Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to offer remarks about the current status of the negotiations on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA Program, as it is known in the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, this body still isn't closer to a legitimate and fair deal that accomplishes two goals: First of all, to promote and protect the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration system and, two, provide a fair and equitable solution on DACA. Back in December, I introduced a bill, along with Senators Cornyn, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton. The bill, with the acronym SECURE Act of 2017, was a product of months of discussion between this Senator, these other Senators I just named, and the White House. Our plan, simply put, has five pillars. First, based on the hard work and leadership of Senator Cornyn, our bill provided real, robust border security by mandating the construction of tactical and technological infrastructure at the border. Second, our bill took meaningful steps to end the lawlessness of dangerous criminal aliens by cracking down on sanctuary cities, ending the misguided catch-and-release policies of the previous administration, and, finally, taking steps to address intentional visa overstays. Third, our bill took steps to eliminate many of the ``pull'' factors that encourage people to immigrate illegally by permanently authorizing the E-Verify Program and by taking meaningful steps to reduce immigration court and asylum adjudication backlogs. Fourth, thanks to the leadership and advocacy of Senators Graham, Perdue, and Cotton, our bill eliminated the phenomenon known as chain migration and made a major downpayment toward transitioning to a merit- based immigration system. Fifth, and finally, our bill provided a bipartisan solution to protect undocumented young people brought to the United States as children by adopting Senator Durbin's Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy--that has the acronym BRIDGE Act. Our plan was fair, serious, and bipartisan. Most importantly, it was and is pro-American. As I have continually said since the bill's introduction, this group of Senators is ready and willing to negotiate with our counterparts in good faith and to find an equitable solution to the DACA situation that incorporates our bill's five pillars of reform. I said negotiate. I had at least one Democratic Senator infer that I could not negotiate in good faith because I did not vote for the Gang of 8 immigration bill in 2013. So, sadly, our good-faith offers have consistently been rejected by Democratic leadership. Instead, they decide to engage in a game of brinksmanship. So I ask several questions: Why doesn't Democratic leadership negotiate with us? Because we refuse to simply pass what is referred to as the Dream Act, as is, with no proportional border security and interior enforcement majors. As the Democrats see it, it is take it or leave it, their way or the highway. This isn't good faith, this isn't negotiating, and that approach is doomed to failure. I have to ask: Why do my colleagues in the Democratic leadership refuse to even consider measures that would beef up border security and interior enforcement? Do they want people to continue to immigrate to this country illegally? Do they want sex offenders and human traffickers to continue to manipulate our porous border and enter our country unchecked? Do they want criminal illegal immigrants--people like Jose Zarate, who murdered Kate Steinle, or Eswin Mejia, who killed Sarah Root, to roam free in our country? Are they comfortable allowing criminal alien gangs like MS-13, whose motto happens to be ``kill, rape, and control,'' to continue to terrorize immigrant communities? I am assuming--in fact, I am hoping--the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. If that is correct, then why does Democratic leadership refuse to discuss the border security and interior enforcement provisions in the SECURE Act? Despite the hysteria and the hyperbole you may hear from pro-amnesty, open-border immigrant advocates, the SECURE Act does not contain draconian enforcement measures. If anything, our bill contains the commonsense security and enforcement measures this body has been debating, discussing, and considering for years. Our bill adds new Border Patrol agents, U.S. attorneys, and judges to make it easier to apprehend, prosecute, and deport illegal entrants and criminal aliens. We authorize money for critically necessary port of entry and exit improvements so we can know who is here, how long they are here, and when they left--if they left. Our bill increases criminal penalties for human smugglers, these offenses that are committed by repeat offenders, often resulting in death, resulting in human trafficking, and including even sexual assault. We also increase penalties for criminal aliens who commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. Our bill makes clear that individuals who engage in acts of terrorism, criminal gang members, aggravated felons, and drunk drivers are not admissible to our country, and makes it clear that they can be put into expedited removal if they somehow make it into our country. Finally, our bill permanently authorizes the voluntary E-Verify Program, and it also provides incentives for employers to participate in that voluntary program. It doesn't make E-Verify mandatory. It just provides employers certainty by making the program permanent. I hope, as I described these things, they are seen as commonsense measures. Why would my colleagues on the other side ever want to oppose those provisions? It wasn't that long ago that many Democrats supported border security and interior enforcement. I would like to list some quotes from recent Democratic Presidents who supported some of these propositions. In his 1996 State of the Union Address, then-President Clinton championed his actions to crack down on illegal immigration. He proudly noted his administration was ``increasing border patrol by 50 percent . . . [and] increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants.'' In 2006, then-Senator, later President Obama spoke in favor of enhanced border security and enforcement measures. He acknowledged, even then, that ``we need tougher border security, stronger enforcement measures . . . [we] need more resources for Customs and Border Agents, and more detention beds.'' When speaking in favor of the Secure Fence Act, Mr. Obama said: It would ``certainly do some good'' and would go a long way in ``stem[ming] . . . the tide of illegal immigration in this country.'' Do my colleagues no longer agree with former Presidents Clinton and Obama? Do they no longer believe we need to stem the tide of illegal immigration? My colleagues on the other side consistently talk about how DACA kids shouldn't be used as bargaining chips for any potential deal. What about the innocent American citizens they are using as bargaining chips? What about the thousands of victims every year of crimes committed by dangerous criminal aliens? Do the lives of these people not matter as well? Does the safety of these people, the happiness of these people, the well-being of these people deserve to be bargained away? This group of Senators whom I have named who are going to participate in this colloquy remain ready and willing to negotiate in good faith and to make tough sacrifices in order to find common ground on this issue. Our counterparts need to be willing to do the same. I am asking them, pleading with them, in all sincerity, to sit down and have an honest conversation. Let's strike a deal that is fair to all, including to law-abiding Americans. Any deal cooked up by this poor man's version of a Gang of 8 that doesn't have real border security, doesn't have real interior enforcement measures, and doesn't have the other pillars of reform in the SECURE Act--well, it is pretty simple: That is no deal at all, and I will not support that. I yield the floor. I call on my colleague, the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Senator has been a leader on this with his separate piece of legislation for a long time. The next speaker is Senator Cotton; after that is Senator Lankford. In the meantime, I yield the floor to my colleagues as I have a meeting to go to.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent requests at the present time relating to the nominations of David J. Ryder, of New Jersey, to be Director of the Mint, and of Isabel Marie Keenan Patelunas, of Pennsylvania, to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of the Treasury. 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 or Ms. Patelunas 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, today we have the opportunity to pass the most sweeping changes to our Tax Code in more than 30 years. This historic moment is long overdue, and my constituents in Iowa will benefit from it. Since the last tax reform effort in 1986, the Tax Code has grown out of control in both length and complexity. All told, taxpayers spend over 6 billion hours annually just complying with the dictates of the Internal Revenue Code. Moreover, our outdated corporate tax system puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage as they try to compete in the 21st century global economy. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will make good on our commitment to provide significant tax relief to middle-income taxpayers both in my State of Iowa and in the entire United States, while making the Tax Code simpler, fairer, and, obviously, more pro-growth. The bill provides significant tax simplification for the vast majority of tax filers. Most taxpayers will find that they are better off simply by taking the standard deduction. No longer will they have to spend hours sifting through receipts and forms to determine what they can and cannot deduct. Middle-income taxpayers can also expect to see significant tax cuts. A median income family of four could see their tax bill reduced by over $2,000. This is relief that families will see almost immediately, as less tax is withheld from their paychecks. This tax relief stems from many pro-family and pro-middle-class income tax provisions in the legislation. First, there is the nearly doubling of the standard deduction. For families, this means the first $24,000 of their income will be exempt from tax altogether. As a result, a significant number of lower income Americans will be removed from the tax rolls entirely. Second, the middle-income tax brackets are significantly lowered and expanded to include more taxpayers. This includes reducing the current 15 percent bracket to 12 percent, and the 25 percent bracket to 22 percent. Third, the tax bill specifically recognizes the costs associated with raising a child by doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. Furthermore, to ensure that lower income families with children are able to benefit from this expansion, the refundable portion of the tax credit is increased from $1,000 to $1,400. