Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 387. I ask consent that the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Did the Senator make his formal objection?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you. Normally, I would speak right after the Senator from Texas, but I am going to call on three of my colleagues who are here to speak because I have more time than they have. I know the Senator from Texas has to go. He accurately did describe our relationship, generally, in this body as Senators from Iowa and from Texas. I want to let everybody know that we have that good relationship. We sure disagree on this issue. I am sorry we do. With that said, I am going to defer to the Senator from Michigan. I want to say that she is the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee and represents the farmers of Michigan very well, but also, in her leadership position as former chairman of the Agriculture Committee and now the ranking member, she has done a great job of leadership in the area of agriculture. Would the Senator proceed.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague who spoke very highly of the qualifications of Mr. Northey to be Under Secretary at the Department of Agriculture. I may say just a little bit about his qualifications, but I want to spend most of my time expressing my thoughts to my colleagues in the Senate, and to Senator Cruz primarily, on what I think about the argument over RINs being an impediment to some refineries operating efficiently, going into bankruptcy, or other problems they have. Senator Cruz has said there are some things that could be put together to help this situation. I will name three of them that I think would work, and then I will say why I disagree with the Senator from Texas about the RINs issue and why he thinks that is a solution to it and why I feel it is not a solution to it. First of all, my colleague from Texas said there is a problem with Wall Street speculators. I don't know whether that happens every day, but it happens sometimes, and it is something that should be taken care of. I recognized that back in November of 2013, when I wrote a letter on that very subject urging the regulators to take a position on that. I think greater transparency of this whole market would be very good as well. I think that is a possibility. That is something the Senator and I have discussed as being very helpful, the EPA putting out regulations on vapor so we could get more ethanol in the percentage of E15. I would say his idea of putting caps on RINs will not work because when you do that, you are getting--the marketplace isn't working. I suppose I am a little surprised that a free market person like Senator Cruz would suggest the government step in and cap that. Also, I would like to speak to the point that in November of last year, 2017, as an agency, the EPA itself said the RINs market was working, which puts the Agency in a little bit different position than where we think Mr. Pruitt, the Administrator of EPA, is coming from. So, with that in mind, I am going to go to my remarks right now and express that it is very unfortunate that there is an objection to advancing President Trump's nomination of Iowa secretary of agriculture Bill Northey to be Under Secretary at the Department of Agriculture all because of unrelated concerns over the renewable fuel standard, which is a law passed by Congress and obviously administered by the EPA. I am very disappointed that a highly qualified and honorable man like Bill Northey is being held up for an issue unrelated to his position. As you heard my colleague say, Secretary Northey enjoyed unanimous support from the Senate Agriculture Committee and has the support of numerous agriculture groups from around the country. Now I will get to the RINs issue and my feeling that this is not a legitimate reason for either holding up this nomination for the bankruptcy that has been referred to or for any other refinery that has trouble. I think it is a manufactured and baseless rumor that the RFS, the renewable fuel standard, has caused an oil refinery in Pennsylvania to file for bankruptcy. This example has been cited repeatedly as a justification for forcing the renewable fuel standard supporters to agree to sudden and drastic changes in how the renewable fuel standard was designed. I have been trying to work in good faith with the Senator from Texas and have offered several options--some of them I have just expressed here in my off-the-cuff remarks--that would result in lower prices on the RINs issue. As has been said, that stands for renewable identification number. That is what we call the compliance credits--to make sure the refineries use the right amount of ethanol to meet the renewable fuel standard. However, I keep being told by the Senator from Texas that I need to accept a proposal for a guaranteed cap on RIN prices in the short term to save this Philadelphia refinery. Unfortunately for those who are spreading the rumors that the problems the Philadelphia refinery has are due to high RIN prices, from my point of view--and I hope I backed this up in a paper that we have widely disseminated within the last week--the facts don't add up very well for the people making the argument that RIN prices are the problem. My staff and other analysts have read the SEC filings and the bankruptcy filings of the refinery in question and have come to the conclusion that the Philadelphia refinery cannot pin its problems on the renewable fuel standard. The No. 1 problem the Philadelphia refinery has faced is the result of the petroleum export ban being lifted, which cost it access to cheaper feedstocks. Another reason, and the second biggest problem it has, is that a pipeline opened which diverted rail shipment of Bakken crude oil away from the east coast because of the pipeline sending it someplace else, obviously raising the price of the feedstock to the Philadelphia refinery. We keep being told the refinery is facing hardship because it cannot afford to buy enough RINs to comply with the renewable fuel standard. If that is the case, then why did this Philadelphia refinery sell off a significant quantity of RINs just last fall? That is quite odd, considering the company needs to turn them in later this month for compliance with the renewable fuel standard. Some have said it is executing a market short on RINs, which is dependent on some sort of Federal action that will suddenly drive down the cost of RINs. I would point out that shorting the RIN market is something Carl Icahn is reportedly being investigated for by Federal investigators. I hope that the Philadelphia refinery is not trying to follow that same playbook. I certainly want nothing to do with that kind of chicanery. Finally, the Philadelphia refinery could have avoided needing to buy any RINs at all if it had just invested in blending infrastructure years ago like many of its fellow merchant refineries did. In fact, the Philadelphia refinery is partly owned by Sunoco, which owns blending infrastructure. We also know that refinery has an arrangement whereby it supplies ethanol with RINs attached to Sunoco for blending with its gasoline. Other independent refiners with similar arrangements have an agreement to return the RINs to the refiner once they are detached. The RFS was created to bring cleaner burning renewable fuels to consumers. The RINs system was developed as a flexible system that would allow obligated parties to choose between investing in blending infrastructure or buying RINs for Renewable Fuel Standard compliance. The Philadelphia refinery made the decision to buy RINs instead. That hasn't worked out very well for that refinery apparently, but that was the bet that refinery made. A cheaper option for Renewable Fuel Standard compliance exists, and the Philadelphia refinery chose to pursue other investments. None of this has anything to do with President Trump's choice to oversee farm programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Bill Northey should be confirmed by this body. He has overwhelming bipartisan support. Taking a nominee hostage to try to force an ill- conceived policy change is only going to cause more problems for this body in the future. I don't know what the next step is, but I think that Bill Northey is such a good person for this position, I am going to continue to work as long as he wants me to work for his nomination to proceed. Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article on this issue of the Philadelphia refinery.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I just need 1 minute because all of my colleagues are waiting to speak now. For the benefit of the Senator from Texas, I wish to just say one thing. I don't question that he accurately quoted the union leader at the Philadelphia refinery, but I also, maybe within the last 2 weeks, read a statement by the so-called president--and I believe it is the same person whom we are talking about--that RINs were not an issue. The other thing that I would add just for clarification of what the Senator said, that nobody has offered any relief, I have offered to make two offers. One of them would be the Reid vapor pressure thing, the issue connected with E15--that could be done by a regulation out of EPA--and also transparency to make sure the markets work. I thank the Senator from Texas for his consideration of my effort to get Secretary Northey confirmed. I am sorry that he has objected, but that is the way the Senate can work and will work, and we will have to keep working to get Secretary Northey confirmed. I thank my colleagues for their patience.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, two decades ago, I championed passage of the Congressional Accountability Act. It was the first piece of legislation passed by the 104th Congress and the first time in history that Congressional employees enjoyed any legal protections relating to harassment and discrimination. Today, I am introducing a measure to update and improve this landmark legislation. I call on my colleagues to support these proposed reforms, which already have passed the House of Representatives. Doing so will promote greater transparency, accountability, and an improved work climate in the halls of Congress. For decades before the enactment of the original Congressional Accountability Act, our branch of government adopted legislation setting workplace safety, civil rights, labor and health policies that directly impacted workers and employers in our hometown communities. Until 1995, Congress was exempt from these Federal laws, which meant that Congressional staff enjoyed none of the employment protections that applied to private sector and executive branch employees. Because Members of Congress are elected to represent the people, it seemed to me rather disingenuous that the people's branch had authored laws that applied to the men and women on Main Street but didn't apply to the members of Congress who wrote them. Why shouldn't Congress be held to the same set of standards as everyone else? That's what prompted me to champion the development of the original, bipartisan Congressional Accountability Act. My initial good government effort wasn't met with open arms on Capitol Hill. It took tremendous effort and half a dozen years to secure enough support to pass these reforms. The Congressional Accountability Act finally passed when Republicans gained majority control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. President Bill Clinton signed