Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak for about 5 minutes. Before I begin, I will reference an item that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record following my speech. I rise to share real stories of real hardships from hard-working families in my home State of Iowa. Seven years ago, Americans were promised that the Affordable Care Act would make health insurance cheaper and healthcare more accessible. Well, I will not pretend to break any news here. The facts speak for themselves: ObamaCare is not living up to its promises. When passing the law, the other side made promises they knew could not be kept. The irony is, the so-called Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable. I have heard from many Iowans who tell me, in no uncertain terms, that they cannot afford to buy health insurance because ObamaCare is unaffordable. In fact, 72,000 Iowans can't even get help from the exchange because there isn't an insurance company to service them. One Iowan wrote to me: I am forced to pay $230 a month for a healthcare plan that covers nothing until I reach $11,000 in deductible. So on top of paying 100 percent of my medical bills anyway, now I also have to pay for insurance I can't use. How did we get to this point? Seven years ago, I spoke right here on the Senate floor and predicted what would happen to the cost of insurance if ObamaCare passed. So let's go back to that period of time when I spoke in October of 2009. This is my own quote from that speech: And while some of the supporters of these partisan bills may not want to tell their constituents, we all know that as national spending on health care insurance increases, American families will bear the burden in the form of higher premiums. So let me be very clear, as a result of the current pending health care proposals, most Americans will pay higher premiums for health insurance. That is the end of my quote from a speech in the Senate in October of 2009. Now, I don't have a magic crystal ball, but it was easy to read the writing on the wall. I knew that layers of new taxes and burdensome new mandates in ObamaCare would lead us to where we find ourselves today: a broken healthcare system that is not better off than it was 7 years ago, and for millions of Americans--including those 72,000 Iowans--it is much worse. So where do we go from here? After 7 years of rising premiums, soaring deductibles, and climbing copays, Republicans are committed to fixing the damage caused by the Affordable Care Act. Not only is it unaffordable for too many people, it is unsustainable. ObamaCare is unable to fulfill its promises to the American people. Here is what every lawmaker in Congress ought to agree on: Insurance isn't worth having if patients can't afford to use that insurance. The facts are clear. A one-size-fits-all, government-run plan from Washington, DC, is driving insurers out of the exchanges, driving up premiums, driving away customers, and driving up the tab to the tax- paying public. ObamaCare has overregulated, overtaxed, and oversold its promises to the American people. ObamaCare has not healed what ails the U.S. healthcare system. It is time to move forward. Mr. President, I also want to speak about Medicaid for a moment. Medicaid, as we know it, is not sustainable. The Federal Government and States spent $553 billion on Medicaid in 2016. That amount is very close to $593 billion spent on the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government--our Nation's defense. Every decade since Medicaid started, it has grown faster than the economy. Medicaid is now unmatched as a driver of the deficit of our country. We cannot sit by and leave this kind of debt to our children and our grandchildren. Dollars are not the only metric by which we measure Medicaid. Medicaid is a program that should supply healthcare to diverse populations and should have quality measured, but it does not. Medicaid dollars should be spent efficiently, but they are not. Activists in Washington, DC, are fighting to preserve the status quo and, of course, in the process, scaring the daylights out of the American people. Yet Iowans tell me that there are waiting lists for Medicaid waivers to obtain services for children with disabilities. Others tell me that medicines that will cure diseases are rationed to be used only with those with the most advanced disease. In other words, you have to get really sick for Medicaid to cover medical expenses. It is a fact that Medicaid is not working the way it should for everyone. The time to act to preserve and improve Medicaid as the safety net for the most vulnerable citizens is right now. I am holding up a letter here because, under a Democratic President, proposing to do what we are doing, 46 Democrat Senators wrote to President Clinton and expressed their ``strong support'' for Medicaid per capita caps. The letter went on to say that it would give States the flexibility to achieve savings without cuts to essential services. That is what the current proposal aims to do as well. We are proposing per capita caps as a way to make sure tax dollars are spent wisely on the most vulnerable people in our Nation. Medicaid dollars should be spent on a child with cystic fibrosis who needs a blockbuster drug. A person with severe mental illness should be able to rely on Medicaid for care. Medicaid cannot continue to be a limitless credit card for the States to spend money without any accountability to the people who need it. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan dogma and work to solve this problem for the American people.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to SFC Marvin Dale Hollingsworth who passed away on June 16. Marvin was born January 9, 1925, in Cambridge, IA, and was raised in Cedar Rapids, IA. He enlisted in the Army in July 1943 and served nearly 20 years. During his military service, Marvin Hollingsworth saw combat in World War II and during the Korean war. He served overseas in France, Northern Africa, Japan, Korea, Germany, and the Marshall Islands and Kwajalein Islands, as well as being stationed in many parts of the United States during his military career. Marvin was on Active Duty at the Oklahoma Military Academy in Claremore as the top sergeant on the academy's command staff. After his third year, he was recognized with an officer's saber by the cadre, presented upon his retirement. In 1966, he began his 21-year civil service career in Cedar Rapids with the 73rd Combat Field Hospital Unit where he trained new recruits, mentored staff, and worked in administration. A 10-foot portrait of him at that mobile medical Army unit is displayed at the National Guard--Army Reserve Center in Cedar Rapids. He received numerous accommodations for excellence in his career of service to his country, including the American Defense Service Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with three Stars, World War II Victory Medal, United Nations Service Medal, Korean Service Medal, and Good Conduct Medal with Four Knots. As Americans, we owe our freedom to generations of selfless patriots like Marvin Hollingsworth who have been willing to risk life and limb in service to their country. The fact that he continued to serve his country throughout his life is inspirational. I am proud to be able to pay tribute to this son of Iowa and great American, Marvin Hollingsworth.