Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor 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 won't pretend to break any news here; the facts speak very much for themselves. ObamaCare is not living up to its promises. When passing the law, the other side made promises that they knew wouldn't be kept. The irony here is that, at the end of the day, the so-called Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable. Let's look at the word ``affordable'' in the Webster dictionary. It says ``having a cost that is not too high.'' 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. Ever since ObamaCare was enacted, I have received letters and calls and emails from Iowans who are frustrated about the soaring costs of their health plans. Here is a prime example. One farmer's insurance premium went through the roof. It jumped 43 percent in 2017 from 2016. If somebody can explain how that is more affordable, I have an oceanfront property in my home county of Butler County, IA, to sell you. Now, we have a chart here about another Iowan. This constituent from Garner, IA, wrote about her financial hardships. She said: We are going to be paying over $1,300 a month on premiums, plus a $6,000 deductible. We don't have that much longer before we qualify for Medicare, but my concern is that until then, we will have to use so much of our hard-earned savings just to pay for healthcare. My fear is that those of us in the middle class will struggle with paying so much that it will wipe out our retirement savings accounts. Another constituent nearby Garner, in Buffalo, IA, wrote to me saying: 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 have to pay for insurance I can't use. So the question is, How did we get to this point? Seven years ago, I stood right here on the Senate floor and predicted what would happen to the cost of insurance if ObamaCare passed. Let's take a walk down memory lane for a moment. Here is what I said October 2009: 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 healthcare 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 healthcare proposals, most Americans will pay higher premiums for health insurance. Now, I am not Nostradamus. 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, more importantly, 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. For millions of Americans, it is much worse. So where do we go from here? After 7 years of rapidly rising premiums, soaring deductibles, and climbing copays, Republicans are committed to fixing the damage caused by the Affordable Care Act. Instead of joining us in an effort to fix what is broken, the other side is doing their best to scare the living daylights out of Americans. From the way they tell it, the House bill is ``deadly.'' What is truly fatal is the death spiral the ObamaCare marketplace is in. Not only is it unaffordable for too many people, it is simply unsustainable. ObamaCare is unable to fulfill its promises to the American people. Here is what every lawmaker in Congress ought to agree on: Insurance is not worth having if patients cannot afford to use it. The facts are very clear. A one-size-fits-all, government-run plan is driving insurers out of the exchanges, driving up premiums, driving away customers, and driving up the tab to the tax-paying public. I spoke 2 days ago about the impact of Obamacare in Iowa. Next year it is possible that 94 of our 99 counties will not have insurance plans on the Obamacare exchange. So even if you benefit from the subsidy of ObamaCare, you are not going to have an insurance company to go to. All of this because 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. I urge my colleagues to drop the partisan charade and join us for the good of the American people. I will continue coming to the floor to share how ObamaCare is not working for Iowans, but in the meantime, the Senate will continue working to rescue our healthcare system that is sinking under this broken law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Missouri and Delaware for leading this effort to honor our law enforcement officers and particularly those who have been killed in the line of duty. In 1962, Congress passed a joint resolution proclaiming the week of May 15 as ``National Police Week.'' The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, located here in Washington, DC, is our country's monument to these fallen officers. Carved into the marble walls of the memorial are the names of the more than 20,000 officers killed in the line of duty throughout our Nation's history. Every year, tens of thousands of fellow officers from around the world come to Washington, DC, as part of Police Week to pay tribute to the men and women whose names are inscribed on this wall. The planned events surrounding Police Week began with the 36th Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service, held on the west front of the U.S. Capitol. The President of the United States was the keynote speaker, and his presence was a testament to the fraternity of this noble profession. Immediately following the service, there was a wreath-laying at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. The annual memorial service is an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the dedication of these public servants and the ultimate sacrifice they have paid for this great Nation. We should also acknowledge the families of the fallen, whose lives have been forever changed by the loss of their loved ones. During the memorial service, there was a Roll Call of Heroes for the 143 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty last year. Their names will adorn the memorial walls in perpetuity. The list of the fallen include five of my fellow Iowans: Sergeant Anthony Davis Beminio of the Des Moines Police Department; Officer Susan Louise Farrell of the Des Moines Police Department; Patrolman Justin Scott Martin of the Urbandale Police Department; Sergeant Shawn Glenn Miller of the West Des Moines Police Department; and Officer Carlos Bernabe Puente-Morales of the Des Moines Police Department. We honor these great heroes for