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attempted to claim that this tax bill is all out to help the wealthy, I want to make very clear that this is simply not true. This is evidenced from the features of the bill that I just discussed, but, also, if you need more evidence, look no further than the distribution analysis of the bill by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation of the Congress of the United States. According to the analysis of the Joint Committee on Taxation, on average, every income group will experience a tax cut, with the largest percentage tax cuts going to the middle-income groups. Moreover, the tax bill would make the Tax Code more progressive, with taxpayers earning more than $1 million shouldering a larger share of the tax burden than they do under current law. The bill also enacts much needed tax relief for job creators. It provides a significant deduction on business income for small businesses, effectively lowering the top tax rate to under 30 percent. All small businesses down to the smallest family-owned corner store and the family farmer stand to benefit from this provision. As small businesses are responsible for creating the majority of new jobs, this is a key provision promoting economic growth and job creation. Additionally, the bill lowers the statutory corporate rate down from the highest in the developed world to 21 percent. The highest rate in the developed world at 35 percent makes our current corporate tax rate on American companies the highest of those industrialized nations and puts us at a competitive disadvantage globally, costing American jobs. Moreover--and this is important for the John Deere workers in Waterloo, IA, or in any other corporation--economists generally agree that a significant portion of the corporate tax falls on workers in the form of reduced wages. Estimates of this burden of the corporate tax on workers ranges from a low of 25 percent to a high of 70 percent. While the exact amount may be debated by economists, one thing is very clear. A corporate rate reduction will result in bigger paychecks for hard- working Americans. These business tax reforms are crucial to getting our economy growing. We can't continue to settle for the anemic growth of less than 2 percent that we have experienced since 2010. Lower tax rates, coupled with greater expensing of depreciated equipment under the bill, will encourage new capital investments that are necessary to increase productivity, generating both higher wages and higher growth. The bill before us signals the faith we have in the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, rather than putting our faith in government to grow the economy. We do this to get our economy on the right track, and this legislation will put us on the right track. In all, tax reform will put more money in the pockets of middle- class Americans, make U.S. industry and workers more competitive, and get the economy growing again after 8 years of stagnation--the most stagnation in any decade since World War II. This is a historic opportunity to help Americans from every walk of life. I look forward to joining my colleagues to pass this once-in-a- generation tax bill and have it signed into law before the new year. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in the 114th Congress, we came very close to passing Kevin and Avonte's Law, a bill named in honor of two boys with autism who wandered away from their caregivers and drowned. I reintroduced this legislation last month with Senators Klobuchar, Tillis, Schumer, and others to equip communities with important tools to help locate individuals who wander away from their families or caregivers due to dementia or a developmental disability. The bill we crafted adds new protections for children with developmental disabilities, like autism, which are linked to wandering. The original version of this bill, which I authored with Senator Schumer, passed both Chambers of Congress late last year. It passed this Chamber by voice vote over a year ago, while a similar House companion garnered over 90 cosponsors before passing the other Chamber, 346-66, last December. Unfortunately, we ran out of time to resolve the differences between the two Chamber's versions before the 114th Congress adjourned. This year, the Judiciary Committee approved Kevin and Avonte's Law by voice vote, and, before reporting the bill to the full Senate last month, we reached bipartisan consensus on an offset. Our offset consists of the Federal Register Printing Savings Act, which Senator Portman introduced earlier this year. Senator Portman's office agreed to work with us and incorporate S. 1195 into Kevin and Avonte's Law. We currently are seeking unanimous consent to pass both bills in one legislative package. Meanwhile, the House has passed its own version of the Federal Register Printing Savings Act, introduced by Congressman Russell of Oklahoma. The House-passed version of that bill won the approval of the Homeland Security Committee earlier this year, and that panel is seeking unanimous consent to pass it. I support this legislation, which is virtually identical to Senator Portman's bill, but I placed a temporary hold on the House companion yesterday, so that we can find a way to pass that legislation and Kevin and Avonte's Law simultaneously. By ensuring that both measures pass as one package, we can make additional resources available to equip first responders, law enforcement officials, and other community leaders with the training and tools necessary to better prevent and respond to missing person cases. By doing so, we also can make grants available to educate and train caregivers as well as other members of the community on how to prevent wandering by those with dementia or developmental disabilities.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now, Professor Dershowitz is not a fan of Donald Trump, and he and I probably would not agree on many issues, generally speaking. The title of his article is ``Senator Dianne Feinstein may be provoking a constitutional conflict.'' Professor Dershowitz strongly disagrees with the ranking member's statement on ``Meet the Press'' the weekend that Comey was fired: `` . . . directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation, that's obstruction of justice.'' This is how Professor Dershowitz replied: No, it isn't. . . . under our constitutional system of separation of powers, the president cannot be charged with a crime for merely exercising his authority under Article 2 of the Constitution. This authority includes firing the director of the FBI, for whatever reason or no reason. That is not to say that the President can engage in illegal conduct. But the professor's point, as I understand it, is that when a President takes an action that is within the scope of clear constitutional authority and discretion, it should be a political question not a criminal one. The Judiciary Committee still needs to investigate the circumstances surrounding Comey's firing and the Flynn investigation. Those facts may have nothing to do with the obstruction but could still provide important insight about the potential reforms of how the FBI and the Justice Department operate. For example, he explains how President Trump could have halted any investigation of Flynn if he really wanted to. This is what the professor says: Trump would have been within his constitutional authority to pardon Flynn, as Flynn hoped he would do. That would have kept him from cooperating with the special counsel and becoming a government witness. Had the president done that, he would have acted entirely lawful, as President George H.W. Bush did when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger in order to stop the Iran-Contra investigation. Although special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh complained bitterly that the Bush presidential pardon had the intent and effect of completely closing down his investigation, no one suggested that Bush had committed the crime of obstruction of justice. Then, finally, Professor Dershowitz explains what real obstruction looks like and how it is different from a President's merely exercising his constitutional authority. So I, once again, quote the professor: Both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were accused of obstruction of justice, but in both cases they were accused of going well beyond the mere exercise of their constitutional authority. Nixon was accused of telling subordinates of lie to the FBI, paying hush money to potential witnesses, and destroying evidence. Clinton was accused of trying to get witnesses, such as Monica Lewinsky, to lie. These charges constituted acts--independent crimes-- that go well beyond presidential authority. Trump has not been accused of any facts that would independently constitute crimes. The entire case against him, as outlined by Feinstein, consists of constitutionally authorized acts that were well within the president's authority under Article 2. That is an enormous and consequential difference under our system of separation of powers. But our constitutional system of checks and balances is too important to throw it aside when it isn't politically convenient. You don't have to be a Trump fan to worry about the consequences of taking shortcuts in going after your political opponents. That is why bipartisan investigations are so very valuable. When it works, a bipartisan inquiry can provide comfort that all angles have been explored and explored thoroughly. But it takes two to tango, as they say. Earlier this year, Ranking Member Feinstein expressed concerns about reports that former Attorney General Lynch asked Director Comey to downplay the FBI's investigation as merely, a ``matter'' instead of using the term ``investigation'' during the campaign. Yet, since then, the ranking member has told me