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in March, Mr. Comey briefed Ranking Member Feinstein and this Senator on the Russia investigation. This included telling us who was and who was not under investigation. After that meeting, I publicly called for Mr. Comey to tell the public what he had told us about whether President Trump was under investigation. I did this because the public had a right to know. Mr. Comey told me and other congressional leaders that the President was not under investigation. He even told the President himself, and I understand that he repeatedly told this to the President. But Mr. Comey didn't listen to my request for transparency. I think transparency in government is very important because transparency brings accountability, and government needs to be accountable. Mr. Comey didn't listen to the President's request. Only months later has the truth finally come out. Well, it ought to raise the question with anybody: What happened in the meantime? What happened because Mr. Comey refused to tell the American people that the President wasn't under investigation? The short answer is something you see almost hourly, particularly in this city: media hysteria. Countless media articles falsely claimed the President was under investigation for colluding with Russia. Unfortunately, a number of our Democrat colleagues in the House and Senate played right along. Over and over again, the media published selective leaks. They published classified half-truths. All this was used to make false allegations of sinister conduct by the President. And, of course, there were a lot of people who believed it. The intelligence community conducted an assessment of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election. That assessment said one of Russia's goals was to undermine public confidence in our democratic system. Because Mr. Comey refused to tell the public that the FBI was not investigating the President, conspiracy theories and, of course, wild speculation have run rampant about the election, the President, and Russia. These conspiracy theories and wild speculation have played right into Russia's aim of undermining faith in our democratic system. That doesn't come out very often in these stories, but we have to understand that Russia makes a career of not only undermining democratic systems in the United States, look at what they have done in Ukraine militarily, and look at what they have done in France with the elections and in the Netherlands with the elections. They are talking about upcoming elections in Germany, where the Russians will try to do the same thing because autocrats don't like democratic systems that work and whatever they can do to undermine those democratic systems is going to obviously make them look better in comparison. Those national security concerns should have taken precedence. Mr. Comey said he was worried about a duty to correct the record if evidence of collusion involving the President came to light later on. But that concern was merely hypothetical--in other words, pure speculation. In the unlikely event that it came to pass, the public should know if the FBI is pursuing a criminal investigation against the President, just as the public should know if the FBI is pursuing a criminal investigation against a major party's nominee for President. But Mr. Comey agreed with Attorney General Lynch to shade the truth in favor of the Clinton campaign's rhetoric and call what was an investigation a ``matter'' instead of using the word ``investigation.'' This came about because of an order by Attorney General Lynch. After a year of the entire might of the U.S. intelligence community and the FBI looking for evidence of collusion with the Russians, where is that evidence? But after all of this chaos and mountains of innuendo about the President and collusion with Russia, the truth finally came out: The FBI was not investigating President Trump in the Russia probe. The media was wrong. The Democrats were wrong. The wild speculation and conspiracy theories ended up harming our country. They played right into Russia's hands. How did we all learn the truth? In President Trump's letter removing Mr. Comey from office. At first, most didn't believe it. The media scoffed when they read what the President said in that letter. They insisted that Mr. Comey would never tell the President that he was not under investigation. We learned earlier this month from Mr. Comey himself that he had done exactly that. It wasn't a surprise to me because Mr. Comey had told me the same thing. I have to note something else here. Mr. Comey didn't just tell the President, Senator Feinstein, and me that the President was not under investigation. He had also told the Gang of 8. Of course, the Gang of 8 includes the Senate minority leader, Mr. Schumer. But even after Mr. Comey told the Gang of 8 that the President was not under investigation, the minority leader told the media that the President was under investigation, and, of course, that further helped feed media hysteria. The minority leader even tried to say that the Senate shouldn't vote on the Supreme Court nomination because the President was under investigation, and the whole time, he knew it wasn't true. Media hysteria and baseless political attacks filled the vacuum left by Mr. Comey's failure to inform the public--to be transparent, to be accountable. The odd thing about it is none of this fiasco had to happen. If Mr. Comey had just been transparent with the public, as I urged him to be, it could have been avoided. Unfortunately, now it looks as if Mr. Comey and the media might be doing the same thing to Attorney General Sessions. Two weeks ago, Mr. Comey said he didn't tell the Attorney General about the conversation he supposedly had with the President about General Flynn. Mr. Comey said this was because he believed the Attorney General was going to recuse himself from the Russia investigation. Mr. Comey said the FBI was aware of the facts that he couldn't discuss in an open setting that could have made the Attorney General's continued engagement problematic. Well, that vague statement sounds very mysterious to people who don't know the whole truth. They will wonder: What were those secret facts? What did the FBI conclude about those secret facts? Was the Attorney General under investigation? Did the Attorney General collude with Russia? Once again, Mr. Comey is not being as transparent about senior government officials and the Russia investigation as he could or should be. Now the speculation is running rampant again, this time about the Attorney General instead of the President. CNN reported that Mr. Comey told the Intelligence Committee behind closed doors that the issue was a possible additional meeting between Sessions and the Russian Ambassador. The media has begun to speculate all sorts of nefarious things. So here we go again. The rumor mill is back in business. It is insinuating improper ties with Russians and undermining people's faith in another senior government official, with the follow-up that it also undermines people's confidence in our institutions of government, and maybe even in our Constitution. This is the same destructive pattern, and it plays right into the Russians' hands again. Well, this time around, we shouldn't put up with it. We ought to say enough is enough. There is no reason Mr. Comey couldn't have told the public the whole truth. Once again, 3 months ago, Mr. Comey specifically told Members who was and who was not under investigation in the Russia probe. He should also tell the public whether the FBI ever had an open investigation on Attorney General Sessions. He should tell the public whether the FBI checked out the times Sessions met the Russian Ambassador. He should tell the public whether the FBI looked into the Mayflower Hotel event that went on. He should tell the public if the FBI found nothing improper about these meetings. If there was nothing to it, he should say so publicly. He should not be telling Senators one thing behind closed doors and then making public insinuations that are different. He is the person who can nip this ridiculous speculation in the bud. Mr. Comey should have told the public earlier what he told Members about the President, and now he should tell the public what he told Members about the Attorney General. Enough of this nonsense. The investigations of Russian interference and of circumstances surrounding Mr. Comey's firing will continue. I am confident that we will eventually get all the facts, one way or another, and we are going to go where the facts take us. In the meantime, it is time to stop the rumor-mongering. It is time to stop the innuendoes and half-truths. It is time to stop leaking national security information to score political points. And it is time to stop playing into Russia's hands by intentionally sowing false doubt about your political opponents. Instead, it is quite obvious that it is time to get back to doing the people's business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a relevant supplemental article from the Washington Post.