laying down their lives to protect their communities in Iowa. There is no year in recent memory in which so many Iowans have lost their lives in the line of duty. I would like to specifically address the ambush-style killing of Sergeant Beminio and Officer Martin. These officers were heinously murdered by the same perpetrator on the same night while they sat in their patrol cars. While the exact motive of the killer is unknown, he nevertheless sought out these brave men and gunned them down in cold blood. These ambush-style attacks have become more prevalent since the incidents in Dallas, TX, and Baton Rouge, LA, spanning 10 days last July. According to a report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, there were a total of 21 officers killed in ambush-style attacks just last year--the highest total in two decades. There has been much vitriol written and directed toward law enforcement over the last few years. The notion that the actions of a few bad individuals implicate the entire profession may still, unfortunately, endanger public servants in the area of law enforcement. This sort of rush to judgment against all law enforcement officers ought to end and end right now. The men and women of law enforcement make great sacrifices every day to protect our families and, of course, all of our fellow citizens. They do so freely, not out of a sense of obligation but because they are dedicated to the cause of justice. Their devotion merits our attention, admiration, and we are deeply indebted to them. This is why today I am submitting a bipartisan resolution to commemorate Police Week and honor those who have given their lives in this pursuit. I thank my colleagues in the Senate who have cosponsored this resolution with me. I call on all Americans to remember the fallen and pay tribute to the sacrifices they have made. To quote the motto of the Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary: ``Never Let Them Walk Alone.'' I hope that during Police Week, the Senate will pass my legislation to reform the operations of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. Delays in the award of benefits to the families of fallen officers have become intolerable, and those families deserve to know the status of their applications during the process. In addition, the Judiciary Committee has reported two other bills that I hope the Senate will take up during Police Week. One bill sets standards for the use of a new form of DNA evidence. The second makes an allowable use of COPS grants for recruiting and promoting of military veterans as police officers. Finally, during Police Week, my Judiciary Committee will report a bill that is designed to provide mental health services to police officers who live through and with enormous stress as they work to protect us. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in saluting the service of our law enforcement officers during Police Week. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, let me assure the Senator from New York that I am willing to listen to his stories about how people might be affected by the health care debate that is going on in the Congress right now if he will listen to some of the stories I have to tell. By the middle of June, people in 94 of the 99 counties in Iowa may not be able to buy insurance through the Obamacare exchanges. Senator Schumer talked about the tough consequences of the House bill on healthcare. I am coming to the Senate floor today to talk about the tough consequences of ObamaCare. I rise today to speak some more about the Affordable Care Act. The law is collapsing before our eyes. After 7 years of ObamaCare, it continues to overreach, overpromise, and overstay its welcome for the American people. I want to tell you the history about a bridge that relates very much to what is happening to ObamaCare today. Before I dive into the details of how ObamaCare is denying people in the State of Iowa the ability to get health insurance, I want to share a story about a bridge in the State of Washington. This bridge is depicted right here. This is the collapse of that bridge. The bridge is called Tacoma Narrows Bridge. It was built in 1940. It was the world's third largest suspension bridge. It was considered a state-of-the-art masterpiece of 20th-century engineering, but the bridge was set to fail from the very beginning. On July 1, 1940, the $6 million bridge opened to traffic. Just 5 months later, on November 7, 1940, the bridge collapsed. What caused the massive steel and concrete structure to twist, turn, and drop nearly 200 feet into Puget Sound? Importantly, there was a key foreshadowing clue. The bridge was nicknamed ``Galloping Gertie'' for its dancing, swaying bridge deck. On most days, it resembled a roller coaster rolling in the wind. But on the morning of November 7, Gertie's dance became twisted in a howling 40-mile-an-hour wind. Dramatic footage shown here shows tons of concrete and steel cables snapping like fishing lines before its collapse. Gertie essentially self- destructed due to design flaws that created sheer havoc in those high winds. Like ObamaCare, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge wasn't built to last, and like Galloping Gertie, ObamaCare is on a self-destruction course with destiny. Galloping Gertie collapsed by a flawed design that was unable to withstand high winds, and every day that goes by without a bipartisan solution to fix the flaws, ObamaCare is moving the American people closer to a calamity. Sooner rather than later, ObamaCare will become its own bridge to nowhere, with no insurance plans on the exchanges. Millions of Americans will be left twisting high and dry. The warning signs can no longer be ignored. First, many health insurers are bailing. The individual market is near collapse. Just last week, another insurance company, Aetna, announced it will quit the remaining two States it planned to sell plans in under ObamaCare. That means in 2018, Aetna will sell zero plans on the individual market exchanges. Just a year ago, in 2016, Aetna participated in the individual markets in 778 