planted articles in newspapers in the 1980s claiming that the United States created AIDS. They then got other papers to pick it up and echoed the story via its own news agencies. This is exactly what Russia is still doing, only with more modern technology. We have a lot to learn from all three Baltic countries, where the governments, the media, and the citizens are more sophisticated about identifying and exposing propaganda campaigns. The best response to propaganda is education and exposure--in other words, truth. The citizens of the three Baltic countries fought back against Soviet distortion of history with historical truth and were able to reclaim their independence. So today I want to recognize historical truth on the Senate floor and congratulate Lithuania and Estonia on their recent statehood centennials. I look forward to celebrating the upcoming centennial of Latvia in November. These bastions of Western civilization and Western values in a tough neighborhood are valuable partners in advancing our shared goals of securing democracy and the blessings of liberty for our people.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate is voting to confirm Judge Elizabeth Branch to serve as a U.S. circuit court judge for the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Branch was favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a 19-2 bipartisan vote. She has broad bipartisan support from her home State of Georgia. The American Bar Association rated Judge Branch as unanimously well-qualified. If the Senate confirms Judge Branch, as I am confident it will, she will be the fourth woman confirmed by the Senate to the Federal courts of appeals in the 115th Congress, three more than the one woman confirmed at this point in President Obama's first term. Judge Branch's judicial career and broad range of legal experiences have well prepared her to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Branch was appointed to the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2012. In her time on the appellate bench, she has participated in over 1,500 cases. Before joining the bench, Judge Branch spent several years in private practice. She also served in government, including her role as a top lawyer for the Department of Homeland Security. Judge Branch received her B.A. from Davidson College and her J.D. from Emory. After law school, Judge Branch clerked for Judge Owen Forrester on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. As I noted earlier, if confirmed, Judge Branch will become the fourth female circuit court judge confirmed under President Trump. Her confirmation puts her in good company, joining a class of first-rate female jurists and legal scholars. She will join a group that includes: Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a former professor at Notre Dame University Law School and law clerk to Justice Scalia; Tenth Circuit Judge Allison Eid, a former Colorado Supreme Court Justice and law clerk to Justice Thomas; and Sixth Circuit Judge Joan Larsen, another clerk of Justice Scalia and former Michigan Supreme Court justice. I am confident that Judge Branch will serve as an excellent addition to this outstanding class of female circuit court judges. Judge Branch's impressive background and bipartisan support suggest that she will be an excellent court of appeals judge. I am pleased to support her nomination today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor now to offer brief remarks on the introduction of the latest so-called bipartisan proposal. There is simply no way to say it, but to say it: This proposal fails to meet the mark, will result in massive amnesty, and will result in a surge of illegal immigration, even encouraging the illegal crossing of our borders. It has absolutely no chance of becoming law because we have been reminded of what the President has said he would sign, and he has said that this bill we are talking about now would not be signed by the President of the United States. It would be vetoed. In my mind, the Department of Homeland Security, when they commented on this bill, has this one point right. This bill will absolutely destroy our ability--meaning the ability of DHS--to enforce our laws, secure our borders, and then, consequentially, not protect the American people. The American people expect our government to fulfill their No. 1 responsibility, which is to protect the American people. It is hard to decide where to start when you dissect this ill- conceived proposal, but to quote, I think, J.R.R. Tolkien, I guess the best place to begin is at the beginning. This proposal claims to have border security measures, but the simple fact is that it doesn't have border security measures. This proposal does something that Democrats and Republicans agreed last year isn't sufficient border security, and we have all agreed that simply throwing money at the border is not border security. So what does that lead you to, other than just what you do at the border? Everyone in this Chamber knows how hard Senators Cornyn and Johnson have worked on border security. Their hard work has shown all of us that real border security isn't just about infrastructure and money; it is about legal authority policy changes, as well, which may be more important. Like it or not, the simple fact is that our current laws contain numerous loopholes that actually prevent our law enforcement officers from apprehending, detaining, and speedily deporting dangerous criminal aliens. Professional staffers at the Department of Homeland Security--and I emphasize the words ``professional staffers,'' not political employees--all agree we need these authority changes. I ask my colleagues: What is the point of throwing money at the border if sex offenders, terrorists, gang members, child molesters, and war criminals can continue getting into our country? What is the point if we can't actually remove people who are entering illegally? What is the point if Americans continue to be victimized by crimes committed by undocumented immigrants? This bipartisan plan falls miserably short of providing real border security and doesn't do anything to make Americans safer. Worse than the border security problems, this bipartisan plan massively expands the number of individuals who are eligible for citizenship. The way this plan is written, more than 3 million individuals could become eligible for citizenship, and many of these people wouldn't be the very same people we have