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Steven A. Engel, of the District of Columbia, to be the Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel until Mr. Engel responds to questions I posed to him in a June 12, 2017, letter concerning a May 1, 2017, opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel entitled, ``Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct Oversight of the Executive Branch.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Mr. Engel's nomination on June 8, 2017, and my objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Engel in any way. However, at that time, no member had sufficient opportunity to pose questions to Mr. Engel concerning the May 1, 2017, OLC opinion. I believe each Member of my committee and of the Senate should have the benefit of his views on the opinion as they consider his nomination to lead the office that created it. The opinion erroneously states that individual Members of Congress are not constitutionally authorized to conduct oversight. It creates a false distinction between oversight and what it calls ``nonoversight'' requests, and it relegates requests from individual Members for information from the Executive branch to Freedom of Information Act requests. I have written a letter to the President requesting that the OLC opinion be rescinded. The Executive branch should properly recognize that individual Members of Congress have a constitutional role in seeking information from the Executive branch and should work to voluntarily accommodate those requests. My June 12, 2017, letter to Mr. Engel asks him several questions about the opinion, including whether the opinion met the OLC's own internal standards requiring impartial analysis, whether individual Members of Congress are ``authorized'' to seek information from the Executive branch, and what level of deference the Executive branch should provide to individual Member requests. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my remarks. I look forward to Mr. Engel's responses.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week, I am introducing a bill known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017. I want to thank Senators Feinstein, Cornyn, Klobuchar, Corker and Rubio for joining as original cosponsors. I also want to thank the many organizations that support this bill and worked so closely with us on its development; they include Rights4Girls, Polaris, the ATEST Coalition, Shared Hope International, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, and the National District Attorneys Association. As its title implies, our legislation is aimed at combating the terrible scourge of human trafficking in the United States. To call trafficking victims' suffering a grave violation of our most basic human rights would be an understatement. Trafficking is a life- shattering crime that too-often goes unnoticed, despite the profound injury it inflicts on its victims and our society. Traffickers typically operate in the shadows, making it hard to identify them as well as their victims. That invisibility makes it harder still to rescue the victims and bring the perpetrators to justice. But there are some things we do know about human trafficking, and we know them with some certainty. We know, for example, that trafficking is happening in rural areas, in cities, and in the suburbs. It is not confined to any one area, because it has become so profitable. It has become a problem of national significance. To be sure, we have made some strides in combating this terrible crime since the passage of the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act, or TVPA, over 15 years ago. The TVPA, last reauthorized in 2013, authorizes some very important programs to help victims. The bill I'm introducing this week updates and extends a number of these programs, which are under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Justice and Labor. Senator Cornyn this week is introducing a complementary bill that would reauthorize other TVPA programs, including those at the Departments of Health and Homeland Security. This is not the first time we have collaborated on this subject. Two years ago, Senator Cornyn sponsored, and I cosponsored, another important measure, known as the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. As chair of the Judiciary Committee, I made that 2015 law's passage a top priority for our Committee and fought for its enactment. It established a new fund to help cover survivors' services and also equipped law enforcement with new tools to fight traffickers. The services authorized under this 2015 statute are crucial to helping survivors rebuild their lives with dignity. The bill that I am introducing this week is a critical next step in ensuring that human trafficking is prevented, its perpetrators prosecuted, and its victims protected. This bill, drafted with bipartisan support, would require more training for investigative personnel at the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. It also extends a grant program by which school personnel can receive training to recognize and respond to signs of trafficking in our educational system. This bill also offers increased assistance to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies in their fight against human trafficking. For instance, it authorizes the Secret Service to offer investigative and forensic assistance to other crime fighting agencies. And it updates key provisions of the Missing Children's Assistance Act, which authorizes the important work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Center operates a cyber tipline by which internet service providers can report child sexual abuse. Additionally, the bill I am introducing signals Congress' continued support for services available to trafficking victims who cooperate with federal law enforcement in trafficking investigations. Specifically, the bill authorizes an Office of Victim Assistance within the Department of Homeland Security. This office, which is staffed with specially trained victim assistance personnel, plays a crucial role in securing victims' cooperation with trafficking investigations. Finally, this bill would promote the collection of more data on trafficking, and it would promote increased coordination among the federal agencies engaged in combating this crime. Meaningful partnerships at the federal level can help expand awareness, leverage expertise, and facilitate creative solutions. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week, I am introducing a bill known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017. I want to thank Senators Feinstein, Cornyn, Klobuchar, Corker and Rubio for joining as original cosponsors. I also want to thank the many organizations that support this bill and worked so closely with us on its development; they include Rights4Girls, Polaris, the ATEST Coalition, Shared Hope International, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, and the National District Attorneys Association. As its title implies, our legislation is aimed at combating the terrible scourge of human trafficking in the United States. To call trafficking victims' suffering a grave violation of our most basic human rights would be an understatement. Trafficking is a life- shattering crime that too-often goes unnoticed, despite the profound injury it inflicts on its victims and our society. Traffickers typically operate in the shadows, making it hard to identify them as well as their victims. That invisibility makes it harder still to rescue the victims and bring the perpetrators to justice. But there are some things we do know about human trafficking, and we know them with some certainty. We know, for example, that trafficking is happening in rural areas, in cities, and in the suburbs. It is not confined to any one area, because it has become so profitable. It has become a problem of national significance. To be sure, we have made some strides in combating this terrible crime since the passage of the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act, or TVPA, over 15 years ago. The TVPA, last reauthorized in 2013, authorizes some very important programs to help victims. The bill I'm introducing this week updates and extends a number of these programs, which are under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Justice and Labor. Senator Cornyn this week is introducing a complementary bill that would reauthorize other TVPA programs, including those at the Departments of Health and Homeland Security. This is not the first time we have collaborated on this subject. Two years ago, Senator Cornyn sponsored, and I cosponsored, another important measure, known as the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. As chair of the Judiciary Committee, I made that 2015 law's passage a top priority for our Committee and fought for its enactment. It established a new fund to help cover survivors' services and also equipped law enforcement with new tools to fight traffickers. The services authorized under this 2015 statute are crucial to helping survivors rebuild their lives with dignity. The bill that I am introducing this week is a critical next step in ensuring that human trafficking is prevented, its perpetrators prosecuted, and its victims protected. This bill, drafted with bipartisan support, would require more training for investigative personnel at the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. It also extends a grant program by which school personnel can receive training to recognize and respond to signs of trafficking in our educational system. This bill also offers increased assistance to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies in their fight against human trafficking. For instance, it authorizes the Secret Service to offer investigative and forensic assistance to other crime fighting agencies. And it updates key provisions of the Missing Children's Assistance Act, which authorizes the important work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Center operates a cyber tipline by which internet service providers can report child sexual abuse. Additionally, the bill I am introducing signals Congress' continued support for services available to trafficking victims who cooperate with federal law enforcement in trafficking investigations. Specifically, the bill authorizes an Office of Victim Assistance within the Department of Homeland Security. This office, which is staffed with specially trained victim assistance personnel, plays a crucial role in securing victims' cooperation with trafficking investigations. Finally, this bill would promote the collection of more data on trafficking, and it would promote increased coordination among the federal agencies engaged in combating this crime. Meaningful partnerships at the federal level can help expand awareness, leverage expertise, and facilitate creative solutions. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, May is National Foster Care Month. I thank my colleagues for unanimously supporting the resolution recognizing May as National Foster Care Month. National Foster Care Month has been recognized for over 20 years as a time we all celebrate the voices of foster youth and bring awareness to the challenges these young people face. During this month, organizations in Iowa--and, for that matter, all across the country-- have been working to support and to recognize the young people who are in foster care. Nationally, there are over 425,000 children in foster care. In Iowa alone, almost 4,000 kids entered foster care in 2015, the last year for statistics. I salute all of those who work tirelessly to support these children. This includes a lot of different groups but particularly foster parents, who open their hearts and homes to children who need this vital support. The group also includes social workers, advocates, and alumni of the foster care system who, as young people, have gone through a lot. They are there to inform lawmakers and the public, and they are there to fight to secure better outcomes for kids in care. As stated in our resolution, Congress must continue to work toward real solutions for these children, who often face trauma, abuse, and neglect, both before and after they are removed from their parents' care. We must work to ensure that all children, no matter their circumstances, have a permanent, loving home and consistent, caring adults in their lives. With legislation such as the Fostering Connections Act, passed in 2008, and the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, passed in 2011, we have made some progress. These laws provided new investments and new services to improve the outcomes for children in the foster care system. Even after all that, our work is not done. Over 20,000 young people aged out of the foster care system in 2015, with no legal permanent connection to any family. This impacts their ability to pursue higher education, to find employment and stable housing, and, most importantly, to prepare for the future. While in care, children experience an average of three different placements; 65 percent of the kids in foster care change schools seven or more times. We see a great amount of instability and resulting insecurity when this is what happens in the life of somebody in foster care. This constant uncertainty compounds the trauma of neglect and of abuse and makes it hard for these kids to make connections to their communities. Through my work in the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have had the opportunity to hear firsthand what these young people in foster care need. They need love, they need support, they need safety and permanency, and they need a family. Those last two are the first words I ever heard from kids in foster care when I first took time 25 years ago to listen to some of them. They had been shunted from one home to another home over a period of time. They said: We would like to have a mom and dad; we would like to have a home. That is what this movement is all about. Moving forward, Congress must continue to work to find better solutions and secure better outcomes for our young people in foster care. Once again, I thank all of my colleagues for supporting this resolution. It is important that this month--and, for that matter, all year long--we continue to support the goals of National Foster Care Month.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to address the issue of the healthcare debate that has been going on since the first of the year. Now that it has passed the House of Representatives, it comes to the Senate. The Senate is working on its own bill, not working from the House bill. This is still evolving, and I hope it will evolve very, very quickly. One of the things we face is to make sure we have accessible, affordable care for anyone who wants to buy health insurance. I rise today, as I have in the past, to share real stories from real Iowans who have been harmed--not helped--by the Affordable Care Act. I know there are plenty of examples we can give of people who have not benefited from the Affordable Care Act. As we have found so many times, the Affordable Care Act has become the un-Affordable Care Act. The other side often talks about the benefits of ACA without mentioning the reality I am trying to bring to this debate. There is a reason Republicans are acting to protect Americans from the loss of access to medical care. ObamaCare has broken its promises. All these promises, made over and over again, have not stood the test of time, so I would like to remind everyone of some of these promises. The promise: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. The reality: This promise was even scrubbed from the ObamaCare website after everyone knew it was a farce. The promise: You will be able to keep your insurance plan. What is the reality? In the fall of 2013, between 7 and 12 million people had health insurance cancelled. ObamaCare's mandates resulted in fewer choices for people to buy affordable insurance. People were kicked off plans they liked and plans that, until ObamaCare, they could afford. This promise was dubbed the ``Lie of the Year.'' Another promise was made: Your premiums will go down by $2,500. That is not even close. I have been quoting for a long period of time that they had gone up at least $3,500. Now, more recently, I have seen a figure of an average of $4,300. So, in reality, that $2,500 promise that premiums would go down wasn't even close. In Iowa, premiums increased up to 43 percent in just 1 year. One farmer told me that his insurance went up from $20,000 to $32,000 in 1 year. He was able to get the premium down to $25,000 by taking advantage of an HMO, but the deductible for that plan was $15,000. You have an insurance policy, but you may never use it. The biggest promise: You were promised access to affordable health care. The law is called the Affordable Care Act. That is the most concerning of all--the situation created by ObamaCare is far from affordable. What is the reality? Premiums in 2017 have doubled for a majority of States using ObamaCare exchanges. In three States, premiums have tripled during ObamaCare. One Iowan from Pomeroy, IA, wrote to me and said she shopped for an ObamaCare plan and found that she would have to pay $9,000 out-of-pocket before her insurance kicks in. She told me she doesn't know where that money would come from, and of course that makes that policy too expensive to use. For the past 7 years, ObamaCare has not been working, and it will never work for the American people. Republicans are not going to accept failure. That is why we are working so hard to put together what we have promised the people of this country for the last 7 years--to repeal and replace. Pointing out the shortcomings of affordable care, we aim for better, and that is what guides us as we continue to work on repealing and replacing this failed law. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that today is National Missing Children's Day. President Reagan highlighted the importance of making child safety a priority when he established May 25 as National Missing Children's Day for the first time in 1983. On this day, we pause to remember those children who have gone missing and honor those who are dedicated to their rescue. According to the FBI, hundreds of thousands of children are reported missing each year. Most of these cases are closed within hours, thanks to the quick actions of families, communities, and law enforcement personnel, but there also are children, like Lyric Cook and Elizabeth Collins, who never make it home safely. Ten-year-old Lyric and 8-year-old Elizabeth disappeared in 2012 while taking a bike ride near their grandmother's house in Evansdale, IA. Their bodies were found in the woods nearby later that year. Almost 5 years have passed since their lives were cut short, but the perpetrator has yet to be identified. My heart goes out to their grieving families and the families of all the other children who have lost their lives in similar tragedies. These child abduction and murder cases are a reminder of the need to promptly pass legislation to extend the key programs authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The Senate passed such a bill by a vote of 89 to 0 in the 114th Congress. Another measure that would make a difference in the lives of missing children is Kevin and Avonte's Law. Last year, the Senate unanimously passed this legislation, which is named in honor of two boys with autism who died after wandering from safety. This bill, which I cosponsored, promotes the use of technology to help locate children with autism and related conditions who may be susceptible to wandering away from safety. It also supports training for first responders and other community officials to help prevent and respond to these cases. A related bill passed the other Chamber by a wide margin late last year. I am currently working with the sponsor of that companion bill, Congressman Chris Smith, to resolve the differences between our two bills. Congressman Smith and I intend to reintroduce an updated version of Kevin and Avonte's Law in each Chamber in the coming weeks. Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to announce that I will soon introduce legislation, known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017. The bill I am developing includes several provisions to help in the fight against child exploitation. First, it promotes training of school resource officers, to ensure that they can better detect and respond to child trafficking cases. Second, it updates the authorization for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Third, it extends and updates some of the key programs that were established under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In closing, the feeling of dread and helplessness that families must feel when a child goes missing is unimaginable. To help prevent similar tragedies in the future, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important pieces of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Franken, the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017. I thank Senator Franken for supporting and working with me, since the 112th Congress, on this important bill to help our Nation's family farmers. This bipartisan bill addresses the 2012 United States Supreme Court case Hall v. United States. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled a provision that I authored in the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not accomplish what we in Congress intended. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017 corrects this unfortunate result and restores Congress's original intent. The bill clarifies that bankrupt family farmers reorganizing their debts, under chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code, may treat capital gains taxes owed to the government, arising from the sale of farm assets during the bankruptcy, as general unsecured claims. This bill will give family farmers a chance to reorganize successfully and remove the Internal Revenue Service's veto power over a plan's confirmation. Congress created chapter 12 in 1986 as a temporary measure to provide a specialized bankruptcy process for family farmers. In 2005, Congress made chapter 12 a permanent part of the bankruptcy code. Between 1986 and 2005, we learned what worked and did not work for family farmers reorganizing under chapter 12. In particular, family farmers faced serious problems when they needed to sell land to fund their reorganization plan. For example, a family farmer might sell portions of the farm in order to generate cash and pay creditors. Unfortunately, in most of these cases, the family farmer is selling land with a low cost basis, because it has likely been held in the family for a very long time. As a result, the family farmer gets hit with a substantial capital gains tax, which is owed to the Internal Revenue Service. Under the bankruptcy code's priorities structure for claims, taxes owed to the IRS must be paid in full, unless the IRS agrees otherwise. This creates problems for the family farmer who needs cash to pay creditors and reorganize. Since the IRS has the ability to require full payment, it essentially holds veto power over the confirmation of a family farmer's chapter 12 plan. In many instances, the effect is that a family farmer will not be able to have a plan confirmed. This is a harsh result and does not make sense if the goal is to give family farmers a fresh start. Recognizing this problem, Congress amended the bankruptcy code in 2005 to provide that in these limited and particular situations, the taxes owed to the IRS would be stripped of their