counties across the country. In 2017, that number fell to 242. In 2018, that number will be zero. We ought to repeat this story because everybody is talking about what the House health care bill might do to people's health insurance and their healthcare. The fact is that people can't buy health insurance, or if they buy it, the deductibles are so high they can't afford it. That is the story we ought to be telling at least with equal weight with the stories given by people who are talking about not wanting to do anything with healthcare. My home State has been hit particularly hard by insurers pulling out of the individual market. In 2016, UnitedHealth Group announced it would leave Iowa the following year. Last month, Aetna and Wellmark announced they would be pulling out of the individual market in Iowa. This leaves 94 of our 99 counties in Iowa with one choice for health insurance on the individual market. A constituent wrote to me following the news of their departure. My son recently turned 26 years old and is ineligible to remain on my insurance; therefore, he signed up for his own policy through Wellmark. My son farms with my husband, so while my husband has coverage through me, my son may soon be facing the fact that he will not be able to buy health insurance. My son, a true ``beginning farmer,'' will be forced to leave our farming operation and seek employment solely for the purpose of health care coverage. If Congress doesn't act, the individual market may come crashing down, just like the Tacoma Narrows bridge. We simply can't ignore another warning sign. Healthier, younger people are choosing the off- ramp. The toll to join ObamaCare is turning out to be unaffordable for them. ObamaCare is unsustainable. Remarkably, instead of joining us to fix this broken bridge, the other side wants to leave Americans twisting in the wind. In my home State, 70,000 Iowans are enrolled in the individual exchanges, and the last carrier left, Medica, is on the fence about its plans for 2018. That is why I told Senator Schumer to listen to our stories. The people in 94 of Iowa's 99 counties may not even be able to buy insurance on the exchange. The day has come. It is time to cross the bridge. It is time to repeal and replace ObamaCare before it finishes its collapse. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Courtney Elwood of Virginia to be the general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. I will object because the CIA has still not responded to my letters from April 14, 2014; and April 5, 2017, requesting declassification of two congressional notifications, CNs, about whistleblower communications. In 2014, the inspector general of the Intelligence Community issued two CNs about whistleblower communications. The first, sent on March 28, 2014, had the unclassified subject line ``Whistleblower Communications.'' The second, sent on March 31, 2014, had the unclassified subject line ``Whistleblower Communications-- Clarification.'' Both documents were classified Secret/NOFORN. I requested that the CNs be declassified as soon as possible. More than 3 years have passed since my initial request, and I still have not received declassified versions of the documents or an explanation of why the documents have not been declassified. The information contained in the two CNs raises serious policy implications, as well as potential Constitutional separation-of-powers issues. The CNs do not appear to contain any information about sources or methods, and there is a strong public interest in their content. As a matter of respect, for a coequal branch of government, my declassification request should have been processed in a timely manner. Moreover, under the executive branch's own regulations, there are time limits that apply to processing declassification requests and classification challenges that the CIA has failed to meet. In addition, I have requested copies of the CIA's PPD-19 procedures and policies which allow CIA whistleblowers to seek relief from reprisal, but the CIA has refused, stating that the documents are classified and for CIA's internal use only. PPD-19 was largely codified by the Intelligence Authorization Act, and so the CIA is also required by law to implement such a policy. It is now at issue in a Federal lawsuit challenging the CIA's failure to adhere to its own procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act. My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Ms. Elwood in any way. However, the CIA 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, I want to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues that April is National Sexual Assault Awareness Month. We commemorate it each year to bring public awareness to the staggering problem of sexual violence. Tens of thousands of people in the United States and hundreds of my fellow Iowans annually fall victim to this heinous crime. Sexual assault occurs at least every minute and a half, according to law enforcement statistics. These same figures reveal an increase in rape cases since 2011, contrary to claims by the former Obama administration that the violent crime rate had declined in recent years. But up to two-thirds of sexual assaults are never reported to police, say crime victim advocates. This means that the average perpetrator strikes multiple times before being brought to justice. Equally as troubling, the incarceration rate is less than one percent of all sexual assaults reported to law enforcement. The FBI ranks rape as one of the two most violent crimes, second only to murder in its effects. Survivors suffer not only physical consequences, but sometimes life-shattering emotional effects as well. According to the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, as well as the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, post-traumatic stress disorder is typical. Depression or even suicide is not uncommon. The healing process is often slow and painstaking. Today, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to commemorate Sexual Assault Awareness Month and honor the survivors of this heinous crime. I