been trying to deal with all week--DACA and Dreamers. The way this bill is written, people as old as 43 could benefit. I thought when we began this debate we were talking about protecting young people, not middle-aged adults. This is clearly beyond the pale and is just another example of moving the amnesty yardstick. But the worst thing in this plan, the most egregious thing, is that it effectively suspends immigration enforcement until June 2018. Think about that. Why would you effectively suspend immigration enforcement at any time? If my colleagues look at the last page of this amendment, it clearly says that any person who illegally enters our country before the end of June 2018 will never be a priority for deportation. Think of the invitation that comes for people between now and June 30 to get to this country because they won't be a priority for deportation. Isn't that quite an invitation to violate our laws, to violate our sovereignty? I can't imagine that people in the States of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota--any State, for that matter, but particularly in some of these really conservative States--that they would be thinking about voting for something that would actually be inviting people to this country because they won't be a priority for deportation. Let that point sink in. The authors of this plan are telling everyone in the world--not just south of our border--no matter who they are, what they have done, that if they get here before June, they will never be an enforcement priority. Isn't that immigration madness? I can't, for the life of me, understand why my colleagues would want to end immigration enforcement. What justification do they have? I would urge them that if they have justification, please come to the floor and please explain to the American people why you want people who aren't already here to come illegally. What could be the reason for that? I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It just isn't serious and will totally undermine our Nation's border security and immigration laws. This should not pass. I hope it doesn't pass. The President has proposed a veto. For the people who introduced it, it is a good bill, but are you interested in a good bill or are you interested in getting a law passed? That takes 60 in the Senate, takes a majority in the House, and takes a Presidential signature. I hope you are serious about working for things that can actually become law. That is what we have promised the Dreamers. That is what we can deliver if we get those 60 votes. We can do it in a way that is sound immigration policy, not something that is going to encourage more people to cross our borders without documentation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we offer you commonsense reforms. More than half of the Senators on that side just voted for a massive amount of funding that we need for border security. We offer that as well, but we also make it easier for authorities to remove criminals. We end chain migration. We end the diversity visa. We also have a path to citizenship for 1.8 million DACA recipients and Dreamers. In a sense, this is it. It is the only plan that can become law because the President has said he would sign it. This is it. This is one's last chance to vote for a path to citizenship for all of the people we have been talking about giving justice to and being compassionate about and bringing out of the dark. So here we are with an opportunity to do it. I hope you will vote yes and support it.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Andrea L. Thompson, of South Dakota, to be Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Susan A. Thornton, of Maine, to be an Assistant Secretary (East Asian and Pacific Affairs), and Francis R. Fannon, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary (Energy Resources), all of Department of State. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 14, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 1917 and the following nominations: Michael B. Brennan, of Wisconsin, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, Susan Paradise Baxter, and Marilyn Jean Horan, both to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, Adam I. Klein, of the District of Columbia, to be Chairman and Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, McGregor W. Scott, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, Gary G. Schofield, to be United States Marshal for the District of Nevada, and Jonathan F. Mitchell, of Washington, to be Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, some of what I just heard, I can readily agree to. Certain things, such as that we are a nation of immigrants-- no doubt about that. We need immigrants. We take roughly 800,000 to 1 million legal immigrants a year. They are welcomed. We also, though, are a nation of laws, and as a nation of laws, we want people to come here according to our laws and abide by the laws. We are working with a group of people. If you call them DACAs, it would be about 800,000. If you refer to them as Dreamers, it is maybe 1.8 million. We obviously have sympathy for them because as a baby brought here in diapers by a person or family who crossed our border without papers, hence entering our country illegally--we don't attribute the sin and the unlawfulness of the parent to the baby. A lot of that has happened. There is a general agreement--maybe not everybody in my political party agrees with this, but I think 80 percent of them do--that we need to deal with people who are here through no fault of their own and give them legal status. That is the compassion we are showing for people who broke our laws by their parents doing it but not the kids doing it. I also didn't ever think we would be here today debating this because I went through the 2013 debate on immigration. The Senate passed a bill; the House of Representatives didn't take it up. I was in the minority at that time, both in the caucus that was in the minority as well as in the minority that voted against that bill, because I didn't think it did things the way I would do them. Everything died in the House of Representatives. Then, 2 years later, I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We have jurisdiction over immigration legislation. I could have spent 3 months on immigration during 2015 or 2016 and sent a bill to the House of Representatives that probably would have died, but I made up my mind early in my