this legislation on January 23, 1995. The Federal legislative branch employs tens of thousands of workers on Capitol Hill, in state offices around the country, and in associated offices, such as the Capitol Police. Thanks to the Congressional Accountability Act, these legislative employees are covered by over a dozen Federal workplace laws, including provisions that mandate minimum wage and regulate overtime; make accommodations for workers with disabilities; spell out anti-discriminatory policies for workers based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or military service; guarantee family and medical leave; require hazard- free workplaces; clarify collective bargaining rights for union members; and explain rules about lie detector tests for employees. The legislation I'm introducing today makes significant reforms, in three areas, to the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA). The purpose of these reforms is to enhance transparency, ensure accountability, and promote a more respectful work climate in both chambers of Congress. First, this legislation would streamline and enhance the dispute resolution process for Congressional staff and interns. For example, it would enable Congressional employees to have access to an advocate who can offer assistance in proceedings before the Congressional Office of Compliance. It would require that every Congressional office adopt an anti-harassment policy. It would make it optional, not mandatory, for staffers complaining of harassment to engage in mediation. And it would institute a periodic survey of employees to assess attitudes about harassment in Congress. Second, this legislation would make Congressional lawmakers personally liable for their harassment of employees and interns. It imposes a 90-day deadline by which Congressional lawmakers must reimburse the Treasury for awards or settlements of harassment claims. It bars the use of official House or Senate funds to cover a settlement of a harassment claim. It also ensures the automatic referral of harassment claims against a lawmaker to the Ethics Committee. Third, and finally, this measure would increase public transparency of Congressional settlement awards. It does so by ensuring that detailed information on awards and settlements will be reported twice a year and posted online. These reforms are overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the immediate passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Congressman Gregg Harper for introducing and championing the passage of very similar legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this week.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, two decades ago, I championed passage of the Congressional Accountability Act. It was the first piece of legislation passed by the 104th Congress and the first time in history that Congressional employees enjoyed any legal protections relating to harassment and discrimination. Today, I am introducing a measure to update and improve this landmark legislation. I call on my colleagues to support these proposed reforms, which already have passed the House of Representatives. Doing so will promote greater transparency, accountability, and an improved work climate in the halls of Congress. For decades before the enactment of the original Congressional Accountability Act, our branch of government adopted legislation setting workplace safety, civil rights, labor and health policies that directly impacted workers and employers in our hometown communities. Until 1995, Congress was exempt from these Federal laws, which meant that Congressional staff enjoyed none of the employment protections that applied to private sector and executive branch employees. Because Members of Congress are elected to represent the people, it seemed to me rather disingenuous that the people's branch had authored laws that applied to the men and women on Main Street but didn't apply to the members of Congress who wrote them. Why shouldn't Congress be held to the same set of standards as everyone else? That's what prompted me to champion the development of the original, bipartisan Congressional Accountability Act. My initial good government effort wasn't met with open arms on Capitol Hill. It took tremendous effort and half a dozen years to secure enough support to pass these reforms. The Congressional Accountability Act finally passed when Republicans gained majority control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. President Bill Clinton signed this legislation on January 23, 1995. The Federal legislative branch employs tens of thousands of workers on Capitol Hill, in state offices around the country, and in associated offices, such as the Capitol Police. Thanks to the Congressional Accountability Act, these legislative employees are covered by over a dozen Federal workplace laws, including provisions that mandate minimum wage and regulate overtime; make accommodations for workers with disabilities; spell out anti-discriminatory policies for workers based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or military service; guarantee family and medical leave; require hazard- free workplaces; clarify collective bargaining rights for union members; and explain rules about lie detector tests for employees. The legislation I'm introducing today makes significant reforms, in three areas, to the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA). The purpose of these reforms is to enhance transparency, ensure accountability, and promote a more respectful work climate in both chambers of Congress. First, this legislation would streamline and enhance the dispute resolution process for Congressional staff and interns. For example, it would enable Congressional employees to have access to an advocate who can offer assistance in proceedings before the Congressional Office of Compliance. It would require that every Congressional office adopt an anti-harassment policy. It would make it optional, not mandatory, for staffers complaining of harassment to engage in mediation. And it would institute a periodic survey of employees to assess attitudes about harassment in Congress. Second, this legislation would make Congressional lawmakers personally liable for their harassment of employees and interns. It imposes a 90-day deadline by which Congressional lawmakers must reimburse the Treasury for awards or settlements of harassment claims. It bars the use of official House or Senate funds to cover a settlement of a harassment claim. It also ensures the automatic referral of harassment claims against a lawmaker to the Ethics Committee. Third, and finally, this measure would increase public transparency of Congressional settlement awards. It does so by ensuring that detailed information on awards and settlements will be reported twice a year and posted online. These reforms are overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the immediate passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Congressman Gregg Harper for introducing and championing the passage of very similar legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this week.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to raise a very important issue that is impacting our veterans population. That issue is the systematic denial of these veterans' Second Amendment rights. This comes up in discussions with Iowa veterans, and I have candidly discussed this issue before on the Senate floor. Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Manchin, called the Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2018. This bill is being introduced to solve the problem of denying these rights to veterans. The legislation is about the fidelity of the Constitution and about the fidelity of the Bill of Rights. It is also about due process and fairness for veterans. What this is not about, I want to make clear, is allowing anyone to purchase a firearm who is prohibited to do so under current law or regulations. I want it to be very clear right off the bat so that no one misinterprets this as some effort to let people own firearms who would normally be prohibited. This legislation is needed because a very disturbing trend has occurred in the past decade. The Veterans Health Administration has been reporting veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--the national gun ban list--just because these veterans have been determined by the VA to be veterans who require a fiduciary to administer benefit payments. This is a pretty simple proposition that denies veterans their Second Amendment rights. It is that simple, as I just said. A fiduciary's administering benefit payments to a veteran could and does lead to that veteran's being denied Second Amendment rights. Once on the gun list, a veteran is outlawed from owning or possessing firearms. It is crucial to note that the regulations that the Veterans Health Administration is relying on are from way back in the 1970s. It predates even the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and is long before the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental, constitutional right. These regulations grant limited authority to determine incompetence only in the context of financial matters. The regulation reads like this: ``Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency or incompetency for purposes of: insurance and . . . disbursement of benefits.'' There is nothing wrong with that language, but it is that language that leads to the problems that veterans have with their Second Amendment rights. From this language, it is clear that the core regulatory authority applies to matters of competency for financial purposes. It has nothing to do with regulating who can purchase firearms, but that is exactly what is happening. Veterans are losing their Second Amendment rights because they have people managing their checkbooks. It is that simple. If you cannot handle your finances, you lose your Second Amendment rights. Everybody wants to know how this is happening. Federal law requires that before a person is reported to a gun ban list, he be determined to be a ``mental defective.'' The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive created a regulation to define what ``mental defective'' means. It includes, among other requirements, that a person is a danger to self or others. The VA has taken the position that this Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulation can then be made to fit within its own preexisting regulatory structure for assigning a fiduciary, thus requiring that name be put on the gun ban list. The intent and purpose between these two regulations is entirely different. On the one hand, the VA regulation is designed to appoint a fiduciary. On the other hand, the ATF regulation is designed to regulate firearms. That is a great big, huge distinction. The level of mental impairment that justifies taking away the right to possess and own firearms must rest at a severe and substantial level--a level at which the mere possession of a firearm would constitute a danger to self or others. That decision is never made by the VA before submitting names to this gun ban list. As such, imposing a gun ban is a harsh result that could sweep up veterans who are fully capable of appropriately operating a firearm. It gets worse. When veterans are then placed on that gun ban list, they must prove that they are not dangerous to the public in order to get their names removed from that list. That dangerousness standard is much higher