plainly that she will not join in any oversight of the FBI's Clinton email investigation. Even on Trump-Russia oversight, where we have been able to cooperate a great deal, there have been similar problems. First, all year, I have wanted to learn more about the origins of the dossier that largely kick-started the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign. In July, the ranking member joined me in a bipartisan letter seeking voluntary cooperation from the firm that produced the dossier. The dossier was based largely on Russian sources within Russia and was put together by a former British spy. It made salacious and unverified claims about Trump. The company responsible for producing it--Fusion GPS--was uncooperative. In response to our bipartisan request, it dumped on the committee about 32,000 pages of press clippings and 8,000 pages that were entirely blank. Since then, it has provided zero additional documents. The founder of Fusion GPS initially indicated that he would rely on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than testify at the committee hearing in July. He later agreed to a private staff interview but refused to answer dozens of key questions. I would like to compel him to answer questions and compel him to provide the documents that Senator Feinstein and I both asked him in July to provide voluntarily, but under our committee rules, I don't have the authority to do that on my own. Why would Democrats not want to follow up and get the documents from Fusion GPS that we already asked for together--in other words, in a bipartisan way? Do they not want to know more about how this company put together its anti-Trump dossier from Russian Government sources? Well, in light of recent news, the resistance from Democrats to this line of Trump/Russia inquiry is now a little more understandable. It turns out that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee are the ones that paid Fusion GPS for the information they gathered from Russian Government sources. I don't know whether the ranking member or her staff knew the facts earlier this year when I was trying to persuade her to do bipartisan followup work with Fusion GPS, but I do know that unless both sides are willing to ask tough questions no matter where the facts lead, there can be no bipartisan oversight. We have learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for an anti-Trump dossier based on information from Russian Government sources. Second, we have learned that the inspector general uncovered evidence of partisan bias by a senior FBI official at the center of both the Clinton and the Trump-Russia investigations, which led to his dismissal from the Mueller team. Before that news broke, back in October of this year, I wrote to the FBI official requesting voluntary cooperation and a private transcribed interview with the committee. The ranking member did not sign that letter. The committee has received no letter in reply. We are still waiting for documents from the FBI about his and other officials' participation in the draft Comey statement. The FBI should comply voluntarily, but if they don't, I would issue a subpoena to require that the documents be provided and that the witness sit for a deposition. However, under our committee rules, I don't have the authority to do that without support from the ranking member. Finally, I have long had concerns that the scope of the FBI Clinton investigation was artificially narrow. Recent revelations about these text messages showing political bias only heighten these concerns. In recent Federal court rulings, the FBI said that the scope of the investigation was limited in two ways. First, it was limited to two issues dealing with the handling of classified information. Second, the scope of the FBI review was limited to the time when former Secretary Clinton was at the State Department. But what if there was evidence of crime not related to the mishandling of classified information? What if the facts showed some obstruction such as intentional destruction of documents after she was Secretary of State? Why exclude those topics from the scope of the inquiry? Who made those decisions? Why were those decisions made? Was there any political bias in those decisions? Certain areas should not be declared off limits beforehand in an investigation. An investigation should go--common sense--where the facts take it. In multiple letters to the FBI last year, I raised concerns about the scope of the FBI investigation. I asked Director Comey back in May of 2016 whether the Justice Department had improperly narrowed the scope of the investigation to look at the mishandling of classified information and ignore other important legal issues. I wish to quote from that letter: If federal records on the private server were hidden or destroyed, then there may have been a violation of 18 USC Section 2071, which prohibits concealing or destroying such Federal records. If any of the deleted emails were responsive to Congressional inquiries or to agency inquiries, such as ones from the State Department Inspector General, then there may have been violations of 18 USC Sections 1505 and 1519, respectively. Later in my letter, I specifically asked whether the Justice Department limited the FBI's investigation in any way. Then-Director Comey eventually responded months later. He claimed that the FBI did investigate whether the unlawful obstruction of Federal records occurred. But an FBI agent said under penalty of perjury that the FBI investigation did not include destruction of Federal records. So which is it? Who is telling the truth? The FBI agent who signed the affidavit, or is Mr. Comey right? Did the FBI really examine whether Secretary Clinton and her associates used the server to avoid Federal records retention requirements, or did Mr. Comey simply pay lipservice to that concern and focus only on classification issues? Understanding what really happened is incredibly important, and let me tell my colleagues why. During the course of the FBI's investigation, it recovered thousands of work-related emails that were not turned over to the State Department by Secretary Clinton. The FBI also recovered work-related emails that Secretary Clinton and her associates apparently deleted. All of this is clear evidence of alienation of Federal records. Indeed, even the FBI's now-public investigative files show that the FBI had knowledge that Federal records were deleted. The FBI's interview summary of Secretary Clinton said that she was asked about ``a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015.'' I am going to repeat that. She was asked about ``a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015.'' PRN stands for Platte River Networks, the company that administered Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server. Kendall is David Kendall, her lawyer. Mills is Cheryl Mills, her former Chief of Staff at the State Department. Paul Combetta, the administrator of her server, was also on the conference call and was interviewed multiple times by the FBI. He admitted that he lied to the FBI in his initial interviews and got immunity from the FBI in exchange for agreeing to tell them the truth. According to the summary of that interview, Mr. Combetta deleted Secretary Clinton's email archives on March 31, 2015. So we have a conference call with Secretary Clinton's attorneys on March 31, 2015, and on that very same day, her emails are deleted by someone who was on that conference call, using special BleachBit software. The emails were State Department records under subpoena by Congress. What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction? According to affidavits filed in Federal court, absolutely nothing. The FBI focused only on the handling of classified information. Maybe now we know why. Recently released FBI records show that by May 2, 2016, Mr. Comey sent around a draft of his statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. The FBI interview with Mr. Combetta hadn't even happened yet. The exoneration statement was already in progress before the key witness had coughed up the truth about deleting Federal records under subpoena by Congress. Did the FBI look at obstruction in the Clinton case? Mr. Comey said the FBI looked very hard at obstruction, but that is hard to believe. Director Comey began drafting an exoneration statement in April or early May of 2016. That is months before he publicly announced that he would not recommend charges on July 5, 2016. According to the testimony of senior FBI officials, Comey began drafting his statement early because the FBI knew where the investigation was headed. That is according to testimony of senior FBI officials. But at that point, the FBI had not yet interviewed 17 witnesses. That ought to be understood. They hadn't yet interviewed 17 witnesses. And one of those witnesses--can you believe it--was Secretary Clinton. Others included her closest aides and associates. How can you possibly know where an investigation is headed without interviewing the main witnesses and the subject of the investigation? Maybe none of this raises any concerns for Democrats, but it should. The American people deserve to have the whole story. Congress and the public have a right to understand whether the fix was in from the very beginning. If so, then it must take steps to make sure it never happens again. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been doing oversight of the executive branch for a very long time. I have done it as ranking member, I have done it as chairman, I have done it when my party held the White House, and I have done it when the other party held the White House. Earlier this year, I stood up for the rights of my Democratic colleagues to do oversight of the Trump administration, even while they are in the minority. I did it because it was the right thing to do. Lots of people give lip service to the notion of bipartisan oversight, but very few actually practice it. It is tough. You have to be willing to work with colleagues in the other party to ask tough questions of your own political allies. You can't just ask. If you actually want answers, you have to follow through. True bipartisan oversight is impossible unless it is a two-way street. If Democrats are unwilling to ask hard questions and force answers from their own political allies, then there is simply no way to move forward together in good faith. Both sides need to be committed to getting the whole story--not just the half they think helps their side. Regardless of whether my Democratic colleagues join me, I am interested in that whole story. There are two major controversies plaguing the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI right now. On the one hand, the Trump- Russia investigation, and then on the other hand, the handling of the Clinton investigation. Any congressional oversight related to either one of these topics is not credible without also examining the other. Both cases were active during last year's campaign. Both cases have been linked to the firing of the FBI Director. I have been trying to explain this to my Democratic colleagues for months. The political reality is, half of the country thinks our law enforcement establishment gave Hillary Clinton and her aides a pass. These questions go to the heart of the integrity of our Federal law enforcement and justice system. They are not going to go away just because Clinton lost the election. The independent inspector general at the Justice Department certainly isn't ignoring that issue. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have asked the inspector general to look into a host of issues involving the handling of the Clinton investigation during the campaign. His hard work has already uncovered some pretty disturbing information. Over the past week, the press has reported that an FBI agent was removed from the special counsel's team and demoted at the FBI due to-- what do you think--political bias. The agent was at the very center of both of these high-profile investigations. High-ranking FBI agent Peter Strzok reportedly used his work phone to send anti-Trump and pro- Clinton text messages to another FBI agent with whom he was having an illicit and immoral relationship. This man was the Deputy Assistant Director for the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. He worked on the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to conduct--what do you think--official business. According to news reports and according to documents, it looks like he also helped draft Comey's controversial public statement ending that case of Hillary Clinton and emails. Specifically, he apparently edited out language that suggested legal jeopardy for Clinton. Press reports state he opened the FBI's investigation of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It has been reported that he was one of the two FBI agents who interviewed former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? What if a high- ranking FBI official got caught expressing pro-Trump political bias on his work phone while leading what is supposed to be a professional, objective, and nonpartisan search for the truth? Why, of course, if that were happening, Democrats would go ballistic, and they would have every right to go ballistic. This man held a crucial position of public trust, charged with protecting this country from counterintelligence threats. He was a key part of Director Comey's Clinton investigation and his Russia investigation. I have been saying for months that these two cases are forever linked. You cannot separate them. The same people in the same agency handled both cases at the same time, and now a huge segment of the American people have no faith that these cases were treated, as they should be, impartially. I don't blame the American people. It is interesting that before he was fired, FBI Director Comey lectured our Judiciary Committee and lectured the public about how the men and women of the FBI ``don't give a rip about politics.'' I believe that for most of the hard-working, rank-and-file FBI agents, that is absolutely true. Their jobs normally don't involve controversial political questions, and their own political views aren't relevant because they are professionals. But no human is perfect, and no organization is immune from error. It does no good for the leaders of the FBI to pretend that its senior management is above all reproach, that they would never show any improper political bias, and that they would never make mistakes. The only way to protect against bias or misconduct is to recognize that it exists and to confront it, not to hide it from Congress and the American people. The law and the facts, whatever they are, should guide the work of the FBI and the Justice Department. If politics infected the Department's decisions during a hotly contested national political campaign, we would have to look at it. That is true whether it occurred in the Clinton case, or in the Trump-Russia case, or if it included both. Anyone claiming to do bipartisan oversight of the executive branch has to examine both. Ignoring either half of this story simply will not be credible with the other half of the country. Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to be President--everyone. The perception of a huge segment of the public is that the whole Washington establishment worked overtime to get her name cleared before the Democratic Convention last summer. The FBI even called its case ``Mid Year Exam.'' Director Comey testified that the former Attorney General refused even to name the FBI's work and investigation. That is how political it became. It was really the Attorney General who was at that time insisting on calling it not an investigation but ``a matter''--m-a-t-t- e-r--whatever that means. We have learned that Director Comey started drafting his exoneration statement long before the investigation was done. It looks like there was a rush to clear her. It looks like the fix was in. I know Democrats don't want to hear that. They only want to talk about Trump. There is a double standard here in the way they desperately want to go after the President but ignore all other potential wrongdoing in the previous administration. It stinks to high heaven. But Democrats have visions of impeachment dancing in their heads. Rather than reserve judgment and carefully examine the facts--all of the facts--they are jumping to all sorts of conclusions. The Judiciary Committee has an obligation to do a deep dive into the firing of James Comey and both of the two controversial political investigations that preceded it. Unfortunately, the Democrats are preventing any truly bipartisan path forward. They appear to be assuming the conclusion at the outset. They complain publicly, and they complain privately that I am not doing enough to investigate ``obstruction of justice,'' but ``obstruction of justice'' is a legal term of art. It is a conclusion, not evidence. That is not how I conduct my investigations. I do not make my conclusions first and try to shoehorn the facts to fit my conclusions. I try to get the facts and then go where those facts lead. Let's consider examples of where investigations have uncovered facts that point to ``obstruction.'' Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon both lied to investigators. That is obstruction, and that behavior got one of them impeached and forced the other to resign. We also recently learned that Hillary Clinton's lawyers used a program called BleachBit to delete 33,000 emails under subpoena by the House of Representatives. Now, those government records--and they are government records--can never be recovered. Those facts certainly look like obstruction, but we don't have all of the facts here yet. So far, I have seen no credible evidence that President Trump has told anyone to lie. I also have seen no credible evidence that he or his aides have destroyed records being sought by investigators. Many people firmly believe that the President fired the FBI Director in order to improperly halt an investigation of Lieutenant General Flynn. Now, I am not only willing but I am eager to delve deeply into all of the circumstances surrounding Director Comey's removal, but to claim at the outset that his removal was obstruction of justice puts the cart before the horse. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by the well-known liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, to help ensure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy, today I rise to reintroduce the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act. This important bill would establish within the Judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances. During my many years in Congress, I've worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Federal Inspectors General who serve as the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs. I've come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. And when that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action. During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated roughly $7 billion in taxpayer dollars to support the Federal judiciary. Put in context, the Small Business Administration and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received less funding than the judiciary but both entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, doesn't it make good sense that the Judiciary would deserve the same assistance? Beyond fiduciary factors, the current practice of self-regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. In fact, in the past seven years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. It took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements made to his colleagues who were assembled to investigated him as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him. In the second case, you will recall that the Senate found former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. guilty on multiple articles of impeachment, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. This Judge's misbehavior came to light through a federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge. Moreover, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status that would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.'' The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. Further, the bill establishes important whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees to help keep the judiciary accountable. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They're supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only help ensure continued public confidence in our federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, to help ensure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy, today I rise to reintroduce the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act. This important bill would establish within the Judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances. During my many years in Congress, I've worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Federal Inspectors General who serve as the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs. I've come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. And when that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action. During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated roughly $7 billion in taxpayer dollars to support the Federal judiciary. Put in context, the Small Business Administration and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received less funding than the judiciary but both entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, doesn't it make good sense that the Judiciary would deserve the same assistance? Beyond fiduciary factors, the current practice of self-regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. In fact, in the past seven years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. It took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements made to his colleagues who were assembled to investigated him as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him. In the second case, you will recall that the Senate found former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. guilty on multiple articles of impeachment, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. This Judge's misbehavior came to light through a federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge. Moreover, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status that would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.'' The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. Further, the bill establishes important whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees to help keep the judiciary accountable. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They're supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only help ensure continued public confidence in our federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2146 and the bill be referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. GRASSLEY. In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session for consideration of Calendar No. 167, the nomination of Susan Bodine to be an Assistant Administrator of EPA. I further ask that there be 30 minutes of debate on the nomination, equally divided in the usual form, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on confirmation with no intervening action or debate, and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, December 7; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each until 11 a.m.; I further ask that at 11 a.m., Senator Strange be recognized for up to 30 minutes; finally, that at 11:45 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the Balash nomination as under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to make a few brief remarks regarding the introduction of the Security, Enforcement, and Compassion United in Reform Efforts, and we have selected the acronym SECURE for this piece of legislation we are introducing today. This bill promotes and protects the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration system and provides a fair and equitable solution on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and everyone in the Senate knows that by the acronym DACA. It is the product of several months of hard work between this Senator and Senators Cornyn, Graham, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton. I think, before the day is out and the Senate closes down, you will hear from almost all of those folks on their approach to this legislation and their support for it. Before I discuss what the bill does, I want to explain the process we used to reach this point. On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Sessions announced that President Trump had decided to rescind former President Obama's unlawful Executive amnesty program. Because almost 700,000 young people relied on President Obama's false promise, the Trump administration called upon Congress to do what the President doesn't have the legal authority to do and to find the only real type of long-term solution to this issue. Obviously, we are here because that is a legislative solution and not something the executive branch thinks up and tries to put in place. Starting in September, I have held multiple meetings with Senators Cornyn, Graham, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton to determine how best to fix DACA. Our aim was to find a solution that not only is fair for DACA recipients but also promotes the interests of the American people. The immigration policies of the previous administration carried consequences that weren't always in our best interest. For example, President Obama allowed thousands of people to illegally cross our borders and to stay in our country, including dangerous gang members, sex offenders, and violent criminals. So robust border security is crucial to bring integrity back to our Nation's immigration enforcement. The enforcement policies of the previous administration enabled dangerous, unauthorized criminals, individuals like Kate Steinle's killer, to have free rein in our country, risking the safety of innocent Americans. The flagrant disregard of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions unfairly takes tax dollars from hard-working Americans, only to ignore the rule of law and their own people's public safety. In crafting our bill, we also considered the inherent unfairness in our Nation's immigration court and asylum adjudication systems and how hundreds of thousands of aliens wait in backlogs for years at a time. That is wrong. It hurts the people who are stuck in the backlog, and it is unfair to ask the American people and legal immigrants to bear the burden of supporting these people while they wait. Finally, thanks to the leadership of Senators Graham, Perdue, and Cotton, we discussed in our small group of Senators the need for a merit-based immigration system, one where we bring people to this country based on what they can contribute and not simply because they have some attenuated family relationship to a legal immigrant who is already here. So after having these discussions and after meeting with the President to get his input and his support, we have come up with a plan. This plan is fair to all parties. It is pro-American, and it is a solution to DACA. Our plan, as I said, which goes by an acronym, the SECURE Act of 2017, provides a solution to all of the issues we discussed. First, building off of the hard work and leadership of Senator Cornyn, we are putting days of porous, uncontrolled borders behind us. We are doing this by mandating the construction of tactical and technological infrastructure at the border. We are also beefing up our law enforcement and judicial resources, and we are putting more boots on the ground in the border States so that we can better apprehend and prosecute those who enter our country illegally. Our plan takes meaningful steps to end the lawlessness and tragedies at the hands of dangerous criminal aliens throughout our country. We do this by cracking down on sanctuary cities, ending the misguided catch- and-release policies of the previous administration, and finally taking real steps to address intentional visa overstays. In recognition of the many Americans who have lost their lives to criminal aliens, we included Kate's law, named after the person murdered by a criminal felon who came back into our country five times--Kate Steinle. So it is Kate's law. This legislation enhances penalties for repeat illegal border crossers and expands the inaccessibility and expedited removal of terrorists, gang members, aggravated felons, and drunk drivers. We also provide a fix to the disastrous Zadvydas decision so that the government doesn't keep releasing dangerous criminals onto our streets just because of the refusal of their home countries to take responsibility. Our bill takes steps to eliminate many of the ``pull'' factors that encourage people to immigrate illegally. We do this by permanently authorizing the E-Verify Program and providing immunity and other incentives to encourage small businesses to participate in that E- Verify Program. We also take meaningful steps to reduce immigration court and asylum adjudication backlogs by hiring more judges and personnel, limiting the number of continuances an immigrant can receive, and imposing new safeguards to combat well-documented fraud and abuse. Again, thanks to the leadership and advocacy of Senators Graham, Perdue, and Cotton, our bill eliminates the phenomenon known as chain migration. From the day this bill becomes law, immigrants will be able to bring only their spouses and minor children into the country. This bipartisan, pro-American worker reform, which the President strongly supports, is an important first step toward creating the merit-based, economically productive immigration system that both Democrats and Republicans want. Finally and most importantly, we provide a bipartisan solution to protect undocumented young people brought to the United States as children by adopting a bill that goes by the acronym BRIDGE, Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy. Senator Durbin called the BRIDGE Act ``an opportunity for supporters and critics of DACA to come together and address a compelling humanitarian issue on a bipartisan basis.'' We agree with Senator Durbin. The BRIDGE Act is supported by Senators Graham, Durbin, Gillibrand, Heller, Murkowski, Feinstein, Nelson, Flake, Schumer, and Harris. It would provide relief from deportation and work authorization to DACA recipients, allowing them to continue to fulfill their dreams, and they will continue to contribute to our economy. As you can see, Mr. President, our plan has fair, bipartisan, and serious provisions. By listening to colleagues and adopting solutions that both sides can agree on, we are providing a real solution to the immigration issues our country is facing. Our plan protects the DACA kids, it cracks down on criminal illegal aliens, and it provides real long-term reforms to our Nation's immigration system that benefit the American people. It does so through the proper legislative process, in other words, by a constitutional way--unlike a previous President tried to do this--providing greater certainty for