chairmanship that I wanted to do things that we could get passed. So over the period of the last Congress, my committee voted out 31 bills, all bipartisan, and 18 of them got to a Democratic President. In 2015 and 2016, I felt, why go through that process if it is going to die in the House of Representatives? Now, a year later, after the election of a President who campaigned so much against anything dealing with immigration and legalization of people who are here--even young people, whom he has now come to the conclusion we ought to legalize--I didn't think we would be having this debate, and somehow I think Members of the Democratic Party didn't think we would be having this debate. I think they probably were shocked 2 or 3 weeks ago when the government shut down and when the majority leader decided to make an agreement to bring up this issue. But here we are, debating an immigration bill that, quite frankly, I didn't think we would be debating. Here we are. Then, of course, we didn't do anything Monday. We didn't do anything on this issue Tuesday. I don't know whether we are going to have any votes today, but here we are debating immigration. We have a chance to do what Members of the other political party, as advocates for Dreamers and DACA kids--and we have them on this side but maybe not as vocal or as loyal as Democrats are on this issue. Somehow, we are now having a difficult time getting the issue up and getting something passed. I offer to my 99 colleagues something the President said he would sign. Maybe you don't like exactly what is in that proposal. Then get it up and amend it, and let's see what sort of compromise we can accomplish. But we are here because the leader said that we are going to work on this issue. It was something that the minority demanded. We ought to reach a conclusion on it and get something to the President of the United States. Once we knew that this issue was going to come up--and we knew that on September 5 when the President said that he was not going to continue the illegal approach to the DACA kids that President Obama did. We have reason to believe this from court decisions on older people where they ruled that the President didn't have the authority to do what he did with the DACA kids. In fact, at least a dozen times before he made that decision, he was telling the entire country he didn't have the authority to do it, and then he went ahead and did it. So this President comes in, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country, and he decides that he can't continue what was considered illegal activity by the previous President. This is a congressional decision that needs to be made, and Congress ought to make it. We were told on September 5 to do something by March 5, and here we are. I heard from the previous speaker--and maybe a lot of speakers--that this is the President's plan. Yes, this is something that the President said that he is going to support and will sign, but I want to say to you that the work that a group of us Senators have put into this issue over a period of the last 3 months, with about 18 meetings, 4 meetings with the President of the United States to discuss the issue--most of what is in the proposal that is put before you are things that a group of Senators put together. I would say that as our group met, we probably had subgroups of three who had different views, and some of them felt strongly about their positions, but everyone came together in a compromise that you see here before us in my amendment. In some of those meetings, we discussed these things with the President, and I want to give the President credit. In a January 9 meeting that he had where he called together 23 of us--bipartisan and bicameral--we were able to dial down all the things that we would be discussing on immigration, and we came to the conclusion that there were four main points that we ought to be dealing with. You have heard of these as the four pillars, but let me repeat them. No. 1 was legalization of these children who were brought here by their parents; No. 2 was border security; No. 3 was chain migration; and No. 4, diversity visa. We discussed these things with the President, and I suppose the President probably emphasized citizenship to a greater extent than maybe we did in our deliberations, but we have something that has been put together by Members of this body who have compromised, with none of us getting everything we wanted. We are fortunate enough to have the President's backing on this. So I hope that you see this, not as we have heard from the other side as the President's plan--as if seven of us who introduced this proposal somehow just took something from the White House and put our names on it, and it is here before the U.S. Senate--because that isn't how it worked. I want to address some of the issues that have been put before us by people on the other side. I want to express--as you probably have seen me expressing already in my remarks so far--my frustration with the current status of the immigration debate here in the U.S. Senate. It amazes me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply aren't ready to have a serious immigration debate. They have been demanding to have this debate for months. They have even shut the government down to get to this point, and now we are actually on this issue that they have been demanding that we debate for months during this Congress--some on the other side of the aisle for years--and now when it is time to put up or shut up, they have come up emptyhanded. Despite having weeks to prepare, Senate Democrats are still rushing to put some plan together. Let that sink in. Think about this just for a moment. The Senate Democrats recklessly shut down the Federal Government over immigration, and they did it over plans that they still largely haven't drafted. That should be very frustrating, not only to this Senator but to most of my colleagues, and it is exactly why the American people seem to have less faith in this process in Washington, DC. Even more frustrating is that for 2 valuable days, they have refused to allow the Senate to debate immigration measures. I do understand why the Democrats are afraid to vote on ending sanctuary cities. Those policies of sanctuary cities are massively unpopular with the American people. In other words, the American people feel that when the Constitution says that immigration law is one of the 18 powers of the United States, then no local or State