thank Senators Feinstein and Ernst for joining me as cosponsors of the resolution. During my time as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have made crime survivors rights a top priority. Two years ago, we passed, and the President signed, major legislation to benefit the survivors of human trafficking. Last year, the President also signed the House version of a survivors' bill of rights that our committee reported as part of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act and we approved legislation to extend programs that support the analysis of sexual assault evidence by the Nation's crime labs. Supporting and protecting survivors of sexual violence will continue to be a focus for our committee in 2017. Last month, I convened a hearing to examine allegations that dozens of young athletes experienced sexual abuse at the hands of coaches, instructors, and others. I recently joined our committee's ranking member, Senator Feinstein, in introducing the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. The bill's purpose is to ensure that sexual assault allegations by young athletes will be reported and investigated promptly. This year we will also make it a priority to extend and update programs that are authorized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Mr. President, I will close by reaffirming my support for survivors of sexual violence and expressing my continued commitment to advocate for them. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of the resolution I have introduced today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think I have 15 minutes to speak. When I get to about 13 minutes, would you raise your thumb or something and tell me, please.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you.

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, on April 26 of each year, we celebrate World Intellectual Property Day and recognize the important role of intellectual property rights in the fabric of our society. This year, we take time to recognize the innovators and creators who are making our lives healthier, safer, and more productive through their ingenuity and the robust system of intellectual property protections enshrined in our laws. The Founding Fathers recognized the value of intellectual property, empowering Congress ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' Placing this authority within Congress's enumerated powers underscores the weight that our Founding Fathers placed on intellectual property's value to the budding Nation as a means of fostering economic development and growth. Our success as a nation in agriculture, manufacturing, technology, and medicine shares a common thread of intellectual property rights. True to their predictions, our system of intellectual property has fostered innovation and ensured America's role as an economic engine of inventions that have made us healthier, safer, and more secure. Our system of intellectual property rights has evolved since the ratification of the Constitution and the passage of the Copyright Act of 1790, but its core mission of promoting innovation has remained constant. Our innovators and creators rely on IP protections such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets to help drive and recoup their investments of ingenuity. Of course, the innovation that intellectual property helps encourage benefits society more broadly as well. It drives enormous economic activity and development, helping assure America's place as an economic and intellectual beacon to the world. As the U.S. Chamber's Global Intellectual Property Center recently pointed out, IP-intensive industries employ over 40 million Americans, accounting for 34.8 percent of total U.S. gross domestic product. Iowans have long held intellectual property as an integral part of our economy. Our commitment to growth and innovation has led to $11.2 billion in annual IP-related exports from the State, more than 667,000 IP-related jobs, and 19.9 percent higher wages for direct IP workers than non-IP workers. As a society, we depend on innovators to make our lives better and to solve the challenges we face. These innovators, in turn, depend on different forms of intellectual property. The Judiciary Committee will continue to play an important role in protecting intellectual property and we will continue to work to advance innovation. This week, Senator Leahy and I reintroduced the Patents for Humanity Program Improvement Act to encourage and reward companies that innovate and use patented technology to address humanitarian needs. This legislation improves the incentives for small businesses to participate in the program, by ensuring that the prize--a certificate for expedited processing of certain matters at the USPTO--can be transferable to third parties. Yesterday, we held a hearing with witnesses from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and industry innovators who described the central role that intellectual property has played in allowing their businesses to grow and innovate. We also heard about some of the enforcement challenges that those in IP-intensive industries face as they seek to protect their intellectual property. As a cochair of the Congressional Trademark Caucus, which we just relaunched this week, I recognize the value of trademarks and their impact on society and the economy, as well as how counterfeiting can seriously impact consumer health and safety. Counterfeiting of goods presents a worldwide problem with enormous health and economic impacts, costing the global economy over 2.5 million jobs per year, while draining tax revenue and hurting the ability of American companies to compete in foreign markets. Similarly, trade secret theft is an increasingly serious problem. A report by the IP Commission found that annual losses due to trade secret theft are over $300 billion and is the cause of an estimated loss of 2.1 million American jobs. That is why we passed into law the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. This important legislation brings needed uniformity to trade secret law and provides more certainty to the innovators who rely on trade secrets to develop novel solutions to important problems that face us as a nation. Intellectual property is a key driver of innovation and fundamental building block of our modern economy. This World IP Day, as we recognize the positive impacts IP has on innovation, let us continue to find ways to work together to ensure its protection against infringement and maintain the United States enduring position as the most innovative and creative country in the world.