Americans and immigrants alike. Importantly, it is also supported by the President. That is all the more reason to pass this bill and fulfill our promises to the American people and the DACA recipients. Again, I want to thank the hard work of Senators Cornyn, Graham, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton, and their staffs, especially, in developing the solution. I am looking forward to considering this measure in the new year and seeing President Trump sign it into law, as he asked us to do. I see that two of my colleagues, Senator Lankford and Senator Tillis, are here. I am giving up the floor, if you would like to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate November as National Adoption Month. During this month, we are reminded of the importance of adoption to so many families and children in Iowa and all across the country. As Americans are celebrating the season of Thanksgiving with family and friends, adoptive families are celebrating with their new families, giving thanks for the joy of somebody they adopted. Since the first recognition of National Adoption Day 16, 17 years ago, nearly 65,000 kids have been adopted on National Adoption Day, which is always celebrated on the Saturday before Thanksgiving each year. In 2016 alone, over 4,700 adoptions were finalized on National Adoption Day. National Adoption Month is certainly a time to celebrate the joys of a new family; however, it is also a reminder of the obstacles that so many children may face. Nationally, there are over 425,000 children in foster care. Over 100,000 of these children are hoping to be adopted. In Iowa, there are about 1,000 kids in foster care who are eligible for adoption. This year, the special focus of National Adoption Month is older youth waiting to be adopted. Teenagers, unfortunately, face more difficulty in being adopted than do younger children. As cofounder and cochair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have had the chance to hear directly from teenagers in foster care. In fact, our Senate Caucus on Foster Youth has a couple, three seminars every year just to listen to older youth in the foster care system, particularly those who are about ready to age out. These young people tell me that, more than anything else, they want a loving family. They tell me that they need families and that nobody is too old to be adopted. The support that parents provide to teens is critical to navigating the transition to adulthood--from making decisions about higher education to finding a job or buying a car. A loving family continually provides the support teens need to succeed. Congress must continue to work toward policies that help make adoption a reality for our foster youth. We must work to ensure that all children, no matter their circumstances, have permanent, loving homes and consistent, caring adults in their lives. I am glad that the Senate preserved the adoption tax credit in the tax reform legislation, and I am hopeful that Congress will continue to work on policy that promotes adoption and improves the lives of those in foster care. As National Adoption Month comes to an end tomorrow, I thank all of those who work to improve the lives of children. I thank advocates for children who tirelessly work to make adoption possible, and I thank adoptive parents and families for opening their hearts and homes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the last time Congress modernized the Tax Code was in 1986. That was more than 30 years ago, which is quite obvious to anybody who can subtract. In the generations since, the Tax Code has grown out of control. It has been a dream come true for whom? The professionals in accounting and the lobbyists who protect the loopholes. But it happens to be a real nightmare for most Americans. I would say, for most Members of Congress, as one reads regularly, very few Members of Congress do their own taxes. The outdated Tax Code helps the powerful and the well connected but hurts American workers. It hurts American industry, and it hurts America's ability to compete with the rest of the world. That means lower wages and less employment. The bill that passed out of the Finance Committee moves us very much in the right direction to make our Tax Code simpler, fairer, and more competitive. At the heart of the legislation is a middle-class tax cut. A typical family of four with two children making $59,000 a year could see a tax cut of more than $1,700. That is very significant tax relief, but you would never know it by listening to the rhetoric of my colleagues of the other political party. They have repeatedly recited the tired line that Republicans are only interested in giving tax cuts to the wealthy. In fact, they began pushing that narrative even before this bill was written. In going way back to September, they started analyzing a bill that didn't even exist. It was a charge made by a document that was put out, called the Big Six framework. But the framework was no piece of legislation; it merely provided guidelines from which to start for the tax-writing committees. The partisan Tax Policy Center then filled in the gaps with policy assumptions and crafted an analysis to fit its narrative and its analysis of a piece of legislation that had not even been written. The problem is that its narrative hasn't changed. The Finance Committee provided policy details that it should have used to change its narrative, but it still keeps with the same old rhetoric. I think even the Tax Policy Center would have to agree that the Finance Committee's product differs drastically from the underlying assumptions of its initial analysis. I am going to try to explain what the Tax Policy Center says about the tax law that we ought to pass in comparison to our bill, and you will see that there seems to be a real closeness in some of the ideas that ought to be done that we get from the left that are in this bill, but they don't even recognize it. The Finance Committee used all of the available tools it was granted under the unified framework to target more relief to middle-income taxpayers and retain the progressivity of the Tax Code. Let's take a look at some of the major features of the Finance's bill and how it provides relief for the Nation's middle-class and low-income earners. First, it nearly doubles the standard deduction, which means that many lower income Americans will be removed from the tax rolls completely and that tax filing season will be simpler for millions more. Second, it doubles the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 and moderately increases its refundability. Both of these are made possible in large part by repealing personal exemptions. Personal exemptions for the taxpayer and spouse help to increase the standard deduction, and the personal exemptions for children help with increasing the child tax credit. Interestingly enough, these provisions mirror a proposal that was put out by the leftwing Tax Policy Center in December of just last year. Nearly identical to the Finance bill, the very liberal Tax Policy Center's paper argued for repealing personal exemptions, nearly doubling the standard deduction, and increasing the child tax credit to $2,012. According to the authors of the liberal Tax Policy Center's proposal, such a change would ``reduce complexity, remove inequities, and mitigate marriage penalties.'' That is exactly what the bill before the Senate does, but they don't seem to recognize that. They sure wanted that as a goal last year. The fact is that these changes provide more tax relief to the middle class and at the same time simplify the Tax Code. As the liberal Tax Policy Center's paper points out, the value of the personal exemption is largely dependent on the tax bracket of the taxpayer. The higher the tax bracket, the more benefit that comes from the personal exemption. In comparison, the child tax credit generally lowers a taxpayer's tax liability dollar for dollar regardless of the tax bracket. As a result, repealing the personal exemption in favor of expanding the child tax credit makes the Tax Code more progressive and targets more relief to lower and middle-income taxpayers. Admittedly, there are some differences between what was suggested by the liberal Tax Policy Center and what is in the bill before us. Its proposal would have been more generous on the refundable feature of the child tax credit, but on the opposite end, it would have made the child tax credit available to everyone, including to millionaires. The Finance's bill is less generous to the affluent because it phases out the credit for married taxpayers with incomes of over $500,000. One would think that those on the other side--meaning the Democratic Party--in their finding fault with this bill, would offer some credit for taking this rather progressive approach to providing family tax relief, but no. They continue repeating their line over and over that this bill is a tax cut for the wealthy. Another major feature of the Finance's bill that provides relief to middle-class and lower income earners is the reduction of tax rates for middle-bracket taxpayers. First, it retains the 10-percent bracket, which many on the other side expressed concern about being repealed based on the Big Six framework. They were wrong in using the framework, but they have not admitted that. Next, it lowers the current law's 15-percent bracket to 12 percent and expands its applicability. Additionally, it reduces what is essentially the current law bracket of 25 percent down to 22 percent and what is essentially today's current law 28-percent bracket to a much wider 24-percent bracket. These rate reductions target tax relief to the very heart of America's middle class. One may be wondering how this middle-class tax relief bill will be financed--largely by repealing the State and local tax deduction, also known as the SALT deduction. Our colleagues on the other side have tried to argue that the repealing of the State and local tax deduction is a tax increase on the middle class. Nothing could be further from the truth in considering the reduced tax brackets, which I just discussed, in combination with the higher standard deduction and the doubled child tax credit. The repeal of the State and local tax deduction is actually a very key piece of this legislation that makes the middle-class tax cuts possible. The State and local tax deduction overwhelmingly benefits the so-called wealthy, who our colleagues on the other