government should be able to interfere with what the Constitution says is the supreme law of the land. I can't understand why, for 2 days, Democrats have refused to allow us a debate on an issue like sanctuary cities. That amendment would help us keep our communities safe from dangerous criminals, besides carrying out the intent of the Constitution that the Federal Government has complete authority over immigration. Who could be against an approach to send a signal that sanctuary cities aren't justified when that is how to protect the American people from the criminal elements that some sanctuary cities protect? Apparently, the Democrats are, since they don't seem to be for outlawing sanctuary cities. I guess another way to say it is that they could do more to protect hard-working Americans from the criminal element that is, albeit, a small part of the immigration community we are talking about, but it still creates havoc for people like the Steinle family, for example, where Kate was murdered by an alien who was a felon who had returned to this country not once but five times. In other words, I have to ask my colleagues whether enforcement issues are legitimately a part of the immigration debate, and that is what the sanctuary city situation is all about. Isn't border security more than just throwing money at infrastructure? Shouldn't we be discussing how to reform our Nation's laws so that dangerous criminal elements can't inflict harm on innocent families? I am pretty sure--I am actually 100 percent confident--the answer to those questions is yes. Those are important issues to the American people. Those issues used to be discussed here. I have already mentioned the name of Kate Steinle, who was murdered by one of these people. I could add the names of Sarah Root and Jamel Shaw. These people all had dreams, too, but they had their lives ended by felons who had been deported but had come back into this country. If my colleagues were actually serious about debating this issue, we would be discussing border enforcement. Sadly, it seems as though the plans that I have seen so far from my colleagues fall short of that goal. Legalizing Dreamers--yes, who is going to argue with that? A little bit of money for border security--there is a lot to argue about there. But not doing something about criminal aliens who are a threat to law enforcement in this country and to the safety of our country--it seems to me that ought to be a part of it. So we get all the people in this room who say they want to do something about border security by throwing money at it; yet they refuse to actually give our law enforcement the legal tools that they need to protect Americans. Just a wall or whatever you want to call it--electric surveillance, more border patrol--it is all border security, but it is more than a wall. It takes more than just those things to protect the American people. I am here to tell you that it is a tragedy that some people in this body just want to legalize some people for 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years and put maybe a little bit of money into border security with no commitment to the future. Then all we have done is kick the can down the road. Worse still, none of my colleagues' proposals are being developed in a way that they can actually become law. Maybe for them, simply passing a partisan bill is enough. Leader Schumer said that this morning, and I was here listening to him. But that is not enough for this Senator. This Senator actually wants to see something passed into law that will provide real protection for DACA kids. That is why I have offered an amendment that could actually pass the House of Representatives, and we know the President would sign it. Polls show that the framework a number of us developed, along with the President's input, is overwhelmingly popular. A Harvard Harris poll showed that 65 percent of the voters agreed with our plan, including 64 percent of Democratic voters. So despite the hyperbole we hear from our colleagues, the plan that the President said he would sign is not only popular, but, again, it is the only plan that has any chance of becoming law. It is time for all of my colleagues to get serious about fixing DACA. It is time to stop posturing, to stop showboating, and to stop simply trying to pass a bill out of the Senate that will not get considered in the other body and will not be signed by the President of the United States. The focus ought to be on making actual law. If all of us here in the Senate, particularly those who are in the Democratic Caucus, focus on those things, then the choice for them will be very clear. They will vote for the amendment that the seven of us have put before the Senate called the Grassley amendment, they will back the President, and they will provide real security and real certainty to the DACA recipients and the American people. In fact, it is so simple for some on the other side who have been promising DACA certainty for years and some for a few months, but, more importantly, really strongly over the last three or four months. It is an opportunity for everything you have told those kids, including that you are going to get them legal and even give them a path to citizenship that you can deliver. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1959.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, about 20 minutes ago, our majority leader, Senator McConnell, tried to move debate along on an immigration bill, and I am puzzled that our minority leader, Senator Schumer, objected. The reason I am puzzled is, for a long period of time--maybe 10 years--some of the Senators on the other side of the aisle and even some Senators on our side of the aisle have been advocating for giving certainty to the young people who have been brought here by their parents whom we call either Dreamers or DACA people. They have been advocating for giving them legalization. The majority leader, 2 weeks ago, promised the minority an opportunity to have a debate on that issue--the first debate on immigration since 2013, I believe. The majority leader, today, tried to carry out that promise and get this bill moving, and we had this objection. It is very puzzling. I think it is legitimate to ask the minority leader, in his objecting to a unanimous consent agreement, why the objection is coming with regard to the very debate that he has, on his side of the aisle, been demanding of the majority for a long period of time. Hasn't