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats. I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I am glad to be introducing today the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017, which will ensure the continued success. I appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Hirono, Blunt, Whitehouse, Ernst, Heitkamp, Thune, Udall, Heinrich, Shaheen, Klobuchar, Franken, Donnelly, and Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blender's credit to a domestic production credit starting this year and extend the credit through 2020. Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this incentive and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation. Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating the mixture credit be modified to a producer credit since 2009. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive. It has been susceptible to abuse because of this. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. Since 2014, we have seen imports increase from 510 million gallons to about 1 billion gallons in 2016, and already in the first quarter of 2017 imports are 10 percent higher than they were last year at this time. We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we will also save taxpayer money. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated a similar amendment adopted in the Finance Committee in 2015 would have reduced the cost of the extension by $90 million for 2016 alone. Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of capacity, which does not even account for idled capacity. The fact is, the domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers. The current biodiesel credit expired at the end of 2016. Adoption of the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017 should be strongly considered as part of tax reform efforts currently underway. Absent tax reform, Congress should include it as part of any tax legislation extending expired tax provisions. Modifying the current blenders credit to a producers credit will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production and promoting American jobs. Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of American biodiesel and this commonsense, cost reduction reform.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats. I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I am glad to be introducing today the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017, which will ensure the continued success. I appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Hirono, Blunt, Whitehouse, Ernst, Heitkamp, Thune, Udall, Heinrich, Shaheen, Klobuchar, Franken, Donnelly, and Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blender's credit to a domestic production credit starting this year and extend the credit through 2020. Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this incentive and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation. Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating the mixture credit be modified to a producer credit since 2009. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive. It has been susceptible to abuse because of this. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. Since 2014, we have seen imports increase from 510 million gallons to about 1 billion gallons in 2016, and already in the first quarter of 2017 imports are 10 percent higher than they were last year at this time. We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we will also save taxpayer money. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated a similar amendment adopted in the Finance Committee in 2015 would have reduced the cost of the extension by $90 million for 2016 alone. Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of capacity, which does not even account for idled capacity. The fact is, the domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers. The current biodiesel credit expired at the end of 2016. Adoption of the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017 should be strongly considered as part of tax reform efforts currently underway. Absent tax reform, Congress should include it as part of any tax legislation extending expired tax provisions. Modifying the current blenders credit to a producers credit will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production and promoting American jobs. Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of American biodiesel and this commonsense, cost reduction reform.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support Mr. Rosenstein's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General. Not only is he a very experienced and accomplished attorney, he has served in the Justice Department for almost three decades under five Presidents, but he served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland under both President Bush and President Obama--a very rare record of service. During his nominations hearing to be Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein promised us that he would ``work to defend the integrity and independence of our justice department, to protect public safety, to preserve civil rights, to pursue justice, to advance the rule of law and to promote public confidence.'' However, many Members have mentioned they are concerned about the FBI Director's announcement of an investigation of Russia. And during his nominations hearing, Mr. Rosenstein was repeatedly asked if he would commit to appointing a special counsel to handle any investigation in this matter. I was impressed with his unfailing