Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues to vote against cloture on the nomination, and here are my reasons for asking that of my colleagues. Earlier this week I outlined my general objection to the Senate proceeding to a final vote on the confirmation of Mr. B. Todd Jones, the nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. As I explained, the Senate should not be voting on a nomination when there is an open investigation. In this case the Office of Special Counsel is investigating Mr. Jones in a complaint that he retaliated against a whistleblower in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. Because of the way this nomination was handled in committee, I was able to conduct only a limited investigation. But what I found should give all of us pause--real pause--on this nomination because it gives me concern about Mr. Jones's leadership ability and raises doubts about whether he should be promoted to head this office. According to both the whistleblowing assistant U.S. attorney and the former head of the FBI in Minnesota, relationships with Federal, State, and local authorities deteriorated significantly under Jones's leadership. The problems primarily involved agencies that worked drug cases and violent crime. Mr. Jones addressed the issue in a meeting with criminal prosecutors in his office. According to the whistleblower, following that meeting, Mr. Jones came to the whistleblower's office and asked for his candid opinion of what could be done about the problem. The whistleblower gave Jones his candid opinion, and a few weeks later he put it in writing what he had told Jones during this meeting. His e-mail to Jones included allegations of mismanagement by one of his supervisors, the head of the Narcotics and Violent Crime Unit. The very next day, that supervisor called that whistleblower on the carpet and, according to the whistleblower, interrogated him about his work in search of a pretext to discipline him. Failing to find a substantive reason to discipline him, his supervisors then suspended him for 5 days for his demeanor during the meeting. Now, based on what we know at this point, it certainly looks like retaliation, and it helps explain why the Office of Special Counsel believed these allegations merited further investigation. Remember, only about 10 percent, 1 in 10 of these types of allegations is selected for investigation by the Special Counsel. To be fair, we do not know the full story. The Office of Special Counsel has not finished its investigation into the matter. But this fact remains: There is an open investigation of serious allegations of whistleblower retaliation, and because that investigation remains open, this body--the Senate of the United States--should have the full information about the nominee, and it does not have it, and it should have it before voting on that nomination. These are serious charges. The public interest demands resolution of these issues. Members of the Senate are entitled to know if these charges have merit. Members of the Senate are entitled to the complete record. So everyone should ask, Why then are we voting on a nomination on which there is an open investigation and on a nominee where we do not have the complete information? To me, the answer is obvious: We should not be conducting this vote until this matter is resolved. I would like to highlight a few comments contained in a recent letter from the National Whistleblowers Center. That organization, since 1988, has been supporting whistleblowers. The center opposes a vote on this nomination ``until there is a complete and thorough investigation into his treatment of employee- whistleblowers.'' This is exactly what I am requesting today: a ``no'' vote to give the time to complete this investigation. The National Whistleblowers Center notes that the Office of Special Counsel's investigation remains open. Again, I agree with their contention; namely, ``that office should be able to complete its inquiry in due course, without any pressure triggered by the nomination process.'' I am surprised to hear rumblings about my opposition to this nominee based on this particular matter. It seems some are asking the question, What does this whistleblower retaliation have to do with the ATF? Why is this investigation even relevant? I sincerely hope my colleagues have not forgotten about the disaster of Operation Fast and Furious--an absolute failure by the former leadership of the ATF. In that case, the former ATF leadership and the ex-U.S. attorney retaliated against the brave whistleblowers who alerted authorities about this botched operation of Fast and Furious. A U.S. attorney in Arizona had to resign because of his retaliatory conduct against whistleblowers. Based in part on that history, I am extremely hesitant to place at the head of that agency this individual who has been accused of retaliation against a whistleblower and, as Acting Director of ATF, Mr. Jones sends a very chilling message to all the employees of that organization. Mr. Jones was caught on video, so we know exactly what he said. He was caught on video making very disturbing statements specifically targeted at discouraging ATF agents from blowing the whistle. Let me remind you, whistleblowers are patriotic Americans who think the law ought to be followed and the government do what the law says. He told these whistleblowers: [I]f you don't respect the chain of command, if you don't find the appropriate way to raise your concerns to your leadership, there will be consequences. Wouldn't that scare anybody who worked in that organization? Of course, blowing the whistle requires going outside the chain of command to report wrongdoing. If you do not get the benefit of people listening to you within, then it is your constitutional responsibility to go outside and report violation of law. So telling employees there will be consequences for going outside the chain of command is the same thing as telling them there will be consequences for whistleblowing. This video was seen by several employees in the U.S. Attorney's Office of Minnesota, also headed by Mr. Jones in his other capacity. These employees wrote to the Office of Special Counsel referencing the video, stating that they had ``felt for the employees of ATF as we too have had the same types of statements made to us.'' They then said Mr. Jones ``ha[d] instituted a climate of fear, ha[d] pushed employees out of the office, dismissed employees wrongly, violated the hiring practices of the EEOC, and put in place an Orwellian style of management that continues to polarize the office.'' As I mentioned, the former head of the FBI in Minnesota also wrote to the committee about Mr. Jones. In that letter, he wrote: As a retired FBI senior executive, I am one of the few voices able to publicly express our complete discontent with Mr. Jones' ineffective leadership and poor service provided to the federal law enforcement community without fear of retaliation or retribution from him. Meaning from Mr. Jones. Those are chilling words, as I have said twice. They corroborate what members of his staff have said and are consistent with the whistleblower retaliation complaint. The former FBI Special Agent in Charge continued with this report: [Mr. Jones] was, and still remains, a significant impediment for federal law enforcement to effectively protect the citizens of Minnesota. . . . As the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on December 31, 2012: Criminal prosecutions have dropped dramatically at the U.S. Attorney's office in Minneapolis under the leadership of B. Todd Jones, rankling some in law enforcement. But then the article continued: Several federal and state law enforcement sources said that the U.S. Attorney's office refused to prosecute drug and violent crime cases that would have been snapped up by Jones' predecessors. None agreed to be quoted, saying they must maintain a relationship with the U.S. Attorney's Office. My investigation revealed that during Mr. Jones's tenure as U.S. attorney, several people allege that relationships with other Federal law enforcement agencies deteriorated also. Now, why would we want to confirm as Director of the ATF someone who has a poor track record working with Federal law enforcement? Since the majority insisted on moving forward without waiting for the Office of Special Counsel to complete its work, on July 2 I wrote to the FBI, the DEA, and ICE seeking information about the deteriorating relationship between Federal law enforcement and the U.S. Attorney's Office under Mr. Jones's leadership. I have received no replies to that request. In addition to his record as U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota, what about Mr. Jones's record as Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? It is no secret that there have been a number of controversial events that Mr. Jones has been involved in to one degree or another. I have sent numerous letters to the department requesting information from and about Mr. Jones. In many cases, I have received no response or an incomplete response. Here is a sampling: On Fast and Furious--on October 12, 2011, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed records of the Attorney General's advisory committee relating to Operation Fast and Furious during a period Jones was committee chair. I reiterated that request on April 10, 2013. No. 2, ATF's accountability for Fast and Furious. On October 19, 2012, and January 15, 2013, I requested information on which ATF employees would be disciplined for their role in Fast and Furious. No. 3, Fast and Furious interview request. From October 7, 2011, through January 2012, I requested a staff interview with Jones regarding Fast and Furious. I reiterated that request to Mr. Jones on April 10, 2013. No. 4, interview request on Reno, NV, ATF office. My April 10, 2013, letter also indicated that Mr. Jones's failure to act on Reno management issues was another area of questions to be covered in a staff interview. No. 5, interview request on Operation Fearless. My April 10, 2013, letter indicated that the botched Operation Fearless in Milwaukee was another area of questions to be covered in a staff interview. No. 6, document request on Operation Fearless. On May 10 of this year, I sent Mr. Jones a letter requesting a copy of the Office of Professional Responsibility and Security Operations report on the botched Milwaukee storefront operation. No. 7, on the St. Paul and quid pro quo matter, I was able to have a staff interview with Mr. Jones. Just to remind my colleagues about the issue I will tell you, briefly, on February 3, 2012, the Department of Justice and the City of St. Paul struck a deal. The terms of the quid pro quo were as follows: The Department declined to intervene in two False Claims Act cases that were pending against St. Paul, and St. Paul withdrew its petition before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Magner case, a case that observers believed would invalidate the use of disparate impact theory under the Fair Housing Act. But this was no ordinary settlement. Instead of furthering the ends of justice, this settlement prevented the courts from reviewing potentially meritorious claims and the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury. The U.S. attorney in Minnesota at the time of the quid pro quo, Mr. Jones, was serving both as U.S. attorney and Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Mr. Jones was interviewed by the committee staff as part of the investigation on March 8, 2013. However, before agreeing to the interview, the department demanded that staff not be permitted to ask Mr. Jones any further questions other than those involving quid pro quo. Questions remain about whether he was effectively managing both jobs as the U.S. attorney and Acting Director. For example, when asked by committee staff about his failure to attend a seminal meeting between the department's civil division and representatives from the City of St. Paul, which occurred in December 2011, he stated that he did not attend because he had an event at ATF that precluded his attendance. When pressed further, Mr. Jones indicated the important event at ATF was a holiday party called ``sweet treats.'' He felt it was more important that he attend that event than it was to attend his crucial meeting----