the minority leader and the entire Democratic Party been asking for this debate? Yes, they have been. Leader McConnell has honored his commitment and allowed us to have an open, fair immigration debate this week. The key words are an ``immigration debate,'' not a DACA-only debate, not an amnesty-only debate but an immigration debate. An immigration debate has to include a discussion about enforcement measures. An immigration debate has to include a discussion about how to remove dangerous criminal aliens from our country. A real immigration debate has to include discussions about how to protect the American people. The leader has asked unanimous consent to allow us to start debating these issues, and the Democrats are refusing. Puzzling, I say it is, because they have been the ones to demand this debate. Why don't they want to debate things like sanctuary cities, as one example, which was asked for? Are they unprepared to discuss the vital public safety issues or is it more likely they are worried that some bills on enforcement on this side of the aisle could actually pass? Maybe that is the case, but it is no reason not to allow this body to start debate on this very important issue. The American people deserve a real immigration debate about the four pillars we agreed to at the White House and not just a debate about the Democrats' preferred policy preferences. Yes, DACA is an important part of that discussion, but it is only one part. If the Democrats are insisting that we debate their preferred policies only, that is not a real debate at all. We have filed an amendment that takes into consideration the four pillars that were agreed to at a bicameral, bipartisan meeting at the White House, with the President presiding on January 9. Those four pillars include: legalization and a path to citizenship, border security, the elimination of chain migration, and, fourthly, the elimination of the diversity visa lottery. Those all fit in, maybe not in detail and exactly the way the President might want it, but they fit into the four pillars as to which he said he would sign a piece of legislation. I suggest to my other 99 colleagues that there is a provision that can pass the U.S. Senate, pass the House of Representatives, and be signed by the President of the United States because he has said he agrees with those principles. Other people have bills but not bills that can become law based upon what the President will sign or not sign. Again, I think it is very puzzling that the Democratic leadership will not allow this debate to go forward, for it is something they have been asking for. More importantly, maybe it is quite the surprise that the majority leader would allow this debate to move forward, but that is how a consensus was met about 2 weeks ago on the issue of opening up government and having this debate and moving forward to a budget agreement. Those things have been done. Now the leader is carrying out his promise. I hope the other side will agree to move ahead.

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 to speak for about 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to address, as I do often on the floor, problems with the False Claims Act. As author of the False Claims Act of 1986, I want to say upfront, before I talk about some problems, that this is a piece of legislation that has brought into the Federal Treasury $56 to $57 billion of fraudulently taken money. Each year, the Department of Justice updates the amount of money that has come in under the False Claims Act, about $3 billion to $4 billion a year. We are talking about a piece of legislation I passed more than 30 years ago, that had been good for the taxpayers, to make sure their money is handled the way the law requires. Obviously, if it is taken fraudulently, it isn't handled the way the taxpayers would expect. With that introduction, I want to bring up some problems with the False Claims Act. Today, there are some troubling developments in the courts' interpretation of the False Claims Act. To understand these developments, I want to review a little history. In 1943, Congress gutted the Lincoln-era law known as the False Claims Act. At that time, during World War II, the Department of Justice said it needed no help from whistleblowers to fight fraud. The Department of Justice said, if the government already knows about the fraud, then no court should even hear a whistleblower's case. In 1943, Congress amended the False Claims Act to bar any whistleblower from bringing a claim if the government knows about the fraud. Looking back at World War II, we know what they did to the False Claims Act was a big mistake because the bar led to absurd results that only hurt the taxpayers. It basically meant that all whistleblower cases were blocked, even cases where the government only knew about the fraud because of the whistleblower. In other words, whistleblowers are patriotic people when they are reporting fraud, but it didn't make any difference because of the way the law was amended in 1943. In 1984, the Seventh Circuit barred the State of Wisconsin from a whistleblower action against Medicaid fraud. Even today, Medicaid fraud is a major problem. We have ways of getting at it now, but in 1984 they didn't. In this case in Wisconsin, that State had already told the Federal Government about the fraud because it was required to report that fraud under Federal law. Because of the so-called government knowledge bar enacted in 1943, whistleblower cases went nowhere and neither did prosecution of wrongdoers. Getting back to what I was involved in, in 1986, I worked with many of my colleagues--particularly a former Democratic Congressman from California by the name of Mr. Berman--to make it possible for whistleblowers to be heard again. In other words, these patriotic Americans just want the government to do what the law says it ought to be doing and money spent the way it ought to be spent. They want people to know about it so action can be taken. In 1986, for whistleblowers to be heard again, that included eliminating the so-called government knowledge bar. Since then, what the government knows about fraud has still been used by defendants in false claims cases as a defense against their own state of mind. Courts have found that what the government knows about fraud can still undercut allegations that defendants knowingly submitted false claims. The theory goes something like this: If the government knows about the