priority and treated as general unsecured debt. This removed the government's veto power over plan confirmation and paved the way for family farmers to reorganize under chapter 12. Unfortunately, in Hall v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that despite Congress's express goal of helping family farmers, the language we used failed to accomplish the intended result. To be clear, the Hall case was about statutory interpretation. There is no question about what Congress was trying to do; rather, the question is, ``Did Congress use the correct language?'' My goal, along with others at the time, was to relieve family farmers from having their reorganization plans fail because of certain tax liabilities owed to the government. Justice Breyer noted this point in his dissent: ``Congress was concerned about the effect on the farmer of collecting capital gains tax debts that arose during (and were connected with) the Chapter 12 proceedings themselves. . . . The majority does not deny the importance of Congress' objective. Rather, it feels compelled to hold that Congress put the Amendment in the wrong place.'' Hall v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 1882, 1897 (2012) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (internal citations and quotations omitted). As a result of the Hall case, family farmers facing bankruptcy now find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. The rules have changed and must be corrected in order to provide certainty and clarity in the law. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017 does this and provides the help needed for family farmers. This bill adds a new section 1232 to the bankruptcy code. This new section, along with other conforming changes, gives guidance and certainty to debtors, practitioners, and courts as to how these claims are to be treated during bankruptcy. I'm pleased that the bill we're introducing today will help family farmers who are facing hard times. In the wake of the Hall decision, this bill ensures that what Congress sought to do in 2005 actually occurs. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017 provides the help that may one day be needed for the hard working family farmers across our great Nation.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Franken, the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017. I thank Senator Franken for supporting and working with me, since the 112th Congress, on this important bill to help our Nation's family farmers. This bipartisan bill addresses the 2012 United States Supreme Court case Hall v. United States. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled a provision that I authored in the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not accomplish what we in Congress intended. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017 corrects this unfortunate result and restores Congress's original intent. The bill clarifies that bankrupt family farmers reorganizing their debts, under chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code, may treat capital gains taxes owed to the government, arising from the sale of farm assets during the bankruptcy, as general unsecured claims. This bill will give family farmers a chance to reorganize successfully and remove the Internal Revenue Service's veto power over a plan's confirmation. Congress created chapter 12 in 1986 as a temporary measure to provide a specialized bankruptcy process for family farmers. In 2005, Congress made chapter 12 a permanent part of the bankruptcy code. Between 1986 and 2005, we learned what worked and did not work for family farmers reorganizing under chapter 12. In particular, family farmers faced serious problems when they needed to sell land to fund their reorganization plan. For example, a family farmer might sell portions of the farm in order to generate cash and pay creditors. Unfortunately, in most of these cases, the family farmer is selling land with a low cost basis, because it has likely been held in the family for a very long time. As a result, the family farmer gets hit with a substantial capital gains tax, which is owed to the Internal Revenue Service. Under the bankruptcy code's priorities structure for claims, taxes owed to the IRS must be paid in full, unless the IRS agrees otherwise. This creates problems for the family farmer who needs cash to pay creditors and reorganize. Since the IRS has the ability to require full payment, it essentially holds veto power over the confirmation of a family farmer's chapter 12 plan. In many instances, the effect is that a family farmer will not be able to have a plan confirmed. This is a harsh result and does not make sense if the goal is to give family farmers a fresh start. Recognizing this problem, Congress amended the bankruptcy code in 2005 to provide that in these limited and particular situations, the taxes owed to the IRS would be stripped of their priority and treated as general unsecured debt. This removed the government's veto power over plan confirmation and paved the way for family farmers to reorganize under chapter 12. Unfortunately, in Hall v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that despite Congress's express goal of helping family farmers, the language we used failed to accomplish the intended result. To be clear, the Hall case was about statutory interpretation. There is no question about what Congress was trying to do; rather, the question is, ``Did Congress use the correct language?'' My goal, along with others at the time, was to relieve family farmers from having their reorganization plans fail because of certain tax liabilities owed to the government. Justice Breyer noted this point in his dissent: ``Congress was concerned about the effect on the farmer of collecting capital gains tax debts that arose during (and were connected with) the Chapter 12 proceedings themselves. . . . The majority does not deny the importance of Congress' objective. Rather, it feels compelled to hold that Congress put the Amendment in the wrong place.'' Hall v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 1882, 1897 (2012) (Breyer, J., dissenting) (internal citations and quotations omitted). As a result of the Hall case, family farmers facing bankruptcy now find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. The rules have changed and must be corrected in order to provide certainty and clarity in the law. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017 does this and provides the help needed for family farmers. This bill adds a new section 1232 to the bankruptcy code. This new section, along with other conforming changes, gives guidance and certainty to debtors, practitioners, and courts as to how these claims are to be treated during bankruptcy. I'm pleased that the bill we're introducing today will help family farmers who are facing hard times. In the wake of the Hall decision, this bill ensures that what Congress sought to do in 2005 actually occurs. The Family Farmer Bankruptcy Clarification Act of 2017 provides the help that may one day be needed for the hard working family farmers across our great Nation.