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It was more important that he go to sweet treats than worry about collecting $200 million under False Claims Act cases pending. I raised many of these issues with Mr. Jones at his hearing and in written questions for the record. But in too many instances Mr. Jones was unable or unwilling to provide an adequate response. Unfortunately, I have a lingering concern about his candor during his testimony. With this record before us, it should be apparent to all of my colleagues that the Senate should not move forward with Mr. Jones' nomination. First, the Senate has yet to learn the results from the investigations of Office of Special Counsel; two, the Senate has not had an opportunity to hear Mr. Jones address those allegations himself. Point blank he told the committee he could not speak about them because of the open investigation; third, the Senate should recognize a troubling pattern indicating the nominee's inability to work with Federal law enforcement and whistleblowers; four, his involvement in a number of botched operations showing unacceptable management style or capability. Elevating an individual with such a record is not how you rehabilitate the reputation, image, and culture of Federal law enforcement agencies still recovering from the disastrous scandal of Fast and Furious. I do not believe we should simply rubberstamp this nomination and sweep the alarming allegations under the rug. I would hope that further action on the nomination pause until these matters are resolved. Before I close, I wish to address one additional matter. I have heard it argued from the majority that there is an urgency to get this nomination confirmed because ATF has not had a confirmed Director for 7 years. President Bush made a nomination in March 2007. That nomination was held up in the Senate based on concerns regarding ATF's hostility to small gun dealers and the nominee's apparent indifference to their concerns. President Obama did not nominate a Director until November 17, 2010. That is 2 years into his first term. That individual's nomination stalled because neither the White House nor the nominee responded to our requests for additional information. Rather than respond to our requests so that nomination might move forward or withdraw that nomination and send up another, the White House did nothing for 2 years. The nomination of Mr. Jones was not sent up to the Senate until the beginning of this year. So for the past 4\1/2\ years, the vacancy is the responsibility of the White House. I do not think that supports their contention that there is a crisis because of a lack of a Senate- confirmed nominee. In any event, the prudent course for the Senate, and what I support, is to wait a short while, until the open complaint is resolved. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 12 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President they say history has a way of repeating itself. That certainly came true in June when the Senate approved a sweeping reform bill to revamp the nation's immigration laws. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate failed to learn from the mistakes created by the 1986 overhaul. In the 1980s, about 3 million people who were living in the country illegally were granted legal status. Today, 27 years later, the U.S. estimates 11 million undocumented immigrants are living here. What should that tell us? It says that the 1986 law failed to stem the flow of illegal immigration. It sent the wrong signal by granting legal status to millions while ignoring the need to secure the border. I do not need a crystal ball to tell me what would happen on the road ahead if we repeat the mistakes of the past. I saw how legalizing before securing our borders turned out. It turned America's time- honored welcome mat into a timeworn doormat. America's immigration system is broken. It is time to fix it so that a legal flow of immigration can help the economy and bolster areas of the workforce that are short of workers, from low-skilled to high-tech workers. But immigration laws should not come at the expense of American workers or cause them to be disadvantaged, displaced or underpaid. Rooting out fraud and abuse from many of our visa programs should be a priority. Unfortunately, the bill passed by the U.S. Senate would not fix what is broken and is chock-full of loopholes that make the legalization system far from ideal. Thankfully our system of self-government protects representation of, by and for the people with a bicameral Congress. Now the U.S. House of Representatives has a chance to get it right. The House is moving on a number of bills. They are having very thoughtful discussions on how to improve the legal system while adhering to the rule of law. They also know that passing one sweeping bill is a recipe for disaster--one that inevitably creates loopholes and allows special interest provisions to override good policy. I would like to discuss a few of their good ideas. First, the House Judiciary Committee approved the SAFE ACT, a bill that beefs up our interior enforcement efforts. It provides tools to State and local law enforcement agencies to help the government enforce immigration laws. It enhances the 287(g) program, which I helped author. It gives the States and localities the power to enact and enforce their own immigration laws as long as they are consistent with Federal law. The bill would improve our country's ability to remove criminal aliens. Dangerous individuals would be detained, sex offenders would be made inadmissible, and gang members would be both inadmissible and deportable. These are provisions that are omitted from the Senate bill. Dangerous criminals are ignored in the Senate bill, and it was apparent that the other side of the aisle did not want to have votes that would bar these dangerous criminals from receiving legal status. Securing the border is very important, but so is focusing on individuals who violate our laws and violate the terms of their stay in the U.S. If we are serious about being tough on sex offenders, domestic abusers, drunk drivers, and other criminals, then the SAFE Act needs to be passed by the Senate and sent to the President. Second, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that improves the existing E-VERIFY program. This program is a valuable tool and should be made mandatory for all businesses. While the Senate bill does make it mandatory, it does so over 6 years and provides exceptions for certain employers. The House bill would implement the program on a faster timetable, for which I have advocated. Third, the House Judiciary Committee approved bills that improve the legal system for people who want to live and work in the United States. The committee approved a bill that focuses on high-skilled workers that are needed in the country, and another bill that improves the legal channels for people who want to work in agriculture. If we want to ensure that we do not deal with millions of people here illegally in the future, then we have to focus on getting our legal immigration system in order. Now, I would like to talk about the border bill that was approved by the Committee on Homeland Security. This is a bill I am not ready to endorse. Let me explain why. The bill, known as the Border Security Results Act, is not a serious and comprehensive approach to border security. While it takes a good first step in requiring metrics to assess whether the borders are secured, there is nothing that ensures that results are achieved. The bill requires the Department of Homeland Security, within 6 months of enactment, to develop a strategy on how to secure our borders. The strategy includes an assessment of threats along the border. It will take into consideration the coordination of departments and the cooperation of foreign countries. The strategy calls for an assessment of technology needed. But, it does not actually do anything to give agents the resources they need. It does nothing to require fencing to be built. After the strategy is submitted to Congress, the Secretary develops an implementation plan and provides that to Congress and the Government Accountability Office. But like the Senate bill, there is no repercussions if the Secretary does not actually submit a strategy. And, there is no verification or approval of the strategy by Congress. Instead, it relies on this or a future administration to make promises they will not keep. It relies on them to fulfill the law, but we have seen time and again that they thumb their nose at bills we send them. They not only refuse to implement laws they like--such as ObamaCare-- but they will refuse to carry this one out as well. The bill requires the Secretary to develop metrics to measure the ``effectiveness'' of security at ports and between ports of entry. That is a good start. But, there are no consequences if the Secretary does not develop such metrics. The GAO would evaluate the metrics, but again, there is no real consequence if they are flawed metrics. The border still will not be secured. The Secretary then certifies that her department has achieved ``operational control.'' The definition of ``operational control'' is weakened from current law. The bill defines it as a ``condition in which there is a not lower than 90 percent illegal border crossing effectiveness rate, informed by situational awareness, and a significant reduction in the movement of illicit drugs and other contraband through such areas is being achieved.'' The GAO would attest if the certification for operational control is truly done. What if the Secretary never certifies this? What if the GAO says the Secretary's certification is not accurate? If the Department fails to achieve control of the border, then they have to issue a report to explain why. Again, it lacks any true accountability for this or any future administration to secure the border. Finally, I want to mention one part of the House border bill that is most concerning to me. During committee mark-up, an amendment was accepted that would require a plan on the exit tracking system, but unfortunately there is no beef to it. Implementation of a biometric exit system was a key point when the Senate considered immigration. The Congress has passed several laws that require the executive branch to track the entry and exit of foreign nationals. Those mandates have been ignored. The airline industry has resisted. Instead of building upon current law and finding a way to make it happen, the House bill provides a way out if the exit system is not deemed feasible by the Secretary--the same Secretary that has made no progress on the system. Border security is not only putting manpower and technology along the southern border. It is also about tracking people that enter this country. Given that 40 percent of our undocumented population consists of visa overstays, we must address this problem immediately. This problem is highlighted by a GAO report that was issued on Tuesday. GAO found that the Department has lost track of more than 1 million people. We know they arrived in the United States, but we do not have departure records. By statute, the Department is required to report overstays. They claim they do not report the estimates because of lack of confidence that the data is reliable. After 17 years, the law has been ignored. The government is not sophisticated enough to match incoming and outgoing travel records, and that is a serious risk to our national security. Over the years, the GAO has highlighted the challenges that the Department faces in putting the entry and exit system in place. Their new report casts more doubt on the Department's competency. When the Senate passed the immigration bill in June, I was very clear in suggesting that the bill would have to be fixed by a conference committee with the House, if it ever goes to a conference. With the exception of the border security bill, the House has presented some valuable ideas. While I want an immigration reform bill sent to the President, I want it done right. We can take our time to get it right. Over the August recess, the American people will get their opportunity to inform members of Congress how they feel about the immigration proposals on the table. But I can predict what many will say. I know from previous townhall meetings in my State, the people do not want more laws that will go ignored. They want the laws we have in place to be enforced. We need legislation that upholds American values of hope, freedom and opportunity. We need immigration laws in place that welcome law-abiding immigrants to share their entrepreneurial spirit, build better lives for themselves, and help make America a better place for generations to come. But we need legislation that upholds the rule of law and ensures that we do not saddle future generations with the same problems we are faced with today. It is my hope that Congress, over the August break, will listen to the American people and work to enact true reform that achieves real results and makes good on the promises made in Washington.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take time today to honor the life of a very brave man, and an exemplary Iowan, Col. George ``Bud'' Day, who passed away over the weekend. Bud Day's brave and memorable military career started at the age of 17, when he volunteered for the Marine Corps during World War II in Sioux City, IA. After this period of service, Bud returned home, and received a law degree from the University of South Dakota. His military service to this country, however, would resume. Bud Day joined the Air National Guard in 1950 and was called up for active duty a year later during the Korean War. By 1955 he had become a captain with the Air Force. With the same go-getter attitude he displayed throughout his service, then Captain Day went on to command a squadron of F-100s in Vietnam in 1967. On August 26, Bud's plane was hit and took a steep dive. Upon ejection he sustained many injuries. Shortly after the crash, Bud was taken prisoner and tortured. Maintaining his unflagging spirit and fueled by his love for his country, Bud Day refused to cooperate and escaped his captors. Surviving treacherous conditions and life-threatening situations every minute, Bud spent 2 weeks trying to find U.S. troops. His efforts left him exhausted and he was later recaptured and returned to the same camp he had escaped from. He was then moved to the infamous ``Hanoi Hilton'' camp where torture was commonplace for the next 5 years of his life until his release in 1973. Even after all of this, Bud Day resumed his service with the U.S. Air Force, and was appointed vice commander of the 33rd Tactical Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Three years after his release from the Hanoi Hilton, Bud received the Medal of Honor from President Gerald Ford for not divulging information in the face of torture, thereby putting his own life in imminent risk to save others. He has also received numerous other awards and recognitions such as the Air Force Cross for extraordinary heroism in military operations against an opposing armed force as a POW, making him one of America's most decorated servicemen. Bud Day remained public spirited even after his military service, continuing to advocate for veterans and other causes that were important to him. His life of service is a tremendous role model for future generations and he will be missed. I am proud to have been able to call Bud Day an Iowan and a friend.