than the mere assignment of a fiduciary. Thus, veterans are subjected to a more rigorous and more demanding evidentiary standard to get their names off the gun ban list than the Federal Government must prove to put their names on that list. We ought to all agree that is patently unfair. I also believe that it is unconstitutional. When dealing with a fundamental, constitutional right like the one protected by the Second Amendment, at the very minimum, the government ought to be held to the same standard as we the people. We owe it to our veterans to fix this problem. As of December 31, 2016, the Veterans Health Administration reported 167,815 veterans to the gun ban list for having been assigned a fiduciary. That is 167,815 out of 171,083 or another way of saying it is 98 percent of all names reported. It is important to note that since the VA reports names to the gun ban list merely when a fiduciary is assigned to that veteran, not one of those names has been reported because a veteran has been deemed to be a public danger. Accordingly, not all veterans reported to the gun ban list should be on it. On May 18, 2016, I debated this very issue on the Senate floor with Senator Durbin. He said, ``I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do.'' Then Senator Durbin said, ``Let me just concede at the outset that reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far.'' I am pleased that Senator Durbin acknowledged that many of the names supplied by the VA on the gun ban list do not pose a danger and should be removed. I thank his staff for working with my staff during this process. The essential question then is, How do we go about fixing it the right way? I believe my legislation does just that. This legislation adds a new step before the VA can report names to a gun ban list. The step requires that once a fiduciary is assigned, the VA must first find the veteran to be a danger to self or to the public before taking away his firearm. That is the same standard that the veteran must satisfy currently in order to get his name off the gun ban list. My legislation also provides constitutional due process. Specifically, it shifts the burden of proof to the government to prove a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. Currently, the entire burden of proof is on the veteran to prove that he or she is not dangerous. When a constitutional right is involved, the burden must always be on the government. My bill also creates an option for the veteran to seek legal redress via an administrative board or the Federal court system. The veteran is in control. It provides an avenue for every veteran already on that gun ban list to get his name removed. That last point is important to note. My bill does not automatically remove every veteran from the list, which was a concern Senator Durbin raised previously when we debated this issue. It does require the VA to provide notice to every veteran on the list of his right to go through the new process to have his name removed. Should a veteran choose to do that, the protections, the process, the procedure, and the standards set forth in my bill would then apply to him. Every veteran is free to apply for relief, and every veteran will be treated equally under my bill. Of course, that is the fair thing to do. That is the constitutionally sound way to manage this process. The bill does provide authority for the government to seek an emergency order if it believes a veteran is a serious and imminent risk to self or to others. That was a suggestion by Senator Durbin--to provide for a short-term safety mechanism when the situation is too urgent to wait for a judge to evaluate all of the facts. The bill also retains a mechanism for the VA to systematically refer veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This was another of Senator Durbin's main concerns. A simpler bill passed the House of Representatives last year that is similar to the amendment I tried to offer and that Senator Durbin objected to in the year 2016. It would, simply, stop the VA from referring veterans to the gun ban list without first finding them a danger to self and others. However, it did not set up any system to make that happen. The argument is that this puts veterans using the VA in the same boat as everybody else. Of course, I am sympathetic to that argument, but the legislation I am introducing today is a good faith effort to overcome objections that have prevented action on this important issue in the past. My bill solves a problem that has existed for many years: denying veterans their Second Amendment rights. Veterans should not be subject to a harsher standard than what the government is subject to. Veterans deserve full due process protections when their constitutional rights are at stake. That is the core of this legislation. The regulatory process at the back end to remove a veteran from the gun ban list is simply moved to the front end; that is, the Federal Government must first prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. This is the same standard applied to nonveterans. This fix will not change existing firearms laws. Felons are still prohibited from owning firearms. Persons with domestic violence convictions are still prohibited. Persons adjudicated as mentally defective are still prohibited. Persons involuntarily committed are still prohibited. If my bill were to become law, every Federal firearm prohibition would still exist. Again, the core of my bill simply requires the Federal Government to prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away his or her firearms. That is the same standard our veterans must live by currently in order to remove their name from the gun ban list and get their guns back. If we, the people, have to live under that standard, then, so should our Federal Government.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to raise a very important issue that is impacting our veterans population. That issue is the systematic denial of these veterans' Second Amendment rights. This comes up in discussions with Iowa veterans, and I have candidly discussed this issue before on the Senate floor. Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Manchin, called the Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2018. This bill is being introduced to solve the problem of denying these rights to veterans. The legislation is about the fidelity of the Constitution and about the fidelity of the Bill of Rights. It is also about due process and fairness for veterans. What this is not about, I want to make clear, is allowing anyone to purchase a firearm who is prohibited to do so under current law or regulations. I want it to be very clear right off the bat so that no one misinterprets this as some effort to let people own firearms who would normally be prohibited. This legislation is needed because a very disturbing trend has occurred in the past decade. The Veterans Health Administration has been reporting veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--the national gun ban list--just because these veterans have been determined by the VA to be veterans who require a fiduciary to administer benefit payments. This is a pretty simple proposition that denies veterans their Second Amendment rights. It is that simple, as I just said. A fiduciary's administering benefit payments to a veteran could and does lead to that veteran's being denied Second Amendment rights. Once on the gun list, a veteran is outlawed from owning or possessing firearms. It is crucial to note that the regulations that the Veterans Health Administration is relying on are from way back in the 1970s. It predates even the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and is long before the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental, constitutional right. These regulations grant limited authority to determine incompetence only in the context of financial matters. The regulation reads like this: ``Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency or incompetency for purposes of: insurance and . . . disbursement of benefits.'' There is nothing wrong with that language, but it is that language that leads to the problems that veterans have with their Second Amendment rights. From this language, it is clear that the core regulatory authority applies to matters of competency for financial purposes. It has nothing to do with regulating who can purchase firearms, but that is exactly what is happening. Veterans are losing their Second Amendment rights because they have people managing their checkbooks. It is that simple. If you cannot handle your finances, you lose your Second Amendment rights. Everybody wants to know how this is happening. Federal law requires that before a person is reported to a gun ban list, he be determined to be a ``mental defective.'' The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive created a regulation to define what ``mental defective'' means. It includes, among other requirements, that a person is a danger to self or others. The VA has taken the position that this Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulation can then be made to fit within its own preexisting regulatory structure for assigning a fiduciary, thus requiring that name be put on the gun ban list. The intent and purpose between these two regulations is entirely different. On the one hand, the VA regulation is designed to appoint a fiduciary. On the other hand, the ATF regulation is designed to regulate firearms. That is a great big, huge distinction. The level of mental impairment that justifies taking away the right to possess and own firearms must rest at a severe and substantial level--a level at which the mere possession of a firearm would constitute a danger to self or others. That decision is never made by the VA before submitting names to this gun ban list. As such, imposing a gun ban is a harsh result that could sweep up veterans who are fully capable of appropriately operating a firearm. It gets worse. When veterans are then placed on that gun ban list, they must prove that they are not dangerous to the public in order to get their names removed from that list. That dangerousness standard is much higher than the mere assignment of a fiduciary. Thus, veterans are subjected to a more rigorous and more demanding evidentiary standard to get their names off the gun ban list than the Federal Government must prove to put their names on that list. We ought to all agree that is patently unfair. I also believe that it is unconstitutional. When dealing with a fundamental, constitutional right like the one protected by the Second Amendment, at the very minimum, the government ought to be held to the same standard as we the people. We owe it to our veterans to fix this problem. As of December 31, 2016, the Veterans Health Administration reported 167,815 veterans to the gun ban list for having been assigned a fiduciary. That is 167,815 out of 171,083 or another way of saying it is 98 percent of all names reported. It is important to note that since the VA reports names to the gun ban list merely when a fiduciary is assigned to that veteran, not one of those names has been reported because a veteran has been deemed to be a public danger. Accordingly, not all veterans reported to the gun ban list should be on it. On May 18, 2016, I debated this very issue on the Senate floor with Senator Durbin. He said, ``I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do.'' Then Senator Durbin said, ``Let me just concede at the outset that reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far.'' I am pleased that Senator Durbin acknowledged that many of the names supplied by the VA on the gun ban list do not pose a danger and should be removed. I thank his staff for working with my staff during this process. The essential question then is, How do we go about fixing it the right way? I believe my legislation does just that. This legislation adds a new step before the VA can report names to a gun ban list. The step requires that once a fiduciary is assigned, the VA must first find the veteran to be a danger to self or to the public before taking away his firearm. That is the same standard that the veteran must satisfy currently in order to get his name off the gun ban list. My legislation also provides constitutional due process. Specifically, it shifts the burden of proof to the government to prove a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. Currently, the entire burden of proof is on the veteran to prove that he or she is not dangerous. When a constitutional right is involved, the burden must always be on the government. My bill also creates an option for the veteran to seek legal redress via an administrative board or the Federal court system. The veteran is in control. It provides an avenue for every veteran already on that gun ban list to get his name removed. That last point is important to note. My bill does not automatically remove every veteran from the list, which was a concern Senator Durbin raised previously when we debated this issue. It does require the VA to provide notice to every veteran on the list of his right to go through the new process to have his name removed. Should a veteran choose to do that, the protections, the process, the procedure, and the standards set forth in my bill would then apply to him. Every veteran is free to apply for relief, and every veteran will be treated equally under my bill. Of course, that is the fair thing to do. That is the constitutionally sound way to manage this process. The bill does provide authority for the government to seek an emergency order if it believes a veteran is a serious and imminent risk to self or to others. That was a suggestion by Senator Durbin--to provide for a short-term safety mechanism when the situation is too urgent to wait for a judge to evaluate all of the facts. The bill also retains a mechanism for the VA to systematically refer veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This was another of Senator Durbin's main concerns. A simpler bill passed the House of Representatives last year that is similar to the amendment I tried to offer and that Senator Durbin objected to in the year 2016. It would, simply, stop the VA from referring veterans to the gun ban list without first finding them a danger to self and others. However, it did not set up any system to make that happen. The argument is that this puts veterans using the VA in the same boat as everybody else. Of course, I am sympathetic to that argument, but the legislation I am introducing today is a good faith effort to overcome objections that have prevented action on this important issue in the past. My bill solves a problem that has existed for many years: denying veterans their Second Amendment rights. Veterans should not be subject to a harsher standard than what the government is subject to. Veterans deserve full due process protections when their constitutional rights are at stake. That is the core of this legislation. The regulatory process at the back end to remove a veteran from the gun ban list is simply moved to the front end; that is, the Federal Government must first prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. This is the same standard applied to nonveterans. This fix will not change existing firearms laws. Felons are still prohibited from owning firearms. Persons with domestic violence convictions are still prohibited. Persons adjudicated as mentally defective are still prohibited. Persons involuntarily committed are still prohibited. If my bill were to become law, every Federal firearm prohibition would still exist. Again, the core of my bill simply requires the Federal Government to prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away his or her firearms. That is the same standard our veterans must live by currently in order to remove their name from the gun ban list and get their guns back. If we, the people, have to live under that standard, then, so should our Federal Government.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the nomination of Andrei Iancu to be Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Intellectual property is critical to our national economy because it encourages the innovation that improves lives and creates jobs. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office plays a critical role in fostering innovation by protecting intellectual property rights, so it is important that the office have strong and accountable leadership. Mr. Iancu holds a B.S. and M.S. in engineering from the UCLA School of Engineering and a J.D. from the UCLA School of Law. He currently is the managing partner of the Los Angeles law firm Irell & Manella, where he has practiced intellectual property law since 1996. Mr. Iancu has represented both patent owners and accused infringers, large and small companies, and individuals in a large number of patent cases. Mr. Iancu possesses strong legal qualifications, has a proven record in the field of intellectual property law, and is well respected in the intellectual property community. Last December, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Mr. Iancu's nomination by a voice vote. I support Mr. Iancu's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote for him.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. This legislation, which Senator Feinstein sponsored and I cosponsored, would promote mandatory reporting of suspected abuse of young athletes and give survivors new tools to hold perpetrators accountable. As Senate Judiciary chairman, I last year convened a hearing on this legislation, which helped build momentum for its committee approval and passage. I am proud to have helped shepherd this bill through our committee and the Senate, and I am delighted that we are about to send this bill to the President for his signature. Our congressional hearing illustrated just how bad the problem of sexual abuse in youth sports has become, how long it went on, how many athletes were affected, and, in some cases, how slow the response was from those charged with ensuring these young athletes' safety. To say that I was alarmed by what we learned at that March 28 hearing would be a huge understatement. Abuse that occurs by someone in a position of trust, in what should be a safe environment, such as youth athletics programs, is simply outrageous. Sadly, however, sports officials adopted policies that may have allowed predators to victimize children long after they had good reason to suspect sexual abuse. Recently, we have heard reports that gymnastics officials took as long as 5 weeks to report suspected abuse to the FBI. We have also heard allegations that gymnasts were pressured to remain silent after they brought the abuse to gymnastics officials' attention. It is imperative that we uncover whatever systemic failures that allowed a predator to singlehandedly target hundreds of girls and young women for so long. Sexual abuse is a heinous crime, so we must continue to seek justice for these victims. We also need to understand why allegations of sexual abuse so often remain hidden, instead of being immediately reported to law enforcement. The average perpetrator strikes multiple times before being caught, which is why it is so important that these crimes be promptly reported and investigated. I intend to continue to do oversight in this area and champion policies to protect the innocent from sexual abuse. I thank each of the athletes who came forward to report abuse. Their courage helped make passage of this bill possible.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise today to strongly support an important nomination and also to tell you my position on the legislation before the U.S. Senate right now, the one Senator Sasse has just spoken eloquently about. First, I strongly support the nomination of Minnesota's Supreme Court Justice David Stras to serve as a circuit judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Second, I strongly support the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I will briefly address both of these issues. Over the next couple of days, the Senate will vote on whether to invoke cloture and then confirm the nomination of Justice David Stras to serve on the Eighth Circuit. Justice Stras is eminently qualified and exceptionally bright. He has received praise and support from the legal profession and across the political spectrum. Justice Stras is the grandson of a Holocaust survivor. He graduated No. 1 in his class from Kansas School of Law in 1999. He served as a law clerk to two Federal circuit judges and to a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Stras has served on the Minnesota Supreme Court since his appointment in 2010. In 2012, he ran for a full 6-year term. He handedly defeated his opponent, winning 56 percent of the vote. Justice Stras has received wide bipartisan support from the Minnesota legal community. He has taught law for many years at the University of Minnesota. He also teaches law at the University of Iowa, which is in my home State. Many of the faculty, including even liberal professors, such as Professor Shelly Kurtz, strongly endorse Justice Stras's nomination. His time in the private sector was spent at two highly regarded law firms. During his service on the Minnesota Supreme Court, Justice Stras has participated in over 750 cases. As my colleague Senator Klobuchar noted, Justice Stras's judicial record demonstrates that he is impartial and apolitical in his writings. Justice Stras has sided with the Minnesota Supreme Court majority 94 percent of the time. Justice Stras has dissented one-third of the time with then-Justice Alan Page, who was the first African-American justice in Minnesota and has a record of being very liberal. Former Justice Page strongly endorses Justice Stras's nomination to the Eighth Circuit, and four former justices from all political stripes also endorsed Justice Stras's nomination. This shows me that Justice Stras will not be a rubberstamp for any political ideology. I am convinced Justice Stras will rule fairly and impartially, finding and applying the law as written, not legislating from the bench. Justice Stras is a very accomplished and impressive nominee. He has a long judicial record of impartiality. I strongly support his nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Madam President, I also come to the floor to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This commonsense bill recognizes that the government has an interest in protecting our children from the excruciating pain they are capable of experiencing during late-term abortions. This is a bill many Americans, including a majority of women, broadly support, and it is time we get this bill passed. As the Judiciary Committee chairman, I convened a hearing on this bill in 2016. Three witnesses, including a Northwestern professor of pediatrics, a woman who survived a botched abortion as a baby, and a former abortion provider, offered compelling evidence in support of this very important legislation. There is also the history of an Iowa boy, Micah Pickering, who is living proof that we need to do more to protect unborn babies at this stage of development. Micah and his parents visited me in Washington last September. They told me that when Micah was born at 20 weeks postfertilization, he received intensive care, including medication to minimize his pain and discomfort. Babies like Micah, born in the fifth month of pregnancy, are capable of feeling such pain. That is why it has now become routine procedure to give premature infants anesthesia for fetal surgeries. How could anyone think these unborn babies would not experience the same excruciating pain from abortions when premature babies like Micah, from Iowa, are being born at the same stage of development and are surviving late term? Once again, I call upon my colleagues to support the passage of this bill, entitled the ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,'' and to embrace at the same time the sanctity of an innocent human life. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, about our important oversight work, the investigative work, and to kind of concentrate on the past year. There are a lot of issues that need more sunlight and more scrutiny. One of my key concerns is the loss of faith in the ability of the Justice Department and the FBI to do their jobs free of partisan political bias. The American people are rightfully skeptical because of how the Department and the FBI have handled the following subjects: on one hand, Hillary Clinton, and on the second hand, Donald Trump and his associates. Hiding from tough questions about these controversial cases is no way to reassure the public. If the Department is afraid of independent oversight, that just reinforces people's suspicion and skepticism. The only real way to reassure people is to let the sunshine in and let the chips fall where they may. In each of these cases, the government should obviously find out what happened and hold people accountable if there was any wrongdoing, but it also has to play by the rules and be held accountable for its actions as well. We need to shine the light of day on all of it. As part of our investigation, we have requested documents and other information from the Department of Justice and the FBI. Much of that information is classified. The Department has provided very limited access to those classified materials. It has limited the Judiciary Committee's review to the chair, this Senator; the ranking member of the full committee, and that would be Senator Feinstein; and the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, and that would be Senator Graham and Senator Whitehouse. The government has also tried to severely limit the number of appropriately cleared staff who can review documents and even take notes. We have reviewed some information related to whether the FBI used a so-called Trump dossier and the extent of its relationship with its author, Christopher Steele. As we know now, Mr. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to research Mr. Trump's alleged ties to Russia. His work was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. Now, remember, it took a subpoena and a court battle with the House Intelligence Committee to force that fact out into the open. Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign officials denied it to the press for months. In other words, they lied. The founder of Fusion GPS denied that his firm was ``Democratically linked.'' That, too, was untrue. When the news finally broke, New York Times reporters actually complained that people who knew better had flat-out lied to them about who funded Mr. Steele's dossier. But back before the 2016 election, it is unclear who knew that Steele was gathering dirt on Trump for the Democratic National Committee and for the Clinton campaign. Many of his sources for claims about the Trump campaign are Russian Government officials. So Steele, who was working for Fusion GPS, who in turn was working for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, was also working with the Russians. So who was actually colluding with Russians? It is becoming more clear. Mr. Steele shared his at least partially Russian-based allegations far and wide. He shared them with the FBI. He shared them with the media. According to public reports, he shared them with high-ranking officials in the Justice Department and the State Department. In the course of our review, Senator Graham of South Carolina and I came across some information that just does not add up. We saw Mr. Steele swearing one thing in a public libel suit against him in London, England, and then we saw contradictory things in documents that I am not going to talk about in an open setting here. I know everybody understands that. From everything we have learned so far, Senator Graham and I believe these discrepancies are significant. So we sent a referral of Christopher Steele to the Justice Department and the FBI for potential violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001. I guess people are going to say whatever they want to say about this whole matter no matter what the facts are, but it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the public debate to ignore those facts or to speculate wrongly about Senator Graham's motivations, or mine. First, despite all the hubbub, this is not all that unusual. Anyone can ask for a criminal investigation. I have done it in the past when I have come across potential crimes in the course of my oversight work, and I have done so publicly. This situation is no different. Second, as the special counsel has reminded us all recently, lying to Federal officials is a crime. It doesn't matter who is doing the lying, politics should have nothing to do with it. I have said repeatedly that I support Mr. Mueller's work and I respect his role. I still do. Nothing has changed. I think it ought to be said again in case anyone missed it. The special counsel should be free to complete his work and to follow the facts wherever they lead, but that doesn't mean that I can ignore what looks like false statements. If an individual sees what might be evidence of a crime, he or she should report that to law enforcement so it can be fully investigated. That is exactly what Senator Graham and I did. That does not mean that we have made up our minds about what happened. It is possible that Mr. Steele told the truth and the other, contradictory statements that we saw were wrong. But, just as any court would do, we start by assuming that government documents are true until we see evidence to the contrary. If those documents are not true and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele's, then we have another problem--an arguably more serious problem. Of course, even aside from these inconsistencies, the public reports about the way the FBI may have used the dossier should give everyone in this Chamber pause. Director Comey testified in 2017 that the dossier was ``salacious and unverified.'' If it was unverified in 2017, then it had to be unverified in 2016 as well. So it was a collection of unverified opposition research funded by a political opponent in an election year. Would it be proper for the Obama administration--or, for that matter, any administration--to use something like that to authorize further investigation that intrudes on the privacy of people associated with its political opponents? That should bother civil libertarians of any political stripe. Now, I wish I could speak more openly about the basis of our referral and other concerns, but right now that information is largely classified. That information is controlled by the Justice Department. As I said, the Department has permitted only the chair and ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism of the Judiciary Committee, and a limited number of their cleared staff to see the underlying documents. I have been pushing for the Department to provide the same access to other Judiciary Committee members and their appropriately cleared staffs, but the Department refuses to provide that access or even to brief the other members on the underlying information. Fortunately, the Department has agreed that it has no business objecting to our members reviewing our own work, so I have encouraged our committee members and their appropriately cleared staff to do just that--review that work. Look at the memo that Senator Graham and I sent to the Deputy Attorney General and the FBI Director. Members can then make up their own minds about what Senator Graham and I have concluded. I have also encouraged them to review the committee's transcripts and other unclassified materials that have been available to them and their staffs for a long period of time now--many months. Finally, I have encouraged them to let me know if they believe that any of that information should be made public. I believe in transparency. We may agree that certain information should be released at the appropriate time, with care to preserve classified information and the integrity of any investigation. I have already been pushing the Department to review the classified referral memorandum to confirm the memo's classification markings so that we can release the unclassified portions as soon as possible. But now the Department has deferred to the FBI, and the FBI is falsely claiming that three of our unclassified paragraphs--each contains the same, single classified fact. Now, that really surprised me because these particular paragraphs are based on nongovernment sources and do not claim to repeat or confirm any information from any government document. Even if these portions of our referral did reference the allegedly classified fact at issue, it is hard to understand why that fact should be classified. First, the Deputy Attorney General has discussed the fact at issue with me more than once in an unsecure space and on an unsecure phone line. That ought to tell us something. Second, the FBI is not acting as if this information would harm national security if released. The FBI never notified the entities copied on the memo's transmittal--for example, including the inspector general and the Intelligence Committees--to ensure that fact was protected as classified. If the FBI really believed this fact was classified, then the FBI and the Department should take better care to act consistent with that belief. Unfortunately, I suspect something else is really going on. It sure looks like a bureaucratic game of hide the ball rather than a genuine concern about national security. I am pressing this issue with Director Wray, and I hope we can provide this information to the public as soon as possible. In fact, just this morning, I took a long period of time to handwrite a letter to Christopher Wray, the Director of the FBI, to let him know these very concerns. It has been scanned to him, and I hope people make sure he gets it because I am not sure he always gets my letters, handwritten or typed. I also believe that the Department should carefully review the entire memorandum and begin an orderly process to declassify as much of that information as possible. The Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives recently voted to allow all House Members to review a short memo summarizing what it has learned. Senators are not allowed to see what the House Members know. However, House Members who have seen it have been calling for a vote to release that memo. Here in the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee has access to the same information that the House Intelligence Committee saw before drafting its summary memo. Our committee does not have the same authority to release classified information that the House committee has. We have to rely on the agency to review and potentially declassify our memo. Based on what I know, I agree that as much of this information should be made public as soon as possible through the appropriate process--and I don't just mean the summary memos. The government should release the underlying documents referenced in those memos after deleting any national security information that needs to be protected. But most of this story can be told, and the part that can be told should be told. The American people deserve the truth. Stale, recycled media spin from journalists and pundits who do not have all the facts is not enough. The country is filled with frenzy and speculation, but the people are very hungry for facts. However, I cannot release this information on my own, and neither should anyone else. Classified information is controlled by the executive branch. We should work together to achieve the greater transparency while still protecting legitimately sensitive national security information. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 10 a.m., at Walter E. Washington Convention Center to conduct a hearing entitled ``Driving Automotive Innovation and Federal Policies.'' Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``This is Not a Drill: An Examination of the Wireless Emergency Alert System.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michael B. Brennan, of Wisconsin, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, and Adam I. Klein, of the District of Columbia, to be Chairman and Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Turning 65: Navigating Critical Decisions to Age Well.'' Subcommittee on Strategic Forces The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing. Subcommittee on Personnel The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Iowans who have traveled to the Capitol today to be with us for the March for Life. I commend them and the many other Americans who have traveled here from every corner of the country to embrace the sanctity of life. Their participation in this march symbolizes their compassion and concern for the most innocent and vulnerable among us. I also want to call on my colleagues to join us in supporting the immediate passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This common-sense measure, which I have cosponsored, recognizes that the government has an interest in protecting the unborn from the excruciating pain they are capable of experiencing during a late-term abortion. Some people call this measure ``Micah's Law,'' in honor of an Iowa boy, Micah Pickering, who was born at 20 weeks postfertilization. I have met Micah and his parents. Micah didn't just survive. He is a beautiful little boy who is thriving. Research suggests that, after the fifth month of pregnancy, the nervous system of the unborn child has developed to the point where that child is capable of detecting and responding to painful stimuli. This also is around the time when the unborn baby is soothed by the mother's voice. We are hearing that babies may learn within the womb, absorbing language sooner than we previously thought, so it should surprise no one that these same unborn babies can experience intense pain during a late-term abortion when their limbs are being torn apart in their mother's wombs. Currently, the United States is one of only about seven countries in the world that permit elective abortions past 5 months. Among the very few that embrace late-term abortions are Vietnam, Singapore, and North Korea. Passing this bill, which imposes restrictions only on elective abortions and only after the fifth month of pregnancy, would bring the United States in line with the vast majority of countries around the globe. Lawmakers in these other countries have grasped the concept that late-term abortions are essentially barbaric and often unnecessary. Many of my colleagues actively supported the Americans with Disability Act. How could you support a measure like that and not also seek to protect the unborn babies whose parents might choose to end their lives late in pregnancy merely due to a disability like Down syndrome? I believe that the lives of unborn babies with this condition have the same value as those of other unborn babies. If you do not support restrictions on abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy, when infants at the same stage of development are being born prematurely and, like Micah Pickering, surviving long term, then what, exactly, is your limit--if any--on abortion? I remind my colleagues that the American people overwhelmingly support restrictions on late-term abortions. Numerous States, including Iowa, already have passed similar legislation to protect the unborn baby who is capable of experiencing pain. In 2016, I convened a congressional hearing at which two doctors testified in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. We learned that about a quarter of the babies born prematurely, around 5 months, will survive long term if given proper medical assistance. One of the doctors who testified, Colleen Malloy, is an associate professor in the pediatrics department at Northwestern University's School of Medicine. According to Dr. Malloy, by 20 weeks of development, the unborn baby's pain receptors are present and linked. As further explained by Dr. Malloy, at 20 weeks' fetal age, premature babies are ``kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. We can easily witness their humanity, as well as their experiences with pain.'' Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practicing gynecologist with decades of experience, testified similarly at a House hearing several years ago. Dr. Levatino estimates that he performed over 1,000 abortions in private practice, until his adopted daughter died in a car crash. His child's death was a life-changing event that led him to stop performing abortions. Performing an abortion on a 24-week-old unborn child is undoubtedly painful for that baby, Dr. Levatino testified. Scientific studies confirm that the unborn can experience pain after the fifth month. The Judiciary Committee in 2016 also heard testimony from Dr. Kathi Aultman, a former abortion provider. She told us, an ``abortionist knows exactly what he or she is doing because they must count the body parts after each procedure'' to make sure they have cut the whole baby out of the mother. Dr. Aultman also questioned why an unborn baby who can live outside the womb should be given no consideration, no protection, and no rights just because the child is unwanted, and she is right. Why shouldn't we have compassion for babies whose nervous systems are developed enough for them to experience pain? Why shouldn't we protect them from dismemberment with steel tools? This is a measure that the majority of Americans--including a majority of women--broadly support. Once again, I urge my colleagues to embrace the sanctity of innocent human life and vote for this landmark legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of David J. Ryder, of New Jersey, to be Director of the Mint, PN1355. I will object because the Department of the Treasury has failed to respond to a letter I sent on September 29, 2017, to a bureau within the Department seeking documents relevant to an ongoing investigation by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Despite several phone calls between committee staff and Treasury personnel to prioritize particular requests within that letter, the Treasury Department has to date failed to provide any documents. My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Ryder in any way. However, the Department must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak--because Senator Perdue wants to speak right after me--I ask unanimous consent that Senator Perdue, assuming he shows up before I am done, be the next one in line to follow me.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer remarks about an issue of utmost important to this body and to the American people--the ongoing negotiations over the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. I should explain the justification for these young people. The children were brought here by their parents. Their parents crossed the border without papers, violating the law, but the children cannot be held guilty for the sins of their parents. That is why we feel it is very legitimate to do this humanitarian thing of legalizing DACA children--not in and of itself, but, as you heard from my colleague from North Carolina and you will hear from other people, the necessity of making sure that we have border security, that we do away with chain migration, and that we also do away with diversity visas--this is the scope of negotiations that ought to be going on to get a compromise for the humanitarian reason of giving certainty to these young DACA people. Those things were narrowed at the White House a week ago Tuesday, not the famous Thursday meeting that you heard so much about last weekend but the meeting of 23 Republican and Democrat Members of both the House and Senate. When you get a bicameral, bipartisan group of people together with the President--and you want to do that because you want to make sure that when you reach an agreement, the President will sign it--it seems to me that is a significant way to move forward. But things tend to take different routes around here, and I am here because of some routes that I think are very puzzling at this point--pretty much along the lines of what the Senator from North Carolina just stated. Last week, speaking to my colleagues, I told this body that we still weren't any closer to a legitimate and fair deal that promotes and protects the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration system, and, at the same time, what is very important is providing a fair and equitable solution on DACA. But we also want to take care of the interests of the American people, particularly the safety of the American people when it comes to criminal aliens. Since I made that speech a week ago, we made some progress in a meeting that went on at the White House, which I just told you about. In spite of the many events of these past 2 weeks, the pronouncement I just made that we don't have a legitimate, fair deal on one hand to protect the American people and, on the other hand, to deliver the humanitarian ends that we need for the DACA kids--that pronouncement still holds true. Unfortunately, immigration has become the ``Groundhog Day'' of the U.S. Senate. Democrats, and even some Republicans, keep repeating the same mistakes that we have been making for the past 30 years, and they don't seem to be learning from them. I should probably tell my colleagues what I have learned in those 30 years. Thirty years ago, when I voted for an immigration bill--the last great big reform of immigration--we had 3 million undocumented people here. In good faith, we thought we had secured the border because throughout the history of the country, from the beginning, it had never been illegal to hire an illegal alien, and for the first time, we made it illegal for our employers to hire someone who is undocumented, taking away the magnet to come to this country. We thought it would secure the border if they couldn't be legally hired, and we legalized 3 million