defendant's bad behavior and the defendant knows the government knows, then the defendant did not knowingly commit fraud. That doesn't make sense, does it? Once you wrap your head around that logic or puzzle, I have another one for you. In 2016, the question of what the government knows about fraud in False Claims Act cases began to take center stage once again. In Escobar, the Supreme Court rightly affirmed that a contractor can be liable under the ``implied false certification'' theory. That means a contractor can be in trouble when it doesn't make good on its bargain. And it doesn't matter whether the contractor outright lies--a misleading omission of its failures is enough. Unfortunately, parts of the Court's ruling are getting some defendants and judges tied in knots. Justice Thomas wrote that the false or misleading aspect of the claim has to be material to the government's decision whether to pay it. Justice Thomas said that one of several ways you can tell whether something misleading is also material is if the government knows what the contractor is up to and pays the claim anyway. That is a good way for people to commit fraud. At first glance, I suppose that kind of makes sense. If someone gives you something substantially different in value or quality from what you asked for, why would you pay for it? But if the difference really isn't that important, you might still accept it. Even if that is true, the problem here is that courts are reacting the way they always have. They are trying to outdo each other in applying Justice Thomas's analysis inappropriately or as strictly as possible, to the point of absurdity. In doing so, they are starting to resurrect elements of that old government knowledge bar that I worked so hard to get rid of in 1986. And remember, that government knowledge bar goes back to the big mistake Congress made in 1943 by eliminating it from the False Claims Act. Justice Thomas actually wrote: [I]f the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material. Or, if the Government regularly pays a particular type of claim in full despite actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, and has signaled no change in position, that is strong evidence that the requirements are not material. Justice Thomas did not say that in every case, if the government pays a claim despite the fact that someone, somewhere in the bowels of democracy might have heard about allegations that the contractor may have done something wrong, the contractor is automatically off the hook. Think about that. Why should the taxpayer pay the price for bureaucrats who fail to expose fraud against the government? That is why the False Claims Act exists--to protect taxpayers by rewarding whistleblowers for exposing fraud. Justice Thomas said that the government's actions when it has actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated are evidence of whether those requirements are material. What does it mean for the government to have actual knowledge? Would it include one bureaucrat who suspected a violation but looked the other way? Would that prove the requirement was material? Courts need to be careful here. First, this statement about government knowledge is not the standard for materiality. The standard for materiality is actually the same as it has always been. The Court did not change that definition in Escobar. Materiality means ``having a natural tendency to influence, or being capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property.'' The question of the government's behavior in response to fraud is one of multiple factors for courts to weigh in applying the standard. Second, courts and defendants should be mindful that Justice Thomas limited the relevance here to actual knowledge of things that actually happened. There are all sorts of situations where the government could have doubts but no actual knowledge of fraud. Maybe the government has only heard vague allegations but has no facts. Maybe the rumors are about something that may be happening in an industry but nothing about a particular false claim by a particular defendant. Maybe an agency has started an inquiry but still has a long way to go before that inquiry is finished. Maybe someone with real agency authority or responsibility hasn't learned of it yet. There are a lot of situations where the government might not have actual knowledge of the fraud. Third, even if the government does pay a false claim, that is not the end of the matter. Courts have long recognized that there are a lot of reasons why the government might not intervene in a whistleblower case. There are a lot of reasons why the government might still pay a false claim. Maybe declining to pay the claim would leave patients without prescriptions or lifesaving medical care. Paying the claims in that case does not mean that the fraud is unimportant; it means that in that moment, the government wants to ensure access to critical care. That payment cannot and does not deprive the government of the right to recover the payment obtained through fraud. Can you imagine if that were the rule? Can you imagine if providers could avoid all accountability because the government decided not to let someone suffer? Then fraudsters could hold the government hostage. They could submit bogus claims all the time with no consequences because they know the government is not going to deny treatment to the sick and the vulnerable. That is just not what the False Claims Act says. Courts should not read such a ridiculous rule into that statute. Fourth, courts should take care in reading into the act a requirement for the government to immediately stop paying claims or first pursue some other remedy. There could be many important reasons to pay a claim that have nothing to do with whether the fraud is material. Further, there is no exhaustion requirement. The False Claims Act does not require the government to jump through administrative hoops or give up its rights. And that would be an unreasonable burden on the government, in any event. We have decades of data showing that the government cannot stop fraud by itself--hence the importance of whistleblowers; hence the importance of the False Claims Act. I also know from many years of oversight that purely administrative remedies are very time-consuming and often toothless. The government should be able to decide how best to protect the taxpayers from fraud. The False Claims Act is the most effective tool the government has. The government should be able to use it without the courts piling on bogus restrictions that are just not law. I started with the importance of the False Claims Act. It has brought $56 billion to $57 billion into the Treasury since its enactment in 1986. Each year, the Department of Justice updates the law, usually reporting $3 billion or $4 billion coming in under that act in the previous year. I hope the courts understand that every bureaucrat in government has to have the opportunity to report what is wrong so that we make sure the taxpayers' money is properly spent. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, I think he needs to be complimented because one of the four things in the bill which I am talking about our introducing and which he is going to be one of the cosponsors of is border security. He has worked for years on border security. He needs to be complimented on it. He is chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of our Judiciary Committee. And I think Senator Johnson of Homeland Security has some aspects of border security as well. I think he and Senator Johnson ought to be complimented for being in the lead of 100 Senators to make sure we don't make the same mistakes we made in 1986 when we gave amnesty because we thought we had border security. Quite obviously, the numbers show we didn't do a very good job on border security in 1986. The Senator from Texas and the Senator from Wisconsin are going to make sure we don't make that same mistake again, so I thank them very much. Madam President, I rise today to announce the formal introduction of an amendment to H.R. 2579. H.R. 2579 is the vehicle for immigration. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Cornyn, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, Cotton, and Ernst. It is a product of several months of hard work between these Senators and including the White House. Since this past September, I have held more than two dozen meetings with interested Senators in an attempt to craft a fair and permanent solution to DACA. I have also met with the President on four separate occasions to figure out exactly what he needs to see in a legislative package so that it can be signed into law, because what is the point of our working hard if we are not going to get something that is going to be finalized by a signature from the President of the United States? I just said I have met with the President on four separate occasions. I should have said that this group of introducers of this legislation met with the President on those four occasions. But most importantly, I have been continuously listening to what my colleagues have said they need in any immigration consensus. As a result of our meetings and conversations with our colleagues, the Senators sponsoring this amendment have attempted to develop a simple, commonsense framework that can address everyone's concerns while also providing necessary and critical changes to our Nation's immigration laws. What does our amendment do? Working off the broad bipartisan, bicameral framework agreed to on January 9 at the White House, our amendment has four key pillars. I said bipartisan, bicameral. Members of Congress met with the President for an hour and a half to boil down all the issues that can be brought up, and we ended up with these four key pillars. First and most importantly, our amendment fully funds the President's border security request. Other plans that we have heard about claim that they fund the President's border security request by--I want to put this word in quotes--``authorizing'' money. But anyone who knows Washington knows that just an authorization turns out to be a gimmick sometimes. It turns out to be a promise sometimes or an IOU to maybe fund something at some later date. Every Member of the Senate knows that in this town, Washington, DC, promises are quite cheap. We went down the road in 2006 when Congress authorized money for border fencing, much of which Congress never actually funded. Our amendment rejects that approach. Instead, we actually appropriate $25 billion into a border security trust fund. This trust fund will allow Homeland Security to use between $2.5 billion and $3 billion a year for infrastructure, technology, and personnel recruitment and retention. By setting up a border security trust fund, we ensure that the Department of Homeland Security will actually have the money that it needs every single year to secure our borders, while also retaining Congress's ability to exercise oversight. Unlike other plans, we also recognize that real border security is more than just throwing money at the border. This group of Senators realized that real border security means that we have to close the legal loopholes in the current law that allow dangerous criminals to enter and remain at large within our country. Our amendment ends these dangerous loopholes and makes it easier for our law enforcement to apprehend, detain, and speedily remove sex offenders, drug smugglers, human traffickers, international terrorists, criminal gang members, repeat border crossers, drunk drivers, and other dangerous people. Second, our amendment provides a generous and permanent solution for DACA and DACA-eligible recipients. Our plan contains an earned path to citizenship for these young people. Provided these young men and women have no criminal record and either serve in the military, attain a college or vocational degree, or maintain full-time employment, they can eventually gain citizenship. This represents a major concession for many Republicans, including this Senator, but this concession is necessary to provide a permanent and fair solution to this issue. The third pillar of our proposal reforms family-based immigration to place greater emphasis on the nuclear family. Moving forward, we limit family-based immigration to the nuclear family, meaning the spouses and minor children of citizens and lawful, permanent residents. This change doesn't end family-based immigration. It simply recognizes that extended-family immigration doesn't serve the American people or our country's economic interest. It is important for all of my colleagues to recognize that these family-based changes are prospective. This means that all 4 million immigrants who are waiting in line for a family-based petition will continue to have their petitions processed under the old rules. This group of Senators understands that we can't penalize the millions of people who