commitment to independence when he answered these questions. Rather than prejudge investigations before he knows the facts, he unwaveringly promised to make decisions only after thoroughly reviewing all the relevant information in a particular case. He committed to not prejudge the situation before he knew the facts. And he committed to conducting every investigation with independence. I personally believe Mr. Rosenstein possesses the necessary independence to conduct any investigation of this type. He told us he had never met with Russian officials nor has he spoken to the President or Attorney General about this matter. And he spoke in great length about his career-long commitment to independence and to conduct his work free from political concerns. In fact, we already know that he has a well-known reputation for independence. In 2012, Attorney General Holder specifically asked Mr. Rosenstein to handle a special investigation into leaks of classified information because of his reputation for independence and impartiality. When Republicans suggested a special prosecutor might be appropriate, members of the Judiciary Committee assured us that none was necessary precisely because Mr. Rosenstein was at the helm of the investigation. One member of the Committee described him as a ``scrupulous man'' and ``independent.'' There was ``no reason to believe why [he] cannot work with the FBI and assemble a very strong prosecution team where warranted.'' Mr. Rosenstein is still scrupulous and independent. If Mr. Rosenstein could conduct an investigation with independence under Holder then, he can certainly do it now. Furthermore, Mr. Rosenstein comes with high recommendations from a bipartisan list of former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General. And he comes with high recommendations from his home state Senators, current and former. Former Senator Mikulski wrote the committee and told us that he will be a ``strong, experienced leader at the Department of Justice who is fair and committed to the equal application of our laws'' and ``In these polarized times, now, more than ever we need a strong, experienced leader at the Department of Justice who is fair and committed to the equal application of our laws. I hope the Senate will confirm Rod Rosenstein for this important position.'' After Senator Cardin described all Mr. Rosenstein's professional accomplishments when he was introducing him at the hearing, he said, ``What impresses me the most, he has done this in a totally non- partisan manner.'' And concluded by saying, ``I think Mr. Rosenstein is the right person at the right time for Deputy Attorney General.'' Finally, James Cole, President Obama's Deputy Attorney General, wrote to inform the committee that Mr. Rosenstein will respect the need for the Department ``to not only enforce the laws, but to also maintain a level of independence that enables it to have credibility in the eyes of our citizens.'' From all I see and know about him, I believe Mr. Rosenstein will keep his promise for integrity and independence. He promised us if he is confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, ``all investigations under my supervision [will] be initiated and conducted in a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to political considerations.'' We can't ask for anything more. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Mr. Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time postcloture on the Rosenstein nomination expire at 5 p.m. today and that, if confirmed, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume consideration of the Acosta nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have 5 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 Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on policy and strategy in the Asia- Pacific. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Robert Lighthizer, of Florida, to be United States Trade Representative. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, at 9:45 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The Crisis in Libya: Next Steps and U.S. Policy Options.'' Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 25, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Intellectual Property--Driver of Innovation: Making Our Lives Healthier, Safer, and more Productive.'' 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 Tuesday, April 25, 2017, from 2:15 p.m.-4:00 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we often hear about the term ``Greatest Generation'' in describing the people who endured the Great Depression and persevered in World War II. Today I am proud to talk about one of those people who is a part of the Greatest Generation, my constituent John Massick. John was born, quite fittingly, on Veteran's Day in 1915. Last November, John celebrated his 101st birthday. Mr. Massick enlisted in the Army in 1941, serving the H Company 378th Infantry Division. During his time in the Army, John was promoted to the rank of sergeant. John served in combat, including multiple battles in France during 1944. Mr. Massick's service concluded upon his honorable discharge in 1945. He earned several decorations in the line of duty, earning the Good Conduct Medal, American Defense Service Ribbon, two Bronze Stars, and others. After John's discharge from duty, he returned home to Davenport, IA, where he still lives. John and his late wife, Velma, raised two boys. Our country can't thank Mr. Massick enough for his service. We will never truly be able to repay the debt owed to those who put their lives on the line in defense of freedom, not just for Americans but for those around the world. While I may not ever be able to thank Mr. Massick enough for his service, I do hope that shedding light on his incredible service may serve as a symbol of this body's gratitude.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we are about to vote on the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, so I would like to say to my colleagues why I am so pleased that we will soon be referring to him as ``Justice Gorsuch.'' I opened our Judiciary Committee hearing with this: One of Justice Scalia's best opinions begins with this declaration: it is the ``proud boast of our democracy that we have a government of laws and not of men. . . . Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless.'' The separation of powers in our Constitution is a guardian of our liberty. Judge Gorsuch understands that. His deep understanding of the separation of powers enlivens his opinions. By faithfully enforcing the boundaries among the branches of government and the power of the Federal Government in our lives, this Justice will ensure that the law protects our liberties. Here is the other thing that is important about a judge who respects the separation of powers: We know he will be independent. He told us that he is his own man, that no person speaks for him. He is not beholden to the President who appointed him. His testimony shows that he is not beholden to us in the Congress either. He wouldn't compromise his independence to win confirmation votes. He passed the test. This is a man of integrity, and his qualifications for the bench are exceptional. You know the story: bachelor's from Columbia University, Harvard Law School, doctorate from Oxford University, partnership at a prestigious law firm, and high-level Justice Department service for the people of our country, but most importantly, a decade-long record of faithfully applying the law on the Federal bench in 2,700 cases as a member of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Let me sum up this way: This brilliant, honest, humble man is a judge's judge, and he will make a superb Justice. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there are some people who need to have a thank-you for what we just completed here--people who hardly ever get any attention. So I will take a couple of minutes to express my appreciation to some of the staff who worked on this Supreme Court nomination. The staff for both the majority and minority put in a lot of hours and reviewed a lot of material. Their work ensured that the hearing we held for Judge Gorsuch went smoothly and was fair to all of the Members. Our staff reviewed all of the 2,700 cases Judge Gorsuch participated in as well as 180,000 pages of documents that were produced by the Department of Justice and the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum that were related to that nomination. First, on my staff, I would like to recognize my Judiciary Committee staff director, Kolan Davis. Mr. Davis has been with me for 31 years, and I always value his wise counsel. I thank, as well, my personal office chief of staff, Jill Kozeny, who has been with me for 27 years. My deputy staff director is Rita Lari, and my chief nominations counsel is right here at my side, Ted Lehman. I would also like to thank counsels Megan Lacy, Lauren Mehler, Kasey O'Connor, and Katharine Willey. Each of them worked incredibly hard. Also on the team were several special counsels who joined the staff to work on this important nomination. They are Dan Guarnera, Bill Lane, Katie Roholt, and Carol Szurkowski. Every one of these talented lawyers played a very important role, and I think every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee benefited from their wise counsel throughout this confirmation process. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Ranking Member Feinstein, the Senator from California. The ranking member and her staff approached this process seriously from the very beginning. So I want to thank her staff for all the work they have put into preparing for the hearing and the debate, both in committee and here on the floor. Thank you to her staff director, Jennifer Duck, and several of the other lawyers on her staff who, I know, put a lot of time into ensuring that the hearing was a success. They include Paige Herwig, Nazneen Mehta, and Chan Park. I am also thankful for my very talented press team, Beth Levine and Taylor Foy, and for Jen Heins for keeping me on schedule, as well as for my personal office staff and the rest of the Judiciary Committee staff who took care of things while I was on the floor and during the long hours in the hearing. I also deeply appreciate the work of Senator McConnell's staff who was constantly in contact with my staff--most importantly John Abegg. The people I mentioned bore the bulk of the workload and labored tirelessly night after night, day after day, and nonstop through the weekends. They deserve our recognition as a tribute to their hard work, professionalism, and dedication to public service. Finally, my thanks to the Judiciary Committee's chief clerk, Roslyne Turner, and her team, Michelle Heller and Jason Covey. All of these staff members contributed to this process, and we would not have been able to conduct such a fair and thorough hearing without their hard work and their professionalism. To each of them, I extend a heartfelt thanks, and if I left anybody out, I will buy them a Dairy Queen. Mr. President, finally, my wife Barbara is in the Capitol today. As always, I thank her for her support and partnership for more than 62 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who want to speak, but I just want to take a minute and a half or so to clarify some things I have heard from the other side that need to be counteracted. First of all, I don't know whether they mentioned the term ``Ginsburg rule,'' but we do have this Ginsburg rule that was set out a long time ago when Judge Ginsburg came before the Senate for her confirmation. She said that you can't comment on things that might come before the Court because obviously you would be violating judicial ethics. Then I will comment on some things people have said about Brown v. Board of Education. The very fact that Judge Gorsuch has declined to offer his opinion on legal issues that are likely to come before the Supreme Court demonstrates what we should all expect of him: his judicial independence. That is what we expect of every judge. The judge's decision not to offer his opinion on issues that may come before him is consistent with judicial