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, Shortly the Senate will be voting to invoke cloture on the nomination of James B. Comey to become the next Director of the FBI. I will vote to invoke cloture and expect many of my colleagues will do the same. The confirmation of a new FBI Director is a serious decision for this Chamber to consider. As a large Federal law enforcement agency, the FBI has numerous responsibilities and tremendous power. Only with quality leadership and proper Congressional oversight will the FBI be best equipped to fight crime, terrorism, and espionage. I think the President has made a fine choice in selecting Mr. Comey as the next leader of the FBI, and I plan to explain my support for him as we approach Mr. Comey's confirmation vote. I recognize there is a level of concern associated with this nomination regarding the use of drones by the FBI. I have been at the forefront of this issue, raising it last year with the Attorney General. The Attorney General gave me an incomplete answer as to the FBI's use of drones. Accordingly, after there was disclosure that the FBI was using drones on U.S. soil for surveillance, I questioned Mr. Comey about the extent of that policy. This needs to be addressed by the new director, and I have Mr. Comey's assurance he will review the policy. I will be monitoring this closely, but we need a director in place, and we need to confirm this nomination this week. Excellent leadership is only one ingredient in the recipe for success at any Federal agency. Another critical element is proper congressional oversight. And it is this component I fear too many of my colleagues have forgotten. Today, too many seem to believe that advice and consent really means rubberstamp and turn a blind eye. The American people deserve better than this approach to confirmations. Over the last few months, I have observed an alarming pattern. Too often, this administration submits subpar nominees while simultaneously obstructing any legitimate oversight by this Congress. Sadly, many of my colleagues appear to be choosing to ignore any effort to correct it. Let me cite just a few examples. We saw how Mr. Perez, an assistant attorney general, brokered an unwritten deal that cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. My colleagues on the other side largely ignored the shady deal. Mr. Perez tried to cover his tracks, but got caught leaving a voicemail that was recorded. Even then, my colleagues dismissed it. And when he was caught concealing evidence of the deal on his personal email accounts, he defied a lawfully issued congressional subpoena and refused to turn over the documentation. Incredibly, his defiance was ignored. Worse yet, for all this rotten behavior, the Senate rewarded him with a promotion by confirming him as Secretary of Labor. We see the same thing occurring with the nomination of Mr. Mayorkas. The nominee for the No. 2 position at the Department of Homeland Security is the target of an open investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security. The IG is investigating allegations that the nominee procured a visa as a political favor, even though the visa was properly rejected. Incredibly, the Senate Committee pressed on with the hearing despite unanimous objection from the minority for moving forward in the midst of an open investigation. That is incredible to me--a Senate Committee would move forward with a nominee who has an open investigation into the nominee's conduct. I wish this were a unique occurrence, but based on recent experience in the Judiciary Committee, it is not an isolated event. This is exactly what happened recently in the Senate Judiciary Committee with respect to Mr. B. Todd Jones, the nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Earlier this year, I learned the Office of Special Counsel was investigating Mr. Jones in a complaint that he retaliated against a whistleblower in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. In the Judiciary Committee, it has been the Committee's practice when a nominee is the subject of an open investigation, the Committee generally does not move forward until the issues are resolved. Because of this practice, I objected to holding his hearing last month and requested the hearing be postponed to allow the investigation to finish. My request was denied. I then objected to putting him on the committee agenda until the non-partisan investigation was complete. Again, my request was rejected. And now, despite the fact there remains an open complaint of whistleblower retaliation against Mr. Jones before the Office of Special Counsel, his nomination will soon be considered by the full Senate. I want all my colleagues to know what happened because I am quite concerned by the direction it has taken, especially in light of the fact this practice seems to be spreading into other Senate committees as well. Over the past few months, there has been correspondence between my office and the Office of Special Counsel regarding the status of their proceedings. I had previously received a copy of an anonymous letter to the Office of Special Counsel making various allegations against Mr. Jones. I sent a letter to OSC on April 8, asking for an update on those allegations. On April 12, the Office of Special Counsel responded that there were two pending matters involving the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, where Mr. Jones is the United States Attorney. The first matter was a prohibited personnel practice complaint alleging reprisal for whistleblowing and other protected activity. The second matter was a whistleblower disclosure, alleging gross mismanagement and abuses of authority. The complaint, filed by an Assistant United States Attorney in the office, alleged that personnel actions, including a suspension and a lowered performance appraisal, were taken in retaliation for protected whistleblowing or other protected activity. On June 5, OSC provided the committee with an update to the two pending cases. It reported the whistleblower disclosure case had been closed based on its determination that the information provided was insufficient to determine with a substantial likelihood that gross mismanagement, an abuse of authority, or a violation of a law, rule, or regulation had occurred. Accordingly, OSC closed that case file. OSC's action to close the whistleblower disclosure case was not based on any investigation by that office. That action was merely a determination based on a technical review of the complaint document itself. It was not a finding on the merits of the complaint. With regard to the other issue, the prohibited personnel practice, I was informed the complaint was referred for investigation. Subsequently the complainant and Justice Department agreed to mediation. I was told that if mediation was unsuccessful, the case would return to OSC's Investigation and Prosecution Division for further investigation. My colleagues should understand that, of all the complaints received by OSC, only about 10 percent of them merit an investigation. This case was one of them. Why did the career, nonpartisan staff at OSC forward the case for investigation? Presumably because they thought it needed to be investigated. That says something about the likely merits of the case. Before the hearing, there was disagreement regarding the status of the Special Counsel's investigation. Accordingly, I contacted the Special Counsel, inquiring as to the status of the complaints. The Special Counsel confirmed for the second time that the investigation remains open. She stated, ``The reassignment of the case for mediation did not result in the matter being closed.'' Despite this, and over my objection, on June 11, the committee went forward with a hearing on the Jones nomination. We were told Mr. Jones' hearing needed to be held in order for him to have an opportunity to respond to the Office of Special Counsel complaints. I would note that a similar rationale was used to justify the Mayorkas hearing--to publicly address the allegations against the nominee. In Mr. Jones' case, in advance of the hearing, the Department of Justice sent a letter to me stating: ``Mr. Jones looks forward to answering your questions about these matters during his nominations hearing. . . .'' Additionally, Mr. Jones was quoted in the Star Tribune as saying, ``I am looking forward to meeting with the Committee and answering all their questions.'' However, as I expected, the hearing provided no information to the committee with regard to the open Special Counsel investigation. At the hearing, Mr. Jones said he could not talk about the complaint. Of course, this negated the whole reason why the hearing had even been scheduled. At his hearing, my first question to Mr. Jones was about the investigation. This is his reply: Because those complaints are confidential as a matter of law, I have not seen the substance of the complaints, nor can I comment on them. I have learned more from your statement today than I knew before I came here this morning about the nature and substance of the complaint. A few questions later, I inquired of Mr. Jones, ``Will you answer the complaints about the Assistant U.S. Attorney--because that is why you are here today?'' He replied: Well, quite frankly, Senator, I am at a disadvantage with the facts. There is a process in place. I have not seen the OSC complaint. I do know that our office, working with the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, is in the process of responding to the issues that you have talked about this morning, but I have not had the opportunity to either be interviewed or have any greater knowledge about what the OSC complaint is.'' So there we were, left with an open investigation of serious allegations of whistleblower retaliation. We were told the hearing was the opportunity for us to question the nominee and get these questions answered, but the nominee couldn't even talk about them at all. This put the Committee in the position of either allowing time for the Office of Special Counsel to do its job or looking into the matter for ourselves before proceeding. Strangely, late in the day before the hearing, the Majority offered to conduct some interviews the Friday following the hearing. That was quite perplexing to me. We were going to begin the investigation after the hearing had concluded. I could not remember when the committee had ever conducted an investigation after a nominee's hearing. The day after the hearing, the chairman's staff indicated to the media we were conducting a bipartisan probe. The media reported the majority staff had offered to conduct a bipartisan inquiry into the matters before the Office of Special Counsel. However, I am disappointed to report there was no genuine effort to gather all the facts. The majority only agreed to jointly interview one witness, the whistleblower himself. However, the majority refused to look into the substance of the whistleblower's claims. Even more troubling, it quickly turned into an inquiry of the whistleblower rather than into the alleged retaliatory action done by the nominee. The majority reached its own conclusion that it was not a whistleblower matter at all, but a personnel matter wherein management simply imposed discipline on a disruptive or insubordinate employee. However, there was never a factual record before the committee to support this conclusion. The majority determined the whistleblower is an uncooperative witness for being ``unwilling to provide documents''--meaning his personnel file. The whistleblower in this instance is an Assistant U.S. Attorney with 30 years of Federal service, 24 years of which he has served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. He has extensive leadership experience and in 2012 received the Assistant Attorney General's Distinguished Achievement Award. It should be quite alarming to us all that a staff investigation of a whistleblower's complaint would be twisted around into an apparent attempt to investigate the whistleblower. I have worked with many Federal Government whistleblowers over the years and this is exactly the type of treatment that whistleblowers fear. It is one of the main reasons they are afraid to come forward. This type of treatment raises serious concerns. Unfortunately, I have come to expect this out of the Federal Government agencies--attacking the whistleblower rather than investigate the underlying problem. I have seen it over and over again. But this sort of inquiry shouldn't be the way the Senate deals with whistleblowers or others who come forward to testify. The Senate cannot conduct itself this way. We cannot ignore ongoing investigations. In my opinion, we are neglecting our constitutional obligations. Eventually, one of these situations will embarrass the Senate, damage the reputation of the Federal Government, and, ultimately, probably cost the taxpayers, our constituents. So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose taking further action at this time on the nomination of B. Todd Jones for Director of ATF, another nominee with an open investigation. I will vote no on cloture and encourage my colleagues to do likewise. This is about protecting the advice and consent function of the Senate. The Senate should wait until the Office of Special Counsel has concluded its investigation and we know the truth about his retaliatory conduct against a protected whistleblower. There will be time to debate the other substantive concerns regarding this nomination. There may be additional reasons why my colleagues should oppose Mr. Jones's nomination. Other Senators may vote to confirm the nominee. But as a starting point, we should all be in agreement that it is imprudent and unwise for the Senate to give