people. We didn't take into consideration the whole industry of false documents in which, if I go to an employer and show him a false document and they believe it is a true document, then they are not guilty of hiring me, even though I am technically an undocumented worker, because I am using a fraudulent document. What happens when you reward illegality? You get more of it. So instead of the 3 million people we had legalized, we now have an 11- million person issue. That is what I have been told. We don't want to repeat those mistakes, and that is why, besides legalizing DACA kids, border security and doing away with chain migration are so important. One of the bombers in New York was here because of chain migration--the terrorist who was just about ready to-- well, he didn't kill anyone, but he injured a lot of people. Then we have another person who was here on a diversity visa and killed 8 people and injured 12 while driving down the streets of New York. So we have a major problem we have to take care of. The President is very interested in taking care of this problem, as he enunciated in that Tuesday meeting, which was bicameral and bipartisan and narrowed the issues so that it would be easier for us to reach an agreement here. Instead of dealing with 100 things, 4 are taken care of--DACA, border security, doing away with diversity visas, and doing away with chain migration. We don't want ``Groundhog Day'' to happen again in the U.S. Senate because it has been happening quite frequently. In the last 30 years, we thought we could solve this problem once and for all by taking away the magnet for people to come here for jobs, and we would secure the border. Well, 30 years later, you can understand why the President wants a wall and more border security. In recent days, several of my colleagues formed what can best be described as a poor man's version of the Gang of 8. The Gang of 8 is affiliated with a very bad bill called comprehensive immigration. It passed in 2013 and went nowhere in the House of Representatives because it was unrealistic. These six Senators have decided that they--and they alone--will come up with a solution to the DACA crisis. Now they are demanding that their solution--and no other solution--receive a vote or they will shut the government down at midnight tomorrow night. That is right. These Senators, along with many Democrats, are threatening to shut the government down unless this plan gets a vote. Surely, if these Senators are willing to prevent basic services from being provided to law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens and legal immigrants, their plan must be something that could garner wide bipartisan support, pass the House, and be signed into law by the President. It is far short of those four things that were agreed to at the bipartisan, bicameral meeting at the White House. What is actually in this grand plan these Senators have come up with? Well, as of today, neither I nor my staff have actually seen text of the bill they are promoting. Why are they threatening a shutdown of the Federal Government over a bill that almost no one has been given a chance to read, and why are they threatening to shut down the government when there is still plenty of time? The deadline is March 5 to come to a meaningful solution that can earn bipartisan support. Well, here is what we do know about their proposal, from one-page summaries. The bill would provide a massive amnesty to millions of people who are in this country unlawfully--before border security, making the same mistake we did in 1986. Their proposal doesn't just provide status to the young men and women enrolled in the DACA Program, which everyone in this Chamber agrees should be done; it dramatically expands the scope, granting legal status to potentially millions of others, including those who knowingly violate the law. It is unthinkable to me that we should reward that unlawful conduct, and it is ridiculous that Democrats and some Republicans are turning the tables and making this last-minute demand when there was such a successful meeting at the White House a week ago Tuesday. It was bipartisan, bicameral, with the President leading the discussion and everyone agreeing that we would narrow the 100 issues down to 4: DACA, border security, diversity visas, and ending chain migration. Surely then, in exchange for this massive amnesty, their proposal would provide significant border security, enforcement, and chain migration reforms. If you were hoping for that answer to be yes, don't hold your breath. Their proposal has a paltry amount of funding for existing border security infrastructure improvement. That is right--no new infrastructure. Their proposal also doesn't add new legal authorities to make it easier for law enforcement to apprehend, detain, and deport dangerous criminal aliens. Now, I think they are somewhat embarrassed that they don't have some proposals in there that dangerous criminal aliens ought to be deported easier than they are today. So I have to ask, is there a reason why these Senators don't want to make it easier to remove these dangerous criminals? Do they want to protect sex offenders? Do they want to protect child molesters? Do they want drunk drivers, gang members, like MS-13, human traffickers, and drug smugglers roaming throughout this great United States of America? I can't imagine the answer to any of these questions is yes. If I am right, then they need to tell the American people why they refused to give our government the new authorities needed to remove these individuals who have endangered our communities. They either support removing dangerous criminals or they don't. There is no going in between. Their plan also fails to truly end chain migration. In fact, in that one-page document I have seen, these Senators acknowledge their chain migration fix would only affect 26,266 visas per year. That is right, just a little above 26,000. So in exchange for a potential amnesty for 8 million people, they have agreed to eliminate 26,000 visas a year. I am no mathematician, but that doesn't seem to be a very balanced agreement to me. They seem to be making the same mistakes I made in 1986. Finally, their proposal doesn't even end the Diversity Visa Program. Remember, this is one of four agreements in a bicameral, bipartisan meeting with the President of the United States that everybody left the White House with an agreement that we were going to break within those four. This Diversity Visa Program, we all know, is subject to fraud and abuse, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle have long called for its elimination--and I mean elimination, not reallocation. The proposal they are floating around doesn't do that. To sum it up, this proposal is heavy on amnesty, learning nothing from the 1986 mistake I learned a lot from. Too bad there is only a handful of us around the U.S. Senate from that time because there would be a lot more missionaries saying that what happened in 1986 shouldn't be repeated. Also, more importantly, it is nonexistent on security measures. This approach has been tried time and again, and that approach has failed. The American people simply don't want to provide a massive amnesty first and secure the border later. For those Members who think we can do amnesty first and security second, I think I made it quite clear: I think that is the wrong approach. I know because I have been here a long time, and I have been here at the time those mistakes have been made. We know they failed the goals we sought. I remember why it failed. Maybe--just maybe--if we actually provide safety first and then consider more comprehensive reforms later, we can break this repetitive cycle and end this immigration ``Groundhog Day.'' Maybe I ought to add to those four points that were agreed to at the White House. The President was promoting another step or two called comprehensive immigration reform, but get this done first. Secure the border first. If we actually provide security first, doing so would instill trust with the American people that we are dedicated to fixing this immigration issue, not simply delaying the same debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Presiding Officer. Should the Children's Health Insurance Program be reauthorized? Of course it should be reauthorized. It has a long history of strong bipartisan support. This is a major issue in reaching the point of whether we need to get something passed--and we do need to get something passed so the government doesn't shut down. In regard to the Children's Health Insurance Program being a part of that, this started very early last fall, when the Senate Finance Committee overwhelmingly passed a 5-year extension from that committee, once again stating the strong bipartisan support that the Children's Health Insurance Program has. Thankfully, it is moving along in the House of Representatives. That body has included a 6-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program in the continuing resolution that we have to get through the U.S. Senate. That 6-year extension would be the longest extension of the program since it was created over 20 years ago. I am sure this is going to be surprising to our constituents, for sure, and maybe even surprising to Members of this body, but this reauthorization of 6 years actually saves $1 billion. I cannot believe that we are in a situation where people who have said that they support the Children's Health Insurance Program would vote against its reauthorization when the House resolution comes over here, but that is what the leadership of this body is dealing with. The reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program has been elevated in this debate, so people know that those who have been crying for a long period of time about finally having CHIP reauthorized could be in a situation of voting against what they have been pleading for over a long period of time. My colleague from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, said: ``Healthcare coverage for kids should be a no-brainer.'' I agree. This Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization is a no- brainer, both in the value it has for the kids and in saving us money at this point. Senators Warner and Kaine from Virginia wrote: ``We ask that you include bipartisan legislation reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program in any upcoming funding legislation.'' Well, it is here for all of those Senators who want the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorized. This is the opportunity to reauthorize it. Will you vote against what you have been advocating for a long time-- the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program? In my State of Iowa, 68,792 children--the latest enrollment--are in CHIP and are depending upon Congress to do the right thing. The right thing to do is to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program as soon as possible--which could be today or tomorrow--for 6 years so that we don't have to deal with it for a long period of time. My fellow Senators, this is a time for statesmanship, not gamesmanship. It is time to vote for a prompt reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak about a tax issue. It was nearly 3 weeks ago that the President signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It is the most sweeping reform of our Tax Code in more than three decades. This tax reform provides both tax simplification and tax cuts for the vast majority of taxpayers. Importantly, the tax reform bill made good on its commitment to provide real relief to small business owners, and that also includes family farmers and ranchers. As one of only three Republican Senators on both the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee, it was a priority of mine to represent agriculture and the family farm institution throughout the tax reform debate. Fair treatment for farmers under tax reform was especially important to me, given the large role agriculture plays in the economy of the State of Iowa. Ag accounts for one out of every five jobs in the State and makes up 33 percent of Iowa's economy. The tax reform bill provided a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make real and long-lasting reforms for farmers, ranchers, and every American working in our agricultural industry. Broadly speaking, across the board, rate reductions will let Americans keep more of their own money. This will afford farmers the opportunity to reinvest in their operations instead of sending that financial capital to politicians in Washington. Tax reform legislation expands section 179 of the Tax Code, which helps farmers finance overhead costs. It enables farmers to deduct more expenses in the year they occurred and also expands the availability of cash accounting to more farmers in Iowa and throughout the country. These provisions will allow farmers to invest in the equipment necessary to do the job of feeding the Nation and the world. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowers taxes on capital investment and includes a business income deduction, which will help level the playing field between farms that file as corporations and those that file as individuals. More than 94 percent of farms are taxed under the IRS provisions affecting individual taxpayers. The bulk of agriculture producers who operate outside the corporate tax code deserve basic fairness. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act makes sure that those taxed under the individual and corporate tax codes are treated with more equity. One of the most frequently discussed issues in tax reform discussion is the estate tax, which can force family farms to break up operations to pay the IRS following the death of family members. That doesn't happen at the death of a lot of farmers, but in a few cases it does, and it seems to me to be very unfair to break up a farming operation to pay as a result of the consequence of death. I support a full repeal of this unfair tax, but was pleased that in this tax reform legislation we were able to make significant progress in alleviating its burden on family farmers by doubling the estate tax exemption. This substantial change would let more family farmers pass their hard-earned life's work on to their children, paving the way for the next generation of family farmers. According to the Iowa Farm Bureau, given the price of farmland, about 30 percent of crop farms in Iowa exceeded the $5 million estate tax exemption in 2016, based on land values. The doubling of the exemption amount will go a long way toward alleviating the nightmare that is the death tax for many Iowa farmers. I have long advocated for commonsense tax relief measures because they will help Iowa and the Midwest and will make life easier for middle-class Americans. Farmers' hard work provides the healthy and affordable food that we so often take for granted. We should do everything in our power to support that segment of our economy and create an environment where these small businesses and hard-working families can thrive and prosper. That is what tax reform will do for farmers, for Iowans, and for all Americans. Whether they are middle-class farmers or middle-class nonfarmers, all will benefit from other provisions of the tax bill, such as doubling the standard deduction, doubling the child tax credit, reducing the 15- percent bracket to 12, reducing the 25-percent bracket to 22, and there are a lot of other features in this bill to benefit not only farmers but also other middle-class families. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I stand today in support of S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act. As we know, the first responsibility of the U.S. Government is to protect our citizens. To do so, we must make sure that those who protect us have the tools to keep us safe. This bill does exactly that. It provides the intelligence community and law enforcement with the right tools, but it also minds the civil liberties and the privacy protections that our Constitution requires, especially given the ever- changing technological landscape. The importance of our country's safety and security has been highlighted in several events from just the past 2 years. We often get lost in the constant news cycle, but let's not forget that New York City suffered three significant terrorist attacks in the last 15 months alone. In September 2016, a terrorist detonated a pressure-cooker bomb in New York's Chelsea neighborhood. A second pressure-cooker bomb was found a few blocks away but didn't detonate. Earlier that day, a bomb went off near the start of a Marine Corps charity race. This past October, Sayfullo Saipov drove a rented truck onto the bike lane and pedestrian walkway on the West Side Highway. He mowed down numerous civilians, killing eight and injuring 12 others. And this past December, Akayed Ullah detonated a bomb in New York City's subway tunnel to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, injuring several people near him. He told investigators that he did it in the name of ISIS. In June 2016, Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 and injured 53 others in Orlando, also an act in the name of ISIS. In September 2016, a terrorist stabbed 10 people at a mall in St. Cloud, MN. In November 2016, a terrorist injured 13 after driving into and trying to stab students and teachers at Ohio State. And in December 2015, we had the San Bernardino shooting, where terrorists killed 14 and injured 22. We have also seen terrorist incidents evolving around the world, especially impacting our friends in Europe. In the United Kingdom alone, there have been at least a half dozen terrorist attacks in the past year, including a subway bombing in London, injuring 30 people; a van plowing down pedestrians on London Bridge, injuring 48 and killing 8 people; the Manchester concert bombing, in which 22 people were killed; and the attack on the British Parliament in London, killing 4, including a person from Utah. All of these attacks and more show that the threats are real, and we must protect our country by lawful constitutional means. Congress has done so by providing lawful authority such as section 702. The section 702 program has been called ``the most significant tool'' in the NSA arsenal for the detection and disruption of terrorist threats. The NSA Director has said publicly that ``there is no alternative way'' to replicate section 702 collection. Some estimate that over 25 percent of all current U.S. intelligence is based upon section 702 collection. There are some key examples. Hajji Iman rose from a high school teacher to become the second in command of ISIS. He was a main focus of NSA's counterterrorism efforts. The U.S. Government offered a $7 million reward for information leading to his capture. We spent over 2 years looking for him. He was ultimately captured based almost exclusively on intelligence information from section 702. Najibullah Zazi is in prison for planning an attack of the New York City subway system with explosives in 2009. He received explosive training in Pakistan from al-Qaida. He was discovered after he corresponded with an email address used by an al-Qaida courier in Pakistan, seeking advice on how to build explosives. The section 702 program uncovered the correspondence. Without that discovery, the subway bombing plot might have succeeded. In October 2013, the FBI began investigating Shawn Parson, a foreigner from Trinidad and Tobago, after Parson began posting comments online expressing a desire to commit an attack against Western interests. Information collected through section 702 revealed Parson's efforts and was instrumental in identifying additional members of Parson's network. Through the section 702 program, the FBI assisted foreign partners to identify the individual who committed the 2016 New Year's Eve terrorist attack at a night club in Turkey. During that attack, 38 people were killed or seriously injured, including an American citizen. Those are just the unclassified examples. It is important to remind my colleagues of the purpose behind section 702. It provides the government the authority to collect the electronic communications of foreigners located outside of the United States. Under section 702, it is against the law to target anyone in the United States or any American citizen, wherever that citizen is in the world. The program is targeted. It is not a bulk collection system. Furthermore, the FISA Court must approve targeting procedures to ensure that only appropriate individuals are subject to surveillance. Minimization procedures limit the handling and use of information that is collected. All three branches of government have a hand in overseeing the program to protect the constitutional rights of the American people. It is also important to remind my colleagues that this legislation was first signed into law in 2008. When we took up consideration in 2012 and debated the law, we authorized this legislation with no changes. The 2012 clean reauthorization had the full support of President Obama. Some of our Senate colleagues oppose this bill. Their first, and most consistent, claim is that section 702 violates the Fourth Amendment. Our colleagues claim that it is an ``end-run'' around the Constitution. Others call it a ``legal loophole,'' a ``backdoor,'' or ``warrantless surveillance.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. Section 702 is fully consistent with the Constitution. Every Federal court to review section 702--even including the very liberal Ninth Circuit--has upheld the law. The Supreme Court's recent decision to deny review of the Ninth Circuit case lets stand that court's decision. These courts consistently determined that a warrant is not required to collect or query section 702 information. Moreover, the independent PCLOB review board has reviewed the entire legal framework of section 702 and has also found it to be constitutional. The other main claim against this bill is that it provides ``new'' powers to the government. Again, this is not true. Nevertheless, this bill does include some significant reforms. First, the bill requires the FBI to get a warrant in some criminal cases. In other words, we have added a warrant where courts have held that none are necessary. The bill also provides protection for whistleblowers and requires an inspector general's report. In short, this bill provides our government the tools it needs to protect our national security while providing some much needed transparency measures and increased privacy and civil liberties protections. My colleagues can tell that I am very strongly in support of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important national security protection legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't know whether it is four, five, or six, but some Senators would like to have colloquy on the issue of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and I ask unanimous consent that we have that privilege.