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 rise today to discuss the significance of the unprecedented events now occurring in Puerto Rico. According to the May 16 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, ``The legal brawl over Puerto Rico's bankruptcy begins this week, and it will be long and ugly.'' As we have seen in Greece and Detroit, what is happening in Puerto Rico should be a wake-up call for fiscally distressed States--meaning our 50 States, our cities, and our territories--to get their own houses in order. It is the canary in the mine that ought to be available to everybody. At the same time, it should be a cautionary tale for those who seek to extend similar bankruptcy authority to our own 50 States. In 2015, after years of fiscal mismanagement and borrowing to finance their operations, Puerto Rico declared that its debt was unpayable and had to be restructured; however, because Puerto Rico lacked access to chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, restructuring its complex debt outside of the court presented a challenge. I held a hearing in the Judiciary Committee to examine this issue in December of 2015. We learned at that hearing that while bankruptcy is an effective tool to restructure debt, it merely treats the symptom and it doesn't solve the disease. I told you so, in that vein. I shared my views and the views of many others that unless Puerto Rico addressed its fiscal mismanagement woes, extending bankruptcy authority alone couldn't fix the problem. I told you so that, instead, it would merely kick the can down the road and harm thousands of retirees in Iowa and elsewhere who would bear the costs of Puerto Rico's irresponsible fiscal behavior. The Obama administration, though, pressed Congress to act and to provide Puerto Rico with an orderly bankruptcy-like process to restructure its debt. According to the testimony of one Treasury official, ``Without a comprehensive restructuring framework, Puerto Rico will continue to default on its debt, and litigation will intensify. . . . As the cascading defaults and litigation unfold, there is real risk of another lost decade, this one more damaging than the last.'' So now, even with a comprehensive restructuring framework, there is still a real risk of another lost decade. Ultimately, this debt restructuring framework was coupled with an independent oversight board and adopted as the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, referred to as PROMESA. This approach, we were told, would tackle Puerto Rico's debt crisis in an orderly way and would help to remedy the years of fiscal mismanagement. Nevertheless, I remained concerned that PROMESA and its bankruptcy-like provisions would invite years of litigation and uncertainty due to the lack of existing court precedent. So it should be no surprise that a recent Bloomberg article titled ``Puerto Rico's Bankruptcy Fight is About to Plunge Into the Unknown'' described the bankruptcy process as ``a circular firing'' squad with ``no established rule book to shape what comes next.'' The article reports that one market analyst ``foresees a chaotic brew of lawsuits'' because ``nobody has any idea what is going to happen.'' According to one news report, this is just the beginning, as PROMESA's bankruptcy provisions are ``more likely to face years of appeal than a typical case.'' Despite assurances otherwise, what happens next in the months and years to follow may be far-reaching and likely will impact us all. In particular, prior to the enactment of PROMESA, Puerto Rico, like the States, couldn't declare bankruptcy. I told you this last year, and it is as I predicted last year--granting Puerto Rico the authority to restructure all of its debts, including its State-like constitutional obligations, would be viewed as precedent for giving States similar authority. I am not really surprised to see this is happening right now. Getting back to the fact that I told the Senate a year ago. This past September, William Isaac, the former head of the FDIC, called on Congress to pass a law ``giv[ing] Illinois the option of utilizing chapter 9, which is akin to what Congress just did for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.'' The New York Times reported on May 3 that ``bankruptcy lawyers and public finance experts are watching Puerto Rico's case closely, to see if it shows a path that financially distressed states like Illinois might also one day take.'' The Chicago Tribune's editorial board recently wrote that investors are growing nervous about the talk of States seeking a bankruptcy system after the fashion of Puerto Rico, calling Puerto Rico ``the frightening ghost of Illinois future.'' The editorial wondered how much more difficult it would be for States to borrow money if lenders knew the States could shirk their obligations in bankruptcy when that debt becomes due. For those who weren't listening to me last year, those who dismissed concerns that PROMESA would set a troubling and dangerous precedent should take notice and make sure that a one-time piece of legislation does not create a new norm. I hold out hope that PROMESA might manage to provide some help for Puerto Rico. Success, though, will ultimately require strong leadership from the Commonwealth's leaders, which, for years, that leadership has been very lacking. There is a lesson to be learned. The fiscal crisis in Puerto Rico should motivate all 50 States, our cities, and territories to find the courage now to make tough choices, which are the foundation of responsible governance, rather than look to the Federal Government and bankruptcy as a way out. If they do not, the effect could be long- lasting, harming the vulnerable both within their populations and outside of their borders. Obviously, what a lot of smart people told us a year ago to solve Puerto Rico's debt problems simply has not worked out. So at a time when States, citizens, and markets are all watching, we must stress fiscal responsibility and pay attention to what is happening there in Puerto Rico. Otherwise, the uncertainty and chaos we were assured would not come to pass may be just over the horizon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have 10 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 Homeland Security and Government Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing titled ``Border Insecurity: The Rise of MS-13 and Other Transnational Criminal Organizations.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 24, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.'' The witness list is attached. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate today, May 24, 2017, off the floor at the start of the first scheduled vote to conduct a business meeting on the following: --The nomination of Althea H. Coetzee to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, in SR-418 at 2:30 p.m. to consider S. 1094, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. Committee on Intelligence The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 from 2:30 p.m.-4 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing. Subcommittee on Seapower The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session. 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, May 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in open and closed sessions. Committee on the Subcommittee Judiciary on Crime and Terrorism The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Across Borders: Facilitating Cooperation and Protecting Rights.'' Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific and International Cybersecurity Policy The Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, The Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 2:15 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``American Leadership in the Asia- Pacific, Part 2: Economic Issue.'' Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold Subcommittee Hearing on ``Pool Safety: The Tenth Anniversary of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act.''