side vehemently argue should receive no tax benefits under this bill. I am going to tell you now how the liberal elements in this town see the State and local tax deduction as something that should have gone away anyway, and now they are complaining because we are doing away with it. Don't take my word for it. Here is what several partisan think tanks have said about the State and local tax deduction in the past. According to the Tax Policy Center--remember that is the leftwing organization finding fault with the bill even before it was written-- about 40 percent of the State and local tax deduction benefit goes to taxpayers with incomes exceeding $500,000. So we do away with the State and local tax deduction because it benefits wealthy people, and they don't give us any credit for it. Keep in mind that tax filers with incomes of half a million or more make up only about 1 percent of all tax filers, making it a very lopsided benefit. Here is what the very leftwing Center for American Progress has said about the State and local tax deduction: The deduction for state and local taxes disproportionately benefits high-income taxpayers, property owners, and residents of high-tax states. That is because these groups pay the most taxes at the state and local level. It also benefits high-income taxpayers because any kind of deduction is worth more to people in high tax brackets than in low tax brackets. I just finished quoting the Center for American Progress, which said that the State and local tax deduction ought to be done away with because it benefits wealthy people. Yet they complain to us that our tax bill is a tax benefit for the wealthy. To further illustrate who eliminating the State and local tax benefit really hits, I would like to highlight a recent Bloomberg article entitled ``Tax-Hike Fears Trigger Talk of Exodus From Manhattan and Greenwich.'' This article is not about the concerns of middle-class police officers or teachers on repeal of the State and local tax deduction. Instead, it highlights concerns of wealthy hedge fund managers who may now consider moving out of the high-tax State of New York. The Bloomberg article states: The problem for the Connecticut hedge-fund set--and, more broadly, for a lot of the Wall Street crowd--is that Republican proposals in both the House and Senate would drive up taxes for many high-earners in the New York City area. By eliminating the deduction for most state and local taxes, an individual making a yearly salary of $1 million . . . would owe the Internal Revenue Service an additional $21,000. This legislation repeals that deduction and makes the person making a yearly salary of $1 million pay $21,000 more in taxes, and liberal groups are proposing doing away with it, and we put it in our bill so that we don't let these wealthy people get the benefit of the tax deduction, and they don't recognize it. So I ask my colleagues on the left: Are you prepared to go to bat over SALT deductions for millionaire hedge fund managers? From listening to my Democratic colleagues' rhetoric, I am really surprised by this article. I thought Republicans were all about ``tax cuts for the wealthy'' and giveaways to Wall Street. But this article suggests otherwise. In fact, these types of taxpayers are likely to experience sizable tax hikes under the proposal on the Senate floor now. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, by 2023, nearly 30 percent of taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million will experience a tax hike. That does not sound like a giveaway to the wealthy to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate is voting to confirm Gregory Katsas to serve as U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. Katsas's 28-year legal career has prepared him well to serve as a Federal judge. His nomination has garnered widespread support in the legal community. Mr. Katsas graduated with his A.B. from Princeton University in 1986 and from Harvard Law School in 1989. After graduating from Harvard Law School, Mr. Katsas clerked for Judge Edward Becker on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and for Justice Clarence Thomas on the DC Circuit and on the U.S. Supreme Court. Following his clerkships, Mr. Katsas joined the DC office of Jones Day, where he worked in the issues and appeals section of their litigation group. From to 2001 to 2006, Mr. Katsas served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division at the Department of Justice, where he argued, briefed, and supervised a number of significant appeals handled by the Federal Government. He then served as the Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General from 2006 to 2008 and the Acting Associate Attorney General from 2007 to 2008. In 2007, President Bush nominated Mr. Katsas to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division at the Department of Justice. The Senate confirmed him by voice vote in 2008, and he served in that role until the end of the Bush administration. Mr. Katsas rejoined Jones Day as a partner in 2009, where he handled many important litigation matters. In January of this year, Mr. Katsas again left the private sector to serve the President as deputy counsel in the White House Counsel's office. One only has to look at his professional record to understand how eminently qualified Mr. Katsas is to serve as a Federal appellate judge. Over the course of 28 years, Mr. Katsas has briefed hundreds of cases and argued more than 75 appeals, including three cases in the Supreme Court and 13 cases in the DC Circuit, the court to which he is nominated. I am pleased to support Mr. Katsas's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier this week, I spoke about the history of the blue-slip courtesy. I hope my colleagues will read that history as well. I explained in that speech earlier this week that in my nearly four decades in the Senate, I have regularly returned my blue slip even when I would have preferred that the President had nominated someone else. Today, I am announcing that the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing for two circuit court nominees, each of whom has one home State Senator who has not returned a blue slip containing a positive endorsement. The hearing for Justice David Stras, nominee to the Eighth Circuit, and Kyle Duncan, nominee to the Fifth Circuit, will take place on November 29. Both of these nominees appear to be very well qualified, and they deserve the Judiciary Committee's further consideration. I would therefore like to offer an explanation as to why I am choosing to proceed on these nominations and allow the hearing despite the lack of two positive blue slips. As I explained earlier this week, the blue-slip courtesy is just that--a courtesy. For 100 years, the Judiciary Committee chairmen have asked for the views of home State Senators on judicial nominees via the blue-slip process. The blue slip is meant to solicit insights into nominees and ensure that the White House is adequately consulting with home State Senators as the advice part of the advice and consent would apply. Let me be very clear. I will maintain the blue-slip courtesy, but some of my Democratic colleagues and leftwing outside groups mistakenly assert that the blue slip affords a home State Senator veto power over a nominee. That is not true. Only 2 out of the 18 previous chairmen of this committee in the last 100 years allowed a single Senator to wield veto power over a nominee. Senator Joe Biden, when he was the Judiciary Committee chairman, articulated what I consider to be a sensible policy with regard to the blue slip. He said that a negative blue slip will be a ``significant factor'' for the committee to weigh, but ``it will not preclude consideration of a nominee'' unless the administration were to fail to consult with the Senator. I intend to follow this practice for negative and unreturned blue slips. This practice is consistent with the vast majority of the blue slip's history. I will add that I am less likely to proceed on a district court nominee who does not have two positive blue slips from home State Senators, but circuit courts, as we know, cover multiple States. There is less reason to defer to the views of a single State's Senator for such nominees when that nominee is going to serve several States in a circuit. It is important to remember that the judicial confirmation process has changed over the last several years. Previously, when home State Senators did not return a positive blue slip, their colleagues often defeated that very same nomination on the floor but not in committee. When President Bush nominated Carolyn Kuhl to the Ninth Circuit, her home State Senators did not return positive blue slips. Chairman Hatch, nevertheless, held a hearing and a vote for that nominee. Her home State Senators, however, convinced their colleagues to filibuster the nominee on the Senate floor. Carolyn Kuhl was never confirmed. A few years ago, as we know--I think it was in 2013--Democrats abolished the filibuster for nominees to the lower courts. They argued that a minority of Senators should not be allowed to block nominees who had majority support. Our colleague, the Senator from Oregon, said: `` `Advice and consent' was never envisioned as a check that involved a minority of the Senate being able to block a Presidential [nomination].'' Well, now that Senator is withholding his blue slip for a nominee to the Ninth Circuit. If he did not believe that 41 Senators should be able to block a nominee, he surely wouldn't believe that a single Senator would have that right. I think the Democrats now seriously regret that they abolished the filibuster, as I warned them about at that particular time when they were trying to add a lot of people who were not needed on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, as an example--packing the court, in other words. They cannot veto it because there is not a filibuster, so they want to use the blue slip for that purpose. It is very clear from the history of the blue slip that that is not what the blue slip was meant for. On the other hand, some have argued that the blue-slip courtesy has no place in modern judicial confirmations. The LA Times recently suggested getting rid of the blue slip, as did the New York Times several years ago. Even our committee's ranking member, Senator Feinstein, once advocated for abolishing the blue slip. I disagree that we should abolish the blue slip. The blue slip