final consideration to any nominee where there is an open investigation into that nominee's conduct. The Senate cannot abdicate its duty to advise and consent on these nominees and simply rubberstamp them. As we consider this nomination, as well as a number of other nominations this week, I would urge my colleagues to ponder what a Federal agency needs in order to be best positioned to succeed. In my opinion, a Federal agency needs at least two things: a quality leader and proper congressional oversight. I think this is especially relevant as we consider the next Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is a powerful law enforcement agency facing numerous challenges today. First and foremost, the FBI is still undergoing a transformation from a Federal law enforcement agency to a national security agency. Following 9/11, the FBI's mission changed. Director Mueller was immediately thrust into the role of reinventing a storied law enforcement agency into a national security agency. While Director Mueller rose to the challenge and made tremendous strides in accomplishing this transformation, that job is not yet complete. It is still adjusting to prevent domestic terrorism. It must grow to combat the growing threat of cybercrimes that threaten our national security, our economy, and our infrastructure. The FBI needs a Director to continue to guide it as it rises to counter these serious threats. Second, the FBI must confront the growing concerns over the use of invasive methods of gathering information on American citizens. One example would be the proper use of drones by domestic law enforcement agencies. Last year I raised this issue with the Attorney General. It now appears his response was less than forthright. This year, I raised the issue with Director Mueller and again with Mr. Comey, today's nominee. Frankly, it is going to require a Director who is knowledgeable on the subject, the law, and who is willing to work with Congress in order craft the best policy with regard to this technology's potential use in domestic law enforcement. Third, a host of legacy problems at the FBI remain unsolved. The FBI has struggled to develop a working case management computer system. Management concerns remain about the proper personnel balance between special agents and analysts. It has yet to effectively manage agent rotations to the Washington, DC headquarters. A real or perceived double standard of discipline between line agents and management must be repaired. Significant concerns about internal FBI policies dealing with whistleblower retaliation exist. Each of these matters must be addressed as they threaten to undermine the hard work of the employees at the FBI. The position of FBI Director is unique in that it is a 10-year appointment subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. This 10- year term was extended 2 years ago on a one-time only basis. The extension allowed Director Mueller to serve an additional time period as the President failed to nominate a replacement. At the time, we held a special hearing to discuss the importance of a term limit for the FBI Director. One of the reasons Congress created a 10-year term was to ensure accountability of the FBI. Today, we vote on the nomination of James B. Comey for Director. Mr. Comey has a distinguished legal career. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School in 1985, Mr. Comey clerked for Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., U.S. district judge for the Southern District of New York. In 1986, he began his legal career with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, where he focused on civil litigation. In 1987, Mr. Comey became an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, eventually serving as deputy chief of the Criminal Division. He left the Department of Justice to return to private practice in 1993, joining McGuireWoods, LLP. While at McGuireWoods, he served as a deputy special counsel on the U.S. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater and Related Matters. During this time, he also served as an adjunct professor at the University of Richmond Law School. In 1996, Mr. Comey returned to government service as Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Office of the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. By 2002, Mr. Comey was appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. And in December 2003, he was appointed Deputy Attorney General, a position he served with honor and distinction until 2005, when he left government service. However, I would like to point out, and I think Mr. Comey would agree, that perhaps one of the best indicators about his judgment is that he had the smarts to marry an Iowan. At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Comey addressed many concerns raised by Senators from both sides of the aisle. His answers were direct and thoughtful. On subjects with which he was familiar, he spoke intelligently and straightforward. If he didn't know enough, he said so. There was no trying to hide the ball or cover for his lack of expertise in a particular area. In short, it was a refreshing change from the many nominees who come up here and try to parrot to Senators what nominees think we want to hear. Not so with Mr. Comey. In fact, several times when pressed on his views on a specific FBI policy, such as FBI whistleblower policies or domestic drone use, he confessed he had little or no knowledge of the current FBI policy but promised to thoroughly review the existing policies in place and the legal and moral issues surrounding the controversies. Furthermore, he pledged to work with Congress by being responsive to our inquiries for information. Now, these promises are not unique to Mr. Comey. Almost every nominee promises the Senate that he or she will be responsive to our concerns and requests for information. Sadly, especially under this administration, once confirmed, we rarely get an adequate response until right before that individual has an oversight hearing before a Senate or House Committee. I can only hope that Mr. Comey's efforts to be more transparent will not be stymied by the Department of Justice. As I said, I think that if any Federal agency, but especially the FBI, is to succeed, it needs quality leadership and proper congressional oversight. After examining his record, I think that Mr. Comey will prove to be that leader. Only time will tell, however, if this administration will allow Mr. Comey to engage the Congress and allow us to perform our constitutional duty of oversight to ensure that existing legislation and policies best serve this nation. I thank Mr. Comey for his willingness to return to public service. And I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, am I in order to speak about the nomination of Tony West?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Tony West to be Associate Attorney General. Although I will be supporting Mr. West's nomination, I have some concerns about his record that I want to share with my colleagues. This is a very important position. The Associate Attorney General is the third highest ranking official within the Department of Justice. Mr. West is currently serving as Acting Associate Attorney General, and as far as I can tell he has generally done a pretty good job. However, before serving as Acting Associate Attorney General, Mr. West was confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. My concerns are with his record while serving in that position. Specifically, while heading the Civil Division, Mr. West was involved in and even defended the quid quo pro deal between the Department of Justice and the City of St. Paul, MN. That scheme was orchestrated by Tom Perez, who headed the Civil Rights Division and was recently confirmed by the Senate to be Labor Secretary. My colleagues have heard me on the floor of this body many times talking about this quid pro quo, most often emphasizing Tom Perez's involvement with it, but not too much about Mr. West. The quid pro quo involved the Department agreeing to decline two False Claims cases pending against the City of St. Paul. Remember, if successful, those two False Claims cases were estimated--and they were pretty good cases--to bring $200 million back into the Federal Treasury. In exchange, the City of St. Paul would agree to drop a case pending before the Supreme Court. As I have said, I have spoken at length on the St. Paul quid pro quo as it relates to the nomination of Mr. Perez to be Secretary of Labor. As my colleagues know, I have been a major supporter of whistleblowers and their protection under the laws of this country. Whistleblowers are a very important source of information in helping us if laws are not being abided by or money is being misspent. Of course, that is why I authored the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act. It was to protect whistleblowers, but it also gives a resource for getting money back into the Federal Treasury if it is misspent. Those amendments--meaning the False Claims Act amendments-- revitalized the law by empowering individual qui tam whistleblowers to come forward and file suits on behalf of the Federal Government to recover taxpayer dollars lost to fraud. Since those amendments were enacted, over $40 billion has been recovered. Under Mr. West's tenure as head of the Civil Division, that Department has been successfully utilizing the tools of qui tam whistleblowers' information. Of course, they are not shy about saying so, and as far as I am concerned it is their right to do that. The more publicity we can have about recovering money under the False Claims Act, the more we may encourage more whistleblowers to come forth and recover even more money. The False Claims Act is within the purview of the Civil Division, which Mr. West oversaw at that time, not the Civil Rights Division. However, in the quid pro quo, the evidence uncovered by my investigation suggests that Mr. West allowed Tom Perez to take control of the Civil Division in order to cut this deal that saved Mr. Perez's favored legal theory referred to as the ``disparate impact'' theory. As I have discussed previously, Mr. Perez was concerned the Supreme Court was going to strike down this theory as unconstitutional. In doing so, the Department undercut a viable case against St. Paul and, in the process, left the whistleblower who filed the suit to fight the City on behalf of the American taxpayers all alone--left him out there twisting in the wind. This is not how I expect the Department to treat good-faith whistleblowers. They are patriotic people. They are people who probably destroyed their opportunity of livelihood because they know something is wrong and they want to report it, just as patriotic people ought to do. In fact, I believe it is contrary to the assurances Mr. West gave me during his confirmation hearing in 2009 when he indicated he would protect whistleblowers and vigorously enforce the False Claims Act. Let everybody understand there is not a single individual subject to Senate confirmation in the Justice Department who comes before the committee or to my office for an interview that I don't ask them their view of the False Claims Act, because I don't want anyone serving in the Justice Department who doesn't support vigorous enforcement and use of the False Claims Act. As I have said, ultimately Mr. Perez was the architect of this ill- advised quid pro quo that left Frederick Newell, a good-faith whistleblower, hanging out there to dry. In my view, Mr. Perez bears the most responsibility in this whole matter. He was the one who was manipulating the process and he did so at times behind the back of Mr. West. Nonetheless, Mr. West was the individual in charge of the Civil Division, and as head of that division the decision regarding whether to join those False Claims cases fell to Mr. West. It is troubling to me that Mr. Perez, who at the time was head of the Civil Rights Division, would be the one who was so clearly orchestrating the deal, and acting as de facto head of the Civil Division. Unfortunately, Mr. West let him get away with it. So that concerns me as it relates to the nomination of Mr. West to be the third highest ranking official at the Department of Justice. We need individuals serving in these positions who are willing to stand up to those who are trying to advance a political agenda; and that is exactly what Mr. Perez was trying to advance. In this instance, at least, it doesn't appear that Mr. West stood up to Mr. Perez as he should have. On the contrary, the record appears to indicate Mr. West allowed Mr. Perez to orchestrate this deal on behalf of the Civil Division even though Mr. Perez was head of the Civil Rights Division. However, notwithstanding these concerns, I am willing to give Mr. West the benefit of the doubt and vote for his nomination. Part of the reason I am willing to do so is because the Civil Division, under the leadership of Mr. West, has established a respectable record in utilizing the tools available under the False Claims Act amendments that I got passed in 1986 and that have brought back into the Treasury approximately $40 billion. And, as an instance of the use of the False Claims Act by Mr. West, the Civil Division secured approximately $4.9 billion coming back into the Federal Treasury in the single year of 2012. Taken together over the last several years, the Civil Division has secured a total of approximately $13.3 billion. Obviously, this is not an insignificant amount of taxpayer dollars coming back. Although the Department's recovery of this money, on the one hand, does not excuse their behavior in the quid pro quo matter, I do believe Mr. West deserves a certain degree of credit for his leadership in this area. So, as I said, I will support his nomination, and I expect he will be confirmed. It is my sincere hope he will perform his job well and not let somebody undercut him as he let Mr. Perez undercut him in regard to the quid pro quo and the False Claims cases involving St. Paul, MN. But I want him to know, and everybody else to know, that I plan to conduct aggressive oversight of the Department to ensure the mistakes that occurred as part of the quid pro quo that potentially cost the taxpayers nearly $200 million lost to fraud are not repeated. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Donnelly in introducing legislation that will prevent the EPA from distributing the personal information of farmers. This legislation comes in direct response to the EPA releasing personal information on over 80,000 farmers nationwide and over 9,000 farmers in Iowa. After the initial data release, I wrote a letter that was signed by 23 of my colleagues to the EPA asking them to explain their rationale for releasing the addresses, emails and phone numbers of so many producers. Their response was unsatisfactory to me so I am introducing this bill to stop the EPA from doing this again. The EPA's interpretation of the information which can be provided under a Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, request is simply too broad. Our Nation's farmers operate unique businesses in that their homes are often at the same location as their farming operation. When the EPA released this data, activist groups attained contact information and addresses for farm families whose way of life they oppose. This is unacceptable. I would also like to point out that this bill does not prevent the EPA from collecting the information about where farmers' operations are located. It also does not prevent EPA from disclosing information in the aggregate. The legislation simply prevents them from releasing personal information to the public. Furthermore, I am pleased to have support for this bill from 16 agriculture groups who agree that we should not enable activist groups with personal information. If we want people to trust our government, agencies like the EPA must quit taking actions that shake the confidence of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Donnelly in introducing legislation that will prevent the EPA from distributing the personal information of farmers. This legislation comes in direct response to the EPA releasing personal information on over 80,000 farmers nationwide and over 9,000 farmers in Iowa. After the initial data release, I wrote a letter that was signed by 23 of my colleagues to the EPA asking them to explain their rationale for releasing the addresses, emails and phone numbers of so many producers. Their response was unsatisfactory to me so I am introducing this bill to stop the EPA from doing this again. The EPA's interpretation of the information which can be provided under a Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, request is simply too broad. Our Nation's farmers operate unique businesses in that their homes are often at the same location as their farming operation. When the EPA released this data, activist groups attained contact information and addresses for farm families whose way of life they oppose. This is unacceptable. I would also like to point out that this bill does not prevent the EPA from collecting the information about where farmers' operations are located. It also does not prevent EPA from disclosing information in the aggregate. The legislation simply prevents them from releasing personal information to the public. Furthermore, I am pleased to have support for this bill from 16 agriculture groups who agree that we should not enable activist groups with personal information. If we want people to trust our government, agencies like the EPA must quit taking actions that shake the confidence of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this commonsense bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about the President's nominee for Secretary of Labor Tom Perez. I have already spoken about Mr. Perez over the last few weeks. I will not repeat everything I said, but it is important for my colleagues to understand the basis of my opposition. We have had a lot of debate around here over the last few days about what grounds are appropriate to oppose an executive branch nominee. Many of my colleagues have suggested that Senators should not vote against such a nominee based on disagreement over policy. That may or may not be the appropriate view, but I am not going to get into that debate today. I am quite sure I would disagree with Mr. Perez on a host of policy issues, but I wish to make clear to my colleagues those policy differences are not the reason I am vigorously opposed to this nominee. I am opposed to Mr. Perez because the record he has established of government service demonstrates that he is willing to use the levers of government power to manipulate the law in order to advance a political agenda. Several of my colleagues cited examples of his track record in this regard, but in my view perhaps the most alarming example of Mr. Perez's willingness to manipulate the rule of law is his involvement in the quid pro quo between the City of St. Paul and the Department of Justice. In this deal that the Department of Justice cut with the City of St. Paul, the Department agreed not to join two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing its case before the Supreme Court in a case called Magner v. Gallagher. Mr. Perez's actions in this case are extremely troubling for a number of reasons. At this point, no one disputes the fact that Mr. Perez actually orchestrated this entire arrangement. He manipulated the Supreme Court docket so that his favored legal theory, called disparate impact theory, would evade review by the High Court. In the process, Mr. Perez left a whistleblower twisting in the wind. Those are the facts and even Mr. Perez doesn't dispute them. The fact that Mr. Perez struck a deal that potentially squandered up to 200 million taxpayer dollars in order to preserve a disparate impact theory that he favored is, of course, extremely troubling in and of itself. But in addition to that underlying quid pro quo, the evidence uncovered in my investigation revealed Mr. Perez sought to cover up the facts that the exchange ever took place. Finally, and let me emphasize that this should concern all of my colleagues, when Mr. Perez testified under oath about the case, both to congressional investigators and during confirmation hearings, in those two instances, Mr. Perez told a different story. The fact is that the story Mr. Perez told is simply not supported by the evidence. Let me begin by reviewing briefly the underlying quid pro quo. In the fall of 2011, the Department of Justice was poised to join a False Claims Act lawsuit against the City of St. Paul. That is where the $200 million comes in. That is what was expected to be recovered. The career lawyers in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota were recommending that the Department of Justice join the case. The career lawyers in the Civil Division of the Department of Justice were recommending the Department join the case. And the career lawyers in the Department of Housing and Urban Development were recommending that Justice join the case. At that point, all of the relevant components of government believed this case was a very good case. They considered the case on the merits, and they supported moving forward, or as one of the line attorneys wrote in an e-mail in October, 2011: ``Looks like everyone is on board.'' But of course this was all before Mr. Perez got involved. At about the same time, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case called Magner v. Gallagher. In Magner, the City of St. Paul was challenging the use of the disparate impact theory under the Fair Housing Act. The disparate impact theory is a mechanism Mr. Perez and the Civil Rights Division were using in lawsuits against banks for their lending practices. For instance, during this time period Mr. Perez and the Justice Department were suing Countrywide for its lending practices based upon disparate impact analysis. In fact, in December 2011 the Department announced it reached a $355 million settlement with Countrywide. Again, in July 2012 the Department of Justice announced a $175 million settlement with Wells Fargo addressing fair lending claims based upon that same disparate impact analysis. Of course, there are a string of additional examples, but I don't need to recite them here. What is clear is that if that theory were undermined by the Supreme Court, it would likely spell trouble for Mr. Perez's lawsuits against the banks. Mr. Perez approached the lawyers handling the Magner case, and, quite simply, he cut a deal. The Department of Justice agreed not to join two False Claims Act cases in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing Magner from the Supreme Court. Now we have an interference in the agenda of the Supreme Court at the same time that a deal is going to cut the taxpayers out of winning back $200 million under the False Claims Act. In early February 2012 Mr. Perez flew to St. Paul, and he flew there solely to finalize the deal. The next week the Justice Department declined to join the first False Claims Act, called the Newell case. The next day the City of St. Paul kept their end of the bargain and withdrew the Magner case from the Supreme Court. There are a couple of aspects of this deal that I wish to emphasize for my colleagues. First, as I mentioned, the evidence makes clear that Mr. Perez took steps to cover up the fact he had bartered away the False Claims Act cases and the $200 million. On January 10, 2012, Mr. Perez called the line attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the memo in the Newell case. Newell was the case that these same career attorneys I referred to and quoted previously were strongly recommending the United States join before Mr. Perez got involved. Mr. Perez called the line attorney and instructed him not to discuss the Magner case in the memo that he prepared outlining the reasons for the decisions not to join the case. Here is what Mr. Perez said on that call: Hey, Greg. This is Tom Perez calling you at--excuse me, calling you at 9 o'clock on Tuesday. I got your message. The main thing I want to ask you, I spoke to some folks in the Civil Division yesterday and wanted to make sure that the declination memo that you sent to the Civil Division--and I am sure it probably already does this--but it doesn't make any mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the merits of the two cases that are under review in the qui tam context. It is pretty clear they didn't want anything in writing that led people to believe there was any deal being made. After that telephone message was left, approximately 1 hour later Mr. Perez sent Mr. Brooker a followup e-mail, writing: I left a detailed voicemail. Call me if you can after you have a chance to review [the] voicemail. Several hours later Mr. Perez sent another followup e-mail, writing: Were you able to listen to my message? Mr. Perez's voicemail was quite clear and obvious. It told Mr. Brooker to ``make sure that the declination memo . . . doesn't make any mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the merits of the two cases.'' It is so very clear. In fact, it couldn't be more clear that this was an effort--that there was no paper trail that there was ever any deal made. Yet, when congressional investigators asked Mr. Perez why he left the voicemail, he told an entirely different story. Here is what he told investigators: What I meant to communicate was, it is time to bring this to closure, and if the only issue that is standing in the way is how you talk about Magner, then don't talk about it. Anyone who actually listens to the voicemail knows this is plainly not what he said in that voicemail. He didn't say anything about being concerned with the delay. He said: Make sure you don't mention Magner. It is just a memo on the merits. His intent was crystal clear. Mr. Perez also testified that Mr. Brooker called him back the next day and refused to omit the discussion of Magner. Let's applaud that civil servant because he chose not to play that game. According to Mr. Perez, he told Mr. Brooker during this call to follow the normal process. Again, this story is not supported by the evidence. One month later, after Mr. Perez flew to Minnesota to personally seal the deal with the city, a line attorney in the Civil Division e-mailed his superior to outline the ``additional facts'' about the deal. Before I begin the quote, I want to give the definition of ``USA- MN,'' which stands for ``U.S. Attorney, Minnesota.'' Point 6 reads as follows: USA-MN considers it non-negotiable that its office will include a discussion of the Supreme Court case and the policy issues in its declination memo. If Mr. Perez's story were true and the issue was resolved on January 11, why 1 month later would the U.S. Attorney's Office need to emphatically state that it would not hide the fact that the exchange took place? As I just mentioned, Mr. Perez flew to Minneapolis to finalize the deal on February 3. You would think, wouldn't you, that a deal of this magnitude would be written down so the parties understood exactly what each side agreed to. But was this agreement written down? No, it wasn't. After Mr. Perez finalized the deal, the career attorneys asked if there was going to be a written agreement. What was Mr. Perez's response? He said: ``No, just oral discussions; word was your bond.'' So let me just review. At this point Mr. Perez had just orchestrated a deal where the United States declined to join a case worth up to $200 million of taxpayers' money in exchange for the City of St. Paul withdrawing a case from the Supreme Court. When the career lawyers asked if this deal will be written down, he said: ``No . . . [your] word was your bond.'' Of course, the reason you make agreements like this in writing is so that there is no disagreement down the road about what the parties agreed to. As it turns out, there was, in fact, a disagreement about the terms of this unwritten deal. The lawyer for the city, Mr. Lillehaug, told congressional investigators that on January 9, approximately 1 month before the deal was finalized, Mr. Perez had assured him that ``HUD would be helpful'' if the Newell case proceeded after the Department of Justice declined to intervene. Mr. Lillehaug also told investigators that on February 4, the day after they finalized the deal, Mr. Perez told him that HUD had begun assembling information to assist the city in a motion to dismiss the Newell complaint on ``original source'' grounds. According to Mr. Lillehaug, this assistance disappeared after the lawyers in the Civil Division learned of it. Why is that significant? Mr. Perez represents the United States. He represents the American people. Mr. Newell, the whistleblower, is bringing a case on behalf of the United States and indirectly the people. Mr. Perez is talking to the lawyers on the other side, and he tells the people, in essence: After the United States declines to join the case, we will give you information to help you defeat Mr. Newell, who is bringing the case on behalf of the United States. Let me say that a different way. In effect, Mr. Perez is offering to give the other side information to help defeat his own client. Is that the way you represent the American people? Mr. Perez was asked about this under oath. Mr. Perez told congressional investigators, ``No, I don't recall ever suggesting that.'' So on the one hand, we have Mr. Lillehaug, who says Mr. Perez made this offer first in January and then again on February 4 but the assistance disappeared after the lawyers in the Civil Division caught wind of it. On the other hand, it was Mr. Perez who testified under oath: ``I don't recall'' ever making such an offer. Whom should we believe? The documents support Mr. Lillehaug's version of the event. On February 7, a line attorney sent an e-mail to the director of the Civil Fraud Section and relayed a conversation a line attorney in Minnesota had with Mr. Lillehaug. The line attorney wrote that Mr. Lillehaug stated that there were two additional items that were part of the deal. One of the two items was this: HUD will provide material to the City in support of their motion to dismiss on original source grounds. Internal e-mails show that when the career lawyers learned of this promise, they strongly disagreed with it, and they conveyed their concern to Tony West, head of the Civil Division. During his transcribed interviews, Mr. West testified that it would have been ``inappropriate'' to provide this material outside of the normal discovery channels. Mr. West said: I just know that that wasn't going to happen, and it didn't happen. In other words, when the lawyers at the Civil Division learned of this offer, they shut it down. Again, why is this important? It is important because it demonstrates that the documentary evidence shows the events transpired exactly as Mr. Lillehaug said they did. Mr. Perez offered to provide the other side with information that would help them defeat Mr. Newell in this case on behalf of the United States. In my opinion, this is simply stunning. Mr. Perez represents the United States. Any lawyer would say it is highly inappropriate to offer to help the other side defeat their own client. This brings me to my final two points that I wish to highlight for my colleagues. Even though the Department traded away Mr. Newell's case and $200 million, Mr. Perez has defended his actions, in part by claiming that Mr. Newell still had his ``day in court.'' What Mr. Perez omits from his story is that Mr. Newell's case was dismissed precisely because the United States would not continue to be a party and would not be a party. After the United States declined to join the case, the judge dismissed Mr. Newell's case based upon the ``public disclosure bar,'' finding that he was not the original source of information to the government. I will remind my colleagues, we amended the False Claims Act several years ago precisely to prevent an outcome such as this. Specifically, the amendments made clear that the Justice Department can contest the ``original source'' dismissal even if it fails to intervene, as it did in this case. So the Department didn't merely decline to intervene, which is bad enough, but, in fact, it affirmatively chose to leave Mr. Newell all alone in this case. And, of course, that was the whole point. That is why it was so important for the City of St. Paul to make sure the United States did not join the case. That is why the city was willing to trade away a strong case before the Supreme Court, and when the Newell case didn't go forward, they cut the taxpayers out of $200 million. The city knew if the United States joined the action the case would almost certainly go forward. Conversely, the city knew if the United States did not join the case and chose not to contest the original source, it would likely get dismissed. The Department traded away a case worth millions of taxpayers' dollars. They did it precisely because of the impact the decision would have on the litigation. They knew as a result of their decision, the whole whistleblower case would get dismissed based upon ``original source'' grounds since the Department didn't contest it. Not only that, Mr. Perez went so far as to offer to provide documents to the other side that would help them defeat Mr. Newell in his case on behalf of Mr. Perez's client, the United States. That is really looking out for the taxpayers. How would a person like to have a lawyer such as Mr. Perez defending them in some death penalty case? Yet when the Congress started asking questions, they had the guts to say: ``We didn't do anything improper because Mr. Newell still had his day in court.'' Well, Mr. Newell didn't have his day in court because the success of that $200 million case was dependent upon the United States staying in it. Now, this brings me to my last point on the substance of this matter, and that has to do with the strength of the case. Throughout our investigation, the Department has tried to defend Mr. Perez's action by claiming the case was marginal and weak. Once again, however, the documents tell a far different story. Before Mr. Perez got involved, the career lawyers at the Department wrote a memo recommending intervention in the case. In that memo, they described St. Paul's actions as ``a particularly egregious example of false certifications.'' In fact, the career lawyers in Minnesota felt so strongly about the case they took the unusual step of flying to Washington, DC, to meet with officials in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, of course, agreed the United States should intervene in this false claims case. But, of course, that was all before Mr. Perez got involved. The documents make clear that career lawyers considered it a strong case, but the Department has claimed that Mike Hertz--the Department's expert on the False Claims Act--considered it a weak case. In fact, during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Perez testified before my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee that Mr. Hertz ``had a very immediate and visceral reaction that it was a weak case.'' Once again, the documents tell a much different story than was told to Members of the Senate. Mr. Hertz knew about the case in November of 2011. Two months later, a Department official took notes of a meeting where the quid pro quo was discussed. The official wrote down Mr. Hertz's reaction. She wrote: Mike--odd--Looks like buying off St. Paul. Should be whether there are legit reasons to decline as to past practice. The next day, the same official e-mailed the associate attorney general and said: Mike Hertz brought up the St. Paul disparate impact case in which the Solicitor General just filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court. He's concerned about the recommendation that we decline to intervene in two qui tam cases against St. Paul. These documents appear to show that Mr. Hertz's primary concern was not the strength of the case, as Mr. Perez led my Senate colleagues to believe. Mr. Hertz was concerned the quid pro quo Mr. Perez ultimately arranged was improper. Again, in his words, it ``looks like buying off St. Paul.'' Yet, Mr. Perez led my colleagues on the HELP Committee to believe that Mr. Hertz believed it was a bad case on the merits. Let me make one final point regarding process and why it is premature to even be having this debate. As of today, when we vote on Mr. Perez's nomination, we will be voting on a nominee who, to date, has not complied with a congressional subpoena compelling him to turn over certain documents to Congress. I am referring to the fact that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed e-mails from Mr. Perez. During the course of our investigation, we learned that Mr. Perez was routinely using his private e-mail account to conduct government business, including business related to the quid pro quo. In fact, the Department of Justice admitted that Mr. Perez had used his private e- mail account approximately 1,200 times to conduct government business. After Mr. Perez refused to turn those documents over voluntarily, then the House oversight committee was forced to issue a subpoena. Yet, today, Mr. Perez has refused to comply with the subpoena. Here we have a person in the Justice Department doing all of these bad things. People want him to be Secretary of Labor, and we are supposed to confirm somebody who will not respond to a subpoena for information to which Congress is constitutionally entitled. We have people come before Congress who say, yes, they will respond to letters from Congress; they will come up and testify; they are going to cooperate in the spirit of checks and balances, and then we have somebody before the Senate who will not even respond to a subpoena. So I find it quite troubling that this body would take this step and move forward with a nomination when the nominee simply refuses to comply with an outstanding subpoena. Can any of my colleagues recall an instance in the past when we were asked to confirm a nominee who had flatly refused to comply with a congressional subpoena? Why would we want somebody in the Cabinet thumbing their nose at the elected representatives of the people of this country who have the constitutional responsibility of checks and balances to make sure the laws are faithfully executed? That is what they take an oath to do. It is quite extraordinary and should concern all of my colleagues, not just Republicans. My colleagues are well aware of how I feel about the Whistleblower Protection Act, and my colleagues know how I feel about protecting whistleblowers who have the courage to step forward, often at great risk to their careers. But this is about much more than the whistleblower who was left dangling by Mr. Perez. This is about the fact that Mr. Perez manipulated the rule of law in order to get a case removed from the Supreme Court docket. And this is about the fact that when Congress started asking questions about this case, and when Mr. Perez was called upon to offer his testimony under oath, he chose to tell a different story. The unavoidable conclusion is that the story he told is not supported by the facts. This is also about the fact that we are about to confirm a nominee who, even as of today, is still thumbing his nose at Congress by refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena. I began by saying that although I disagree with Mr. Perez on a host of policy issues, those disagreements are not the primary reason my colleagues should reject this nomination. We should reject this nomination because Mr. Perez manipulated the levers of power available to few people in order to save a legal theory from Supreme Court review. Perhaps more importantly, when Mr. Perez was called upon to answer questions about his actions under oath, I do not believe he gave us a straight story. Finally, we should reject this nomination because Mr. Perez failed-- and refuses still--to comply with a congressional subpoena. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I have completed my statement and I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, during the debate over the budget, Dr. Coburn and I offered an amendment to create a separate and independent inspector general within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We introduced this amendment because, thanks to a quirk in Dodd- Frank, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the only major Federal agency without its own inspector general. I think people know I tend to rely a great deal on inspectors general within the bureaucracy to be an independent check to make sure the laws are followed and that money is spent according to the law. Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but it did not create a protection bureau-specific inspector general. Instead, because Dodd-Frank funded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau through the Federal Reserve, this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ended up sharing an inspector general with the Federal Reserve. This has created a problem. Right now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's inspector general has a split role. He serves as both inspector general for the Federal Reserve and for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I believe this creates a great deal of confusion and, obviously, a bureaucratic battle for resources. In fact, the inspector general has already had to create two separate audit plans. He also has had to hire employees who can oversee both the Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The end result is an office split by two very important but very different priorities. Dodd-Frank created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve in order to fund the Bureau without having to come to us on Capitol Hill to get congressional appropriations. This is a problem but not a problem I am going to deal with right now. We had a marriage of convenience, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve. The Bureau's function is very different from the Federal Reserve. Despite this, years after Dodd-Frank was passed, this unique situation remains. My concern is if you have one inspector general trying to cover two different entities, the end result is neither gets fully overseen. In other words, we don't have adequate checks within the bureaucracy to make sure that laws are abided by and that money is spent according to law. Since the passage of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Congress has believed that each Department and each agency needs its own independent inspector general. This has been a longstanding bipartisan position. Currently, there are 73 inspectors general, in every single Cabinet- level Department and almost all independent agencies. Even small independent agencies such as the Federal Maritime Commission and the National Science Foundation have their own inspector general. In each of these agencies, if each of these agencies has their own independent inspector general, shouldn't the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--particularly since this Bureau doesn't have to come to Congress for appropriations. We don't get appropriations oversight since some of their decisions can't even be challenged in the courts. Now we are in this situation. The majority has opposed commonsense changes such as this to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. During the budget debate when Dr. Coburn and I introduced the amendment to create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-specific inspector general, the majority would not allow it to be brought up for a vote. The position I heard over and over was the majority did not wish to relitigate Dodd-Frank in any way. I did not hear any concerns related to the merits of this proposal. Our amendment wasn't about relitigating anything, it was about creating accountability and oversight at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and doing that through an independent inspector general, such as 73 other independent agencies have these sorts of checks and balances. Because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, there are few, if any, congressional oversight checks on the Bureau. This makes an independent inspector general even more important. Right now, it seems to me, since we don't discuss Dodd-Frank very often, we don't have legislation related to it. We don't have opportunities to amend. This nomination of Mr. Cordray, now before the Senate, is the only tool the Senate has to create transparency and accountability within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As we consider this nomination, I hope we will remember that and consider the Senate's role in overseeing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, what steps we can take to make the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau more transparent and, hence, more accountable to Congress, and in turn to the American people. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, soon we will be voting on a district court nominee. I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jennifer Dorsey. That is for the U.S. district judgeship for the District of Nevada. Before I outline the basis for my opposition, I wish to inform my fellow Senators and the American public regarding facts on judicial nominations. We continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how we are obstructing nominees or treating this President differently. Those complaints are without foundation. I will quantify my answer to prove my point. There is no crisis in the manner in which we are confirming nominees. This is all part of a larger strategy to justify breaking the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate. The fact is that after today the Senate will have confirmed 199 lower court nominees. We have defeated two. That is 199 to 2. Who can complain about that record? The success rate happens to be 99 percent for the nominees sent by President Obama, considered on the floor of the Senate. We have been doing it at a very fast pace as well. During the last Congress we confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd Congress. That Congress sat from 1993 through 1994. This year we have already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Bush's second term. So far this year we have confirmed 27 judges. If confirmed today, Ms. Dorsey will be the 28th confirmation this year. Let's compare this with a similar stage, which would be President Bush's second term, when only 10 judicial nominees had been confirmed. So we are now at a 28-to-10 comparison, with President Obama clearly ahead of where President Bush was. But somehow we are hearing complaints. As I said, we have already confirmed more nominees this year, 28, than we did during the entirety of the year 2005, the first year of President Bush's second term, when 21 lower court judges were confirmed. After today only three article III judges remain on the Senate's Executive Calendar; two district nominees and one circuit nominee. Yet we hear the same old story. Somehow our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Senate majority, the Senate Democrats, cite this as evidence of obstructionism. Compare that to June 2004, when 30 judicial nominations were on the calendar, 10 circuit, 20 district. I do not recall any Senate Democrat complaining about how many nominations were piling up on the calendar, nor do I remember protests from my colleagues on the other side that judicial nominees were moving too slowly. Some of those nominees had been reported out of committee more than 1 year earlier and most were pending for months. Some of them never did get an up-or-down vote. The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's nominees exceptionally fairly. I do not know why that message cannot get through. It is an excuse to abuse the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate. President Obama certainly is being treated more fairly in the beginning of his second term than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in the first year of his last term in office. It is not clear to me how allowing more votes so far this year than President Bush got in an entire year amounts to ``unprecedented delays and obstruction.'' Yet that is the complaint we hear over and over and over again from the other side. I wanted to set the record straight. It is a sad commentary that I have to spend so much time when figures speak for themselves. But I will set the record straight again before we vote on the nomination of Ms. Dorsey. I have concerns with this particular nominee. I think all Members are aware of the press accounts of campaign contributions which were made at the time this nomination was under consideration. We have not received a full explanation of what happened. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the appearances of these contributions and how such actions might undermine the public confidence that our citizenry must have in the judicial branch of our government. I also have concerns about Ms. Dorsey's qualifications to be a Federal judge. She has no criminal law experience. She has participated in only six trials, one as a sole counsel, one as first chair, and four as second chair. I am concerned that her lack of experience will be a problem when she gets to the bench. It is not surprising to me that the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary gave her a partial ``not qualified'' rating. I am also concerned with her understanding of the proper role of a judge. While in law school, she wrote a note that praised the Justices who wrote Roe v. Wade. She praised them for the willingness to ``forge ahead to create a just outcome without regard to the usual decisional restraints.'' Then, she said, ``The majority made the just decision and then forced history and stare decisis to fit that decision.'' Ms. Dorsey praised judges who made their decision--and I want to use her words--``without regard to the usual decisional restraints.'' Those words are not the kind of words judges should be using. That is not the kind of judges we want, those who are activist judges who impose their own policy preferences rather than in following enacted law or precedent. What do we want? We want judges who will be restrained by precedent and by the laws Congress passes. Although Ms. Dorsey said she no longer supports what she once wrote, I am unconvinced she will be able to lay her policy preferences aside when they conflict with what the law dictates she ought to do. For all the reasons I mentioned above, I cannot support the nominee. I have two news articles that describe the campaign contribution issue I discussed earlier. I ask unanimous consent that those articles be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Gregory Alan Phillips to be United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit. This is the 27th judicial confirmation this year. With today's confirmation, the Senate will have confirmed 198 lower court nominees; we have defeated two. That is 198-2, which is an outstanding record. That is a success rate of 99 percent. We have been doing these at a fast pace. During the last Congress, we confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd Congress, which was 1993-1994. This year, the beginning of President Obama's second term, we have already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first year of President Bush's second term. Let me emphasize that again-- we've already confirmed more nominees this year than we did during the entirety of 2005, the first year of President Bush's second term. After today, only four article III judges remain on the executive calendar--three district nominees and one circuit nominee. Yet somehow Senate Democrats cite this as evidence of obstructionism. Compare that to the calendar of June 2004, when 30 judicial nominations were on the calendar--10 circuit and 20 district. I don't recall any Senate Democrats complaining about how many nominations were piling up on the calendar. Nor do I remember protestations from my colleagues on the other side that judicial nominees were moving too slowly. Some of those nominees had been reported out more than a year earlier and most were pending for months. Some of them never got an up or down vote. The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's nominees exceptionally fairly. President Obama certainly is being treated more fairly in the beginning of his second term than Senate Democrats treated President Bush in 2005. It is not clear to me how allowing more votes so far this year than President Bush got in an entire year amounts to ``unprecedented delays and obstruction.'' Yet that is the complaint we hear over and over from the other side. After today's votes, there will be 84 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. But 53 of those spots are without a nominee. How is it Republicans' fault that the President has not sent 53 nominees to the committee? Obviously, common sense ought to tell you that we can't act on nominees who are not presented to the Senate. I just wanted to set the record straight--again--before we vote on this nomination. Mr. Phillips received his B.S. in 1983 and his J.D. in 1987, both from the University of Wyoming. Upon graduation, he served as a law clerk from 1987 to 1989 to the Honorable Alan B. Johnson, U.S. district judge for the District of Wyoming. After completion of his clerkship, he worked in private practice in the town of Evanston. There he practiced a wide variety of civil law, including personal injury, wills and estates, real property, contracts, worker's compensation, employment, domestic relations, and bankruptcy. For a few months during this time, Mr. Phillips served as a part-time deputy county attorney, mostly prosecuting misdemeanor crimes until a new county attorney could be elected. In 1998, Mr. Phillips and Matthew H. Mead, presently serving as Governor of Wyoming, opened a law practice in Cheyenne, focusing on Medicaid, insurance, banking, and Federal tort claims law. Mr. Phillips served as a special attorney general during this period, handling a Medicaid third-party and estate reimbursement for Wyoming. Mr. Phillips joined the U.S. Attorney's office in 2003 as an assistant U.S. attorney, where he first worked on both civil and criminal issues before shifting to exclusively criminal work. In 2011, Mr. Phillips was appointed by Governor Mead to be attorney general of the State of Wyoming. As attorney general, he manages five law divisions, overseeing arguments before the Wyoming Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Gang of 8 in their framework for comprehensive immigration reform said the following: Our legislation will provide a tough, fair, and practical roadmap to address the status of unauthorized immigrants in the United States that is contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays. It sounds good, doesn't it? They said their plan would be contingent upon success. But the bill doesn't do that. The bill doesn't say the border has to be secured. It doesn't say that we need to see results. It only throws more money at the problem and puts more boots on the ground. Of course, that is a good start. But as we have seen before, that is not enough. It is not enough to ensure we will not be back here in the same place 25 years down