ethics rules and is consistent with what I have referred to already as the Ginsburg rule or the Ginsburg standard, which all Supreme Court nominees in recent memory have followed. As Justice Ginsburg said, commenting on these issues is not fair to parties who might come before the Court in future years. That is what Judge Gorsuch said as well. Questions to this end are nothing more than an attempt to compromise the judge's independence, and he showed us that he wasn't going to have his independence compromised because he is going to do what judges should do: look at the facts of a case, look at the law, and make those decisions based only on that and send no signals whatsoever ahead of time of how he might view something. Along these lines, my colleagues said that the judge should have announced that he agreed with the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education but didn't offer enough information about this opinion in an appropriate discussion of precedent. I will quote our nominee. He said this: ``Senator, Brown v. Board of Education corrected an erroneous decision, a badly erroneous decision, and vindicated a dissent by the first Justice Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson, where he correctly identified that separate to advantage one race can never be equal,'' end of the quote of our nominee. So the judge spoke about precedent very appropriately. He answered our questions in a manner consistent with his obligations and with past nominees. One more point. I keep hearing complaints that the judge won't make a commitment to follow Roe v. Wade, but my colleagues' requests really boil down to a quest for a promise to reach results that they want. They demand adherence to Roe v. Wade on the one hand and a promise to overrule Citizens United on the other hand, as examples. Asking the judge to make commitments about precedent is inappropriate. I have said this so many times, and my colleagues will repeat it many times as well. It compromises the judge's independence. Instead of being beholden to the President, my colleagues would have the judge be beholden to them. This nominee isn't going to be beholden to a President, and he is not going to be beholden to any Senator because if he did that, he would be compromising his views. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, millions of Americans and thousands of Iowans annually fall victim to senseless acts of crime. In their honor and in honor of the thousands of advocates, first responders, crisis hotline volunteers, and others who work tirelessly on their behalf, I introduced a resolution to commemorate National Crime Victims' Rights Week. I thank Senators Leahy, Crapo, and Feinstein for joining me as cosponsors of this important resolution. In 2017, National Crime Victims' Rights Week takes place from April 2 through April 8. We have commemorated the week every April since 1981. Here in Washington, DC, and across the Nation, activities are being organized to highlight and promote this year's theme: ``Strength. Resilience. Justice.'' The theme for 2017 recognizes the strength of individual victims. It highlights the resilience of survivors as well as the victim assistance organizations who support survivors in their efforts to heal. And it reflects the importance of securing justice for crime victims. During this week, we also highlight the contributions of the crisis hotline volunteers and staff, victims' rights attorneys, advocates, sexual assault nurse examiners, police officers, and other emergency responders who provide critical assistance to survivors of crime in communities across the United States. On Friday, several of these individuals will receive awards during a ceremony hosted by the Office for Victims of Crime at the U.S. Department of Justice. I extend my gratitude to those award recipients for their work to assist victims of crime. Many of us in this Chamber have championed landmark legislation to enhance the rights of crime victims. For example, I was an original cosponsor of the 1984 Victims of Crime Act, which established the Crime Victims Compensation Fund. I also joined my colleagues in supporting the 1994 enactment of the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation enhanced penalties for sex offenders and made hundreds of millions of dollars available for activities and programs to respond to the needs of domestic violence survivors. The Judiciary Committee, which I chair, has continued to make the protection of victims' rights a top priority. Two years ago, we approved the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which makes new resources available to help survivors of human trafficking. We also approved the Survivors' Bill of Rights, which establishes new rights for survivors of federal crimes of sexual violence. We cleared the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, which enhances crime survivors' ability to seek restitution and improves victims' access to legal services. And we approved the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act of 2016. Supporting and protecting victims of crime will again be an important priority this year in the Judiciary Committee. Last week, I convened a hearing to examine allegations that dozens of young athletes experienced sexual abuse at the hands of coaches, instructors, and others. Senators Feinstein, Collins, and I also recently introduced a bill, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, to ensure that sexual assault allegations by young athletes will be reported and investigated promptly. This year, we also will make it a priority to extend and update programs authorized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. In closing, crime victims and survivors in the United States deserve our assistance in helping them cope with the often devastating consequences of crime. That is why it is so important that we support the mission of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this important resolution.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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