serves the important purpose of encouraging consultation between the White House and the Senate. Otherwise, the constitutional provision of advice and consent is just consent. But there is opportunity to advise ahead of time. That is what the blue slips help to do. The blue slip serves the important purpose of encouraging consultation between the White House and the Senate. The White House has an obligation to engage in good-faith consultation with home State Senators for the purpose of advice. I will not allow the White House to just steamroll home State Senators, but, as I have said all along, I will not allow the blue-slip process to be abused. Ever since last November, when the press had asked me about the blue slip, I have said that we are going to honor the blue-slip process but that there are always exceptions. I am not going to allow Senators to prevent a committee hearing for political or ideological reasons. Those are the least reasons not to have a hearing. Using the blue slip for these purposes is not consistent with historical practice. This brings me to one of the two nominations we are having on November 29, that of Justice David Stras of Minnesota. Justice Stras appears to be exceptionally well qualified. He graduated first in his class from the University of Kansas Law School. He clerked for both the Ninth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit and then for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. After several years in private practice in Minnesota, Justice Stras joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota Law School. He remained there until his appointment to the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010. In 2012, he was elected to a full 6-year term on the court by 56 percent of Minnesota voters. Think about one's not returning a blue slip when somebody gets 56 percent of the vote to be returned to the court. Justice Stras was raised by a single mother in Kansas. He is the grandson of Holocaust survivors. He carries the lessons passed down by his grandparents with him each day. I want to refer to a writing he just submitted to a leading newspaper. Writing recently about their survival in Auschwitz and then immigrating to the United States, he recalled that his grandfather had ``the uncommon gift of being able to see the light of human generosity in the midst of near-total darkness.'' He wrote that his grandparents embraced ``a message of optimism, intended to ensure that their children and grandchildren were able to lead a life free from the atrocities that they had witnessed.'' Justice Stras has an impeccable reputation in the Minnesota legal community. His former colleagues at the University of Minnesota Law School describe him as a person who ``engaged in debate respectfully, listening to opposing ideas while backing up his own views with facts and arguments'' and who ``wanted our students to be exposed to a wide range of beliefs.'' Another group of colleagues of Justice Stras from his days in private practice describe this justice as the type of attorney who ``never talked down to people'' and ``there was never any hint that he felt himself superior to anyone.'' Instead, Justice Stras ``listened to others' views, and worked to find an approach to legal problems that was both effective and acceptable to everyone on the team.'' They also note in that letter his dedication to mentoring young lawyers. Despite these accomplishments and accolades, one Senator has withheld his blue slip. Evidently, my colleague from Minnesota believes that Justice Stras has not even earned a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But the reasons given for withholding the blue slip are not consistent with the blue slip's purposes and history. Justice Stras was nominated to the Eighth Circuit on May 8, more than 6 months ago. After many months, my colleague formally announced that he would not return a blue slip. He cited Justice Stras's ``deeply conservative judicial philosophy,'' as well as his admiration for Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. To me, this amounts to an ideological litmus test: Admirers of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia need not ever apply for being on a circuit court. The Minnesota StarTribune's editorial board summed it up. They said the Senator from Minnesota ``rejected Stras for one reason: the justice's conservative views.'' The editorial board of the largest newspaper in Minnesota echoed the retired justice, Paul Anderson: While Stras is more conservative than I would like, that is not the point. The question is whether Stras is qualified to serve on the Eighth Circuit. And he is. My colleague later claimed that he was not adequately consulted by the White House, which would be a legitimate reason for withholding a blue slip, as I hope I have implied several times during my remarks today and before. So I looked into this by reviewing the records of consultation--and thank God the White House keeps pretty good records. It is clear the White House earnestly and repeatedly attempted to work with both home State Senators. The White House reached out to my colleague from Minnesota several times between January and May of this year to discuss the Eighth Circuit vacancy that Minnesota supplies a member for. It wasn't until May 2 that my colleague suggested alternatives to Justice Stras. That was more than 3 months after initial contact by the White House. Nevertheless, the White House did what they should under the Constitution by listening to Senators. They considered my colleague's two suggested nominees. I am satisfied that the White House adequately tried to consult with both home State Senators as the Constitution requires under advice and consent. Therefore, I am not going to deny Justice Stras a hearing. I would like to say a brief word about Justice Stras's supposedly rigid conservative views. The Judiciary Committee has received numerous letters attesting to Justice Stras's intellectual honesty and, probably more importantly, open-mindedness. It is clear that he has great respect for the rule of law, and his tenure on the Minnesota Supreme Court demonstrates that, like any good judge, he is able to put aside his personal views and apply the law faithfully. One letter, written by a bipartisan group of attorneys from Justice Stras's former firm, noted that they ``never doubted for a minute that he reached his decisions based on his well-considered view of the law, and not personal, political, or ideological considerations.'' They went on to note: The lawyers whose names appear at the bottom of this letter span the political spectrum, from Democrat to Republican, liberal to conservative. We differ in our political views, but we are united in our support of Justice Stras's nomination to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. There are all kinds of people writing that letter--Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Why is a Senator concerned about the justice's ideological views when people who know him well seem to think that is not a consideration because he is going to make a good judge? A group of former colleagues at the University of Minnesota agree. They wrote a letter to the committee stating: We are Minnesota law professors with diverse political views ranging from very conservative to very progressive. Some of us have appeared before Justice Stras as advocates, and all of us are familiar with his academic and judicial track records. Now as I continue the quote, I want to say to everybody, get this: He is no extremist, and he has approached his academic and judicial work without bias or favoritism. This support is echoed by his colleagues in my State of Iowa. The committee has received several letters of support from the faculty at the University of Iowa College of Law where Justice Stras teaches as an adjunct professor. Among his supporters are the dean of the law school, Gail Agrawal, and Professor Sheldon Kurtz, a self-described ``life-long liberal.'' Justice Stras is a widely respected jurist, and he should have a hearing. Ideological differences should not prevent the committee from moving forward. I would also like to address my decision to hold a hearing for Kyle Duncan, a nominee for the Fifth Circuit. He also has not had two positive blue slips returned. He is a widely respected appellate lawyer who has litigated over 30 cases in Federal and State appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. My friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy of Louisiana, has declined to return a positive blue slip. However, Senator Kennedy expressed that while he is undecided on Mr. Duncan's nomination, he does not oppose a hearing for Mr. Duncan. This seems to me to be a very sensible approach. It is the correct distinction that a Senator should make when deciding whether to return a blue slip. The blue slip is not meant to signify the Senator's ultimate support or opposition to the nominee. It only expresses a Senator's view about whether the nominee should have a hearing. Senator Feinstein made this precise distinction in 2003 for Carolyn Kuhl's nomination. I referred to that nomination earlier in my remarks. Senator Feinstein returned a blue slip which noted that she ``reserved judgment'' on Carolyn Kuhl. She also supported holding a hearing for Judge Kuhl. Ultimately, after Judge Kuhl's hearing, Senator Feinstein decided to oppose confirmation. Evidently, the hearing served a useful purpose, and Senator Feinstein was able to distinguish between allowing a hearing and supporting a nominee. Senator Kennedy has shown that he understands this distinction as well. I look forward to hearing from Justice Stras and Mr. Duncan at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on November 29. I think that all 100 Senators ought to look at the advice and consent clause. We have an opportunity to give advice to a President. We have an opportunity then, if that nominee comes up here, to vote for that nominee. Do we want to preserve the ``advice'' part of advice and consent? If we do, I would suggest that we look at the blue slip as a useful tool for accomplishing a very important part of the process. If it is abused--at least while I am chairman, you don't have to worry about it going away. But if it is abused, someday it will go away, and then all we are going to have, when it is all said and done, is consent. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the leader.