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think I will be done speaking before the time for the vote arrives, but I ask unanimous consent for permission to finish my remarks.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering the nomination of Governor Branstad of Iowa to be Ambassador to China. Before I speak about this very well-qualified nominee, I would like to express my great disappointment and great frustration with the seemingly endless obstruction on the part of the minority. This nominee received unanimous support in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee more than a week ago. Yet the majority leader was required to file cloture on the nominee because there could not be consent given to move forward with it. We could have approved this nomination with just a few minutes of debate time. Yet the minority required that we have the cloture vote and the 30 hours afterwards, not because they wanted to debate the merits of the nominee but simply to delay the business of the Senate. It is unfortunate that their delay has kept an eminently qualified individual from getting into the job to promote America's interest in China sooner than it now will be. I am honored to have the opportunity today to speak to my colleagues about my good friend, Governor Terry Branstad. Governor Branstad is the longest-serving Governor in U.S. history. Let me make that clear. Out of 50 States for 230 years, no person in the United States has served their State as Governor of that State longer than Terry Branstad has now. He is a lifelong Iowan who has devoted his life to public service. After more than 22 years as my home State's chief executive, I am proud to support Governor Branstad's nomination to serve our country as the next U.S. Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. The fact is, Governor Branstad has been an ambassador for Iowa to the Nation and even to the world for his entire career. He has been a champion for Iowa and on behalf of Iowans around the globe. As Governor, he has been vigorous in promoting our State's economy and opening markets for our farm commodities, financial services, and manufacturing to the world marketplace. His nomination should come as no surprise to the people of Iowa. We have long known and benefited from the relationship Governor Branstad has had with the people of China. A sister state relationship in 1983 has grown into a successful trade partnership that has benefited Iowa farmers and businesses. Perhaps most notably, Governor Branstad enjoys a 30-year friendship with President Xi. Their first meeting took place in 1985 in Iowa when, then a Provincial official, Xi led an agricultural delegation to Iowa. President Xi visited Iowa again in 2012, when Governor Branstad was back at the helm in his fifth term after a 12-year respite from being Governor. Their relationship reflects genuine goodwill and, more importantly, mutual respect. Governor Branstad has never stopped working to expand Iowa's trade, investment, and economic partnerships on the world stage, including many trips to China. He will bring midwestern humility and level-headed leadership to the job. He is a workhorse who is unafraid to get into the trenches to get the job done. I have no doubt that he will stand strong for American values, such as freedom of the press and religious liberty, and that he will work to strengthen peace, stability, and prosperity between our two nations. Once he is confirmed, I am confident that Governor Branstad will bring to bear his tireless commitment to solve problems and always move the ball forward. Although his heart will always be in Iowa, I know Governor Branstad will throw himself into this job wholeheartedly. Governor Branstad is uniquely qualified to help strengthen the trade, economic, cultural, and geopolitical relationships between our two countries. I am pleased that he has now been called to serve our entire Nation, not just the State of Iowa, as Ambassador to China. I have every confidence that he will represent the United States well and will excel, just as he has throughout his entire public career. Without reservation, then, I support this nomination. I also urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General. Ms. Brand is a native Iowan, and I am proud to be supporting her nomination here today. She has had a distinguished legal career. In fact, she was appointed to Senate-confirmed positions by both President Bush and President Obama, and both times, she was confirmed by a voice vote in the Senate. But it looks like this nomination somehow has become controversial. I don't understand. Ms. Brand has a broad range of legal experience that happens to be a broad range in both the government and the private sector. With her previous positions in the White House, the Office of Legal Counsel, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, she has experience that touches almost every part of the Federal Government. As the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Policy, she was a member of the senior management team of the Department of Justice, working with components and law enforcement agencies throughout the entire Justice Department. Similarly, at the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, Ms. Brand worked with diverse agencies to ensure that privacy and civil liberties are taken into account while carrying out the important mission of protecting the Nation from terrorism. During Ms. Brand's tenure in the private sector, she gained extensive litigation management experience that will serve her very well as she oversees the Department's civil litigation components. She has seemingly become a little more controversial. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said they aren't supporting her nomination because of the work she did with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Those views are utterly ridiculous. So I will take a minute to address these concerns. First, when she worked at the Chamber, all of her advocacy was done to represent the views of her client, the U.S. Chamber. Everybody expects that if you hire a lawyer, they are going to represent your views. We all know that we can't assume an attorney personally believes in what they are advocating for on behalf of their client, just ask criminal defense attorneys. Furthermore, she was not involved in any policy or lobbying apparatus of the Chamber. Her role there was to bring lawsuits challenging rules that the U.S. Chamber believed were unlawful. At the same time, besides just arguing those lawsuits, she had to file a lot of amicus briefs providing the courts with the views of the business community. During her time at the Chamber, she challenged a handful of the thousands of regulations promulgated by Federal agencies. The arguments Ms. Brand made in those lawsuits or amicus briefs were generally that the agency had acted beyond the scope of the authority Congress had granted that particular agency or had failed to follow the reasoned decisionmaking processes required by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. In many of those cases, the courts agreed with the Chamber that the government had acted unlawfully. To summarize her work during that time at the Chamber, Ms. Brand argued that government agencies went beyond the authority Congress had given them. She also argued that these agencies weren't acting under the scope of the congressional authority granted to the agency, and she argued that congressional authority had to be respected. It seems to me that it is up to Congress to give these agencies more authority if we think they need it. But it is not a good reason to vote against Ms. Brand's nomination because she argued a very commonsense and constitutional position that Federal agencies need to follow the laws of Congress. Finally, some Senators have maintained that they are concerned about her views on the Voting Rights Act. She responded very well to that. During her hearing, Ms. Brand told the committee that she shares concerns for anyone who would violate the Voting Rights Act and would suppress votes in the process of violating that act, and she believes ``enforcement of that statute to be a core enforcement function of the civil rights division.'' I don't know about my fellow colleagues, but I take her at her word that she strongly believes in voting rights. It is more than a little puzzling, then, that when Republicans opposed a woman for a government position, we heard from the other side. The Democrats would always bring up gender politics. But when they oppose a woman for a position, that is somehow OK. I don't see how they can expect to have it both ways. I believe Ms. Brand will be a superb Associate Attorney General--the first female in this role, I might add--and that she will serve the office with very great distinction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 or 6 minutes to speak on another subject as in morning business.