actually followed the law and, by following the law, did the right thing. In addition to rewarding those who did the right thing by grandfathering all pending petitions in the pipeline, it will take years--by some estimates, more than a decade--for Congress to debate and enact merit-based immigration reform. Finally, our plan reallocates the 55,000 visas and the diversity visa lottery to clearing backlogs in the family-based and employment-based backlogs. By reallocating these visas, we not only promote faster family reunification but also speed up the immigration of skilled workers in the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories. As you can see, this is an eminently fair plan that closely mirrors the President's framework. This plan is a true compromise, and supporting it will require concessions from all Senators-- conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between. This Senator is ready and willing to make a major concession and, once again, vote for a path to citizenship. Other Senators need to be willing to do the same, to make sacrifices when it comes to border security and to chain migration. But at the end of the day, in spite of everything else, the simple fact remains that this amendment is the only plan that the President supports. This plan is the only Senate plan that has any possibility of passing the House of Representatives and becoming law. So I have asked my colleagues who oppose this proposal: Are you interested in actually getting something done, in actually providing a path to citizenship for these DACA kids, or are you interested in a political issue for the 2018 elections? If you are actually interested in getting something done, in getting a bill signed into law, and fixing the DACA issue, the choice is obvious: You will vote to support this plan. But if my colleagues are more interested in grandstanding, in passing a bill that will never become law and that will not actually protect DACA kids, well, that choice is pretty clear as well. To all my colleagues, I urge your support for this amendment. Let's fix this issue. Let's demonstrate that we can find solutions to the challenging problems that Americans are calling on us to solve. This is a compassionate compromise. As for the people who have been advocating for this for years--longer than I have been, because I have been at it just a short period of time--let them accept a compassionate compromise. Let them do what they have called on to be done for a long period of time--settling the DACA issue once and for all. Then, let's show the world that we are serious about finding a long-term solution, instead of kicking the problem to a future date. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have had a chance today to listen to my colleagues discuss what we think is the only piece of legislation that can get through the Senate, through the House of Representatives, and, most importantly, be signed by the President of the United States. All are cosponsors of this bill, except Senator Hatch, who spoke on another issue that he is very interested in, but it is a very important immigration issue as well. We heard from Senator Cornyn. Then I spoke. Senator Cotton spoke and Senator Ernst, Senator Tillis, and Senator Lankford. Senator Perdue is one of those who is a cosponsor of the bill and would have liked to have been here to speak, but he is just now returning from his constituency. We have tried to lay out a path to giving DACA kids certainty, doing it from a standpoint of being humanitarian for people who were brought to this country by their parents. Their parents may have broken the law--and they did break the law--by coming over our borders without documentation, but we never should hold children responsible for what their parents did. This legislation takes a compassionate and reasonable approach to reforms, including a pathway to citizenship for a broad population. It grandfathers people waiting in line for family- based visas, and it expedites clearing that backlog. It helps to keep young people out of the same legal limbo in the future. This legislation is a product of compromise. The President and many conservatives have come a long way to offer this plan and especially the part of the plan that offers citizenship to this group of people. For one example of compromise, as chairman of this committee, there are a lot of things I would have liked to have seen in this legislation that can't be in there, as a way of getting a broad base of compromise. I am a strong supporter of mandatory E-Verify, but that is not in this document. I think the other side needs to be willing to compromise as well. We need to pass something that can become law. Several times my colleagues have been told that this is the only plan the President supports, and you have heard him say that on television many times since he put out the four-pillars program, as we call it, that came from his White House. The House isn't going to bring up anything that the President will not sign. I think we need to stop political posturing and pass something that can fix a real problem by providing border security and certainty for DACA kids. This legislation is a reasonable approach to shielding children illegally brought to our country through no fault of their own while also taking meaningful steps to ensure that nobody finds themselves in the same situation in the future. This is a rare opportunity to fix a real problem and protect the country in a thoughtful and compassionate way. We simply have to correct the loopholes in current law that allow dangerous criminals to enter and remain at large in our country. Our proposal is supported by the President, who has come a long way to reach a compromise. Just think of the long way from the positions he took during his campaign for President. This President can be very correct in stating that a platform he once ran on he wants to serve on. In this particular case, I think he has come to the same conclusion as a lot of us have: These young people are here through no fault of their own. They may be technically violators of the law, but as a practical matter, humanitarianism calls for us to make a legalization. This is the only Senate proposal that has any chance of passing the House and being signed into law. If my colleagues are serious about actually finding a real and permanent solution to the DACA crisis, they should be ready and willing to support this compromise. I yield the floor.