the road, devising new plans. So I am going to take a few minutes to discuss the legalization program created in this bill. Since I was here in 1986, I know that loopholes allowed people to gain legalization even if they weren't entitled to it. We had problems with fraud and abuse back then, and I am afraid it will be the same if the bill is passed in its current form. Time and time again we have been told the bill will allow people here illegally to register and earn legal status, then become contributing members of society. Yet the bill fails to address how to prevent a continued influx of individuals who will replace those currently living in the shadows. Take the CBO report as an example. CBO said illegal immigration would only be reduced by 25 percent. That is not acceptable, especially given the promise of the Gang of 8 that the bill would ``be a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited.'' The legalization program begins upon the mere admission of a strategy submitted by the Secretary of Homeland Security. So almost immediately, millions of people will come forward and be made lawful. Remarkably, the bill virtually suspends enforcement during the 2\1/ 2\-year legalization application period. It prohibits law enforcement from detaining or removing anyone claiming eligibility without any requirement to prove they are, in fact, eligible. Law enforcement is even required to inform those here illegally about legalization and give them the opportunity to apply. Under the bill, undocumented immigrants already here can apply for and receive legal status, even if they have committed document fraud, provided false statements to authorities, and absconded court-ordered removal proceedings. During this time, there is an enforcement holiday. Enforcement officers would be limited in detaining or removing any individual who merely claims eligibility for RPI status, regardless of whether there is proof to back that up. Perhaps the enforcement holiday would be mildly concerning if we were dealing with individuals who only violated civil immigration laws. Unfortunately, the bill extends to those with criminal records. This includes individuals who have gang affiliations, even felony arrests, and even multiple misdemeanor criminal convictions. Moreover, the bill permits individuals who attain legalization to continue criminal behavior, so long as their behavior and subsequent convictions remain below the eligibility threshold. In fact, the bill goes even further and--can you believe this--provides the Secretary with waiver authority in order to dismiss misdemeanor criminal convictions for purposes of determining eligibility for legal status. The bill does not limit those outside the country from applying for legalization. The bill states that individuals who have previously been deported or otherwise removed from the country are ineligible for RPI status. However, one need only turn a few pages to discover that the Secretary has sole, as well as unreviewable, discretion to waive this provision and permit large classes of individuals to apply for legalization. There is yet another way of providing and allowing individuals who have been removed or reentered illegally to apply for status, if they are fortunate enough to have a relative who does, in fact, qualify for legalization. This weakens and undermines even current law where Congress has already declared that individuals who reenter illegally are not entitled to immigration benefits. Amendments to prohibit those ordered removed, those currently in removal proceedings, and those who have absconded and failed to show up for removal proceedings from applying or being granted legal status were voted down during committee considerations. An amendment to prevent spousal abusers, child abusers, drunk drivers, and other serious criminals from obtaining legal status was also rejected. I know the public listening or reading these records will not believe that Congress could do those things, that it is OK to have those people with that sort of criminal activity being legalized, but that is what the bill allows. These amendments also could have been voted on during floor debate, but the majority refused to allow their consideration. Now, the process for obtaining legalization is ripe for abuse and potentially encourages crafty behavior for individuals to game the system. Under the bill, individuals applying for legal status are permitted to file numerous amended applications in the event their initial application is denied for failure to complete properly or provide required documentation. In practice, one could continue to file numerous amended applications, knowing each application is incomplete, resulting in a perpetual limbo where an individual can remain here for an indeterminate time without any possibility of removal. Another area of potential abuse permits otherwise ineligible individuals to remain indefinitely in the United States. The bill provides for a stay of removal until a newly created administrative appellate review process of the application has been exhausted. One need only imagine the vast loophole created that will allow ineligible applicants to remain in the United States pending a typically extremely lengthy review process. When combined with a never ending application process and an expansive, time consuming appeals process, individuals can remain here for years without ever obtaining legal status, and without any fear of removal. Under the bill, people with RPI status must prove that they have been employed during the duration of their status. Yet, the bill allows people to prove that employment--which is required to get a green card--using merely a sworn affidavit. We know from our 1986 experience that sworn affidavits are highly unreliable, and incentivize massive fraud. They are not verifiable or trustworthy. A New York Times article from 1988 shows just how easy it was for immigrants to get false affidavits. During one investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service arrested seven people for selling fraudulent affidavits to new immigrants. One of these seven fraudsters ran a scheme that sold affidavits to 1,400 people here illegally. They had thousands more applications filled out and waiting for others. In fact, while investigators were on site seizing the evidence, dozens of individuals arrived to purchase more fraudulent affidavits. Buying and selling fake documents was a thriving business and can be again. According to the article, one person arrested had 364 fraudulent affidavits on her five-acre farm. A third of these fraudsters went from farm to farm, offering false affidavits to farmers for prices from $950 to $3,000. The Majority has rejected several amendments that would improve on the 1986 legalization. That is unfortunate. The bill will lead to further fraud. It is my hope these provisions can still be fixed before any bill is sent to the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I do not support the overall Senate legislation as it is drafted. On this particular matter, I agree with Chairman Leahy that logging employment would be covered in the definition of ``agricultural employment'' for purposes of the new W agricultural visa program. Those workers that previously had access to the H-2A program should have access to the new W agricultural visa program. Ms. COLLINS: I thank my colleagues for this clarification. This will maintain the status quo by allowing loggers, who currently enter the United States under the H-2A program, to enter the United States under the new W agricultural visa program. A reliable supply of labor, when American workers are not available, is critical for downstream industries such as paper mills in Maine. I now wish to speak on an issue of significant importance to the forest products industry in Maine. The immigration bill before the Senate contains an ambiguity related to the definition of ``agricultural employment'' for purposes of the new W agriculture visa program. Currently, logging employment is included in the H-2A visa program, pursuant to a rule adopted by the Department of Labor in 2008. The new W agricultural visa program will replace the H-2A visa program. Therefore, I wanted to make sure the logging workers who are currently eligible for the H-2A visa will be eligible for the new W agricultural visa program. My constituents are not asking for a carve-out or special favor. They are simply asking that the status quo be maintained in the new program. Consequently, my colleague, Senator King, and I engaged in a colloquy with the managers of the bill, Senators Leahy and Grassley, to clarify that the intent of the legislation is not to exclude logging employment, as defined in title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations in section 655.103(c)(4), from the definition of ``agricultural employment'' for purposes of the new W agricultural visa program. I am grateful to my colleagues for making this clarification. In addition, I received a letter from Secretary Vilsack of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record. In this letter, Secretary Vilsack said that he is committed to working with Congress on this issue and working ``to implement the W Agricultural Visa program so that it covers logging to the extent possible, since those workers have historically been eligible for the prior H-2A agricultural worker program.'' I thank Secretary Vilsack for his commitment and look forward to working with him on this topic. This is an important issue to my State of Maine and I thank my colleagues and Secretary Vilsack for working with me on this issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I did not come to speak. I came to object to the Senator's unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I think there is an insinuation in his comment that there is a strategy on our part not to speak. That is not true. It is that there is a Republican meeting going on right now. I went to that meeting and said to the people in the meeting they ought to be out here speaking and they had an opportunity to do it. And, for the group, I have objected for that reason. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have talked a lot about how the immigration bill would or would not prevent illegal immigration in the future. This is a huge concern because we don't want to be back in 25 years proposing the same short-term solutions to the problems. I wish to take a few minutes about the national security implications of the bill. There are valid concerns that the bill will put public safety and the homeland at risk. I will walk through some of the issues and point out how we tried in committee to change the bill in this effort and, of course, we failed. First, the bill contains a dangerous national security loophole that would render the U.S. Government unable to share information with foreign governments about immigrants who have had their status revoked. An amendment to preserve the ability of law enforcement to access critical, national security, public safety information and at the same time authorize the Secretary of State to share limited information with a foreign government while protecting legitimate privacy interests was rejected. Second, the bill provides the Secretary of State with authority to limit in-person interviews of visa applicants abroad. The Secretary of Homeland Security is not required to interview anyone who applies for registered provisional immigrant status. We learned a valuable lesson after September 11, 2001, because the hijackers were not interviewed and applications were rubberstamped. An amendment to require individuals who may be a threat to national security to submit to an in-person interview with consular officers when applying for a visa was voted down. Third, there were gaping holes in the student visa process. Yet the committee rejected attempts to delay the expansion of the student visa program until the tracking system in place was improved. Fourth, the amendment makes it almost impossible to revoke a person's visa when they are on U.S. soil. An amendment to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State to refuse or revoke visas when, in the national interest, as was the case with the Christmas Day bomber, was rejected. Fifth, the bill does not address the concerns brought to the surface by recent events such as the Boston terrorist bombing. We are profoundly troubled with the lack of concern about lessons that can be learned from the failings of the immigration process, which may have contributed to recent events such as the Boston terrorist bombing. We need to understand and we need to address these failures before proceeding with some of the provisions in this bill, especially the asylum and student visa expansion measures. Putting revised procedures in place before gaining an understanding of what does not work in our current system is not good stewardship of the trust of the American people and the trust people placed in us as their representatives in Congress. Our Nation's security is at risk and we cannot ignore it. We need to understand what is wrong with the system to prevent events such as the Boston bombing from happening again. However, an amendment to delay an expansion of asylum and student visa programs until there has been a coordinated review detailing the intelligence and immigration failures of the Boston Marathon terrorist attack was also voted down in committee. Our national security must be a paramount concern with any immigration reform. Eliminating weaknesses in our system, including along the border and the interior, would make our Nation much safer. Regrettably, this bill falls far short of this goal. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to make an inquiry about time. We were supposed to start the last 20 minutes. Is it OK if I start now with my final remarks?