Floor Statements

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

Madam President, this week the Senate will vote on the nomination of Michael Brennan to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Milwaukee.

Judge Brennan is a highly qualified nominee with broad, bipartisan support in his own State of Wisconsin. The Senate Judiciary Committee received numerous letters in support of Judge Brennan's nomination, including from the longtime Democratic Milwaukee district attorney. I fully support this nomination.

I have heard from some of my colleagues--and especially from those on the other side of the aisle--that they believe Judge Brennan shouldn't have received a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. They say this because one Senator from Wisconsin didn't return the blue slip. But their opinions are based on an incorrect understanding of the blue slip's history.

As I explained last year several times on the Senate floor and several times in committee, the blue slip courtesy is just that--a courtesy. It has a history going back to 1917. Since then, chairmen of the Judiciary Committee have distributed blue slips to home State Senators to get feedback on the nominees to the Federal bench in their respective States.

Chairmen have applied the blue slip courtesy differently in its 100- year history. For the first 39 years of its existence, the blue slip had no bearing on whether a nominee went through the committee process. Then, in 1956, Senator James Eastland of Mississippi became chairman. He started requiring both home State Senators to return positive blue slips before the committee would ever proceed on a judicial nomination. Scholars maintain that Chairman Eastland adopted this policy to allow southern Senators to veto nominees sympathetic to the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

Then, when Senator Ted Kennedy took over the chairmanship from Senator Eastland in 1979, he went back to the original blue slip policy.

Then comes along Chairman Strom Thurmond continuing that policy. Then comes along Chairman Joe Biden continuing that policy, and Chairman Orrin Hatch followed that policy. Under the policies of those chairmen just mentioned, negative or unreturned blue slips did not necessarily preclude a hearing for a nominee.

When Senator Leahy became chairman during the Bush administration, he did away with this policy and resurrected Chairman Eastland's strict blue slip policy. The reason for this strict blue slip policy was obvious to everyone at that time--at least obvious to everybody on our side of the aisle--to block President George W. Bush's judicial nominees based on politics and ideology, something that never played much of a role in a lot of these nominations prior to 2002. In sum, only 2 of my 18 predecessors who extended the blue slip courtesy required signoff from both home State Senators.

When Senator Leahy adopted an historical blue slip policy, that was his prerogative as chairman, and nobody argues with that. But it is my prerogative to have the same blue slip policy as Chairman Biden and Chairman Kennedy and the vast majority of predecessors. Accordingly, I have said this: Negative or unreturned blue slips will not necessarily preclude the hearing for circuit court nominees unless the White House failed to consult with home State Senators. I get all sorts of information--and I demand all sorts of information--from the White House on this sort of consultation that is going on. That is why I held hearings for David Stras, Kyle Duncan, Michael Brennan, and Ryan Bounds, despite the lack of two positive blue slips from home State Senators. This policy is completely bipartisan. I have applied it to blue slips of Democratic and Republican Senators.

Some people have suggested that I had a different blue slip policy during the final 2 years of President Obama's administration. They pointed to nine judicial nominees with blue slip problems who didn't receive hearings. But five of these nominees were to district courts, and I have said repeatedly that I am less likely to proceed to district court nominees without two positive blue slips.

With respect to the four circuit court nominees who didn't receive hearings during the last Congress, their nominations simply came too late in the Congress to process. They were nominated during the Presidential election year of

2016, and in Presidential election years, we have the Leahy-Thurmond rule that applies. Under the Leahy-Thurmond rule, the Senate typically stops confirming judges by midsummer. I am assuming that I gave Senators in 2016 the same timeline that I gave to former Senator Franken to return his blue slip for Justice Stras. We wouldn't have started holding hearings then until 2016, and by delaying until that period of time, we would have not had the record number of circuit court judges that we have had during this Presidency, because, then, the Leahy-Thurmond rule would have barred their confirmations. These four nominees also lacked floor support, and it would have been a waste of time and resources if we had proceeded. That was my judgment as chairman.

Chairman Leahy similarly refused to hold hearings for at least six circuit court nominees for reasons besides the blue slips. He denied hearings for three nominees in the Fourth Circuit: Steve Matthews, Robert Conrad, and Glen Conrad. These nominees had two positive blue slips from their home State Senators, and two were nominated more than a year before the 2008 Presidential election, but even then, Chairman Leahy refused to process them.

Chairman Leahy also refused to act on the nomination of Peter Keisler, President Bush's nominee to the DC Circuit, who was nominated in 2006. Obviously, blue slips were not the reason for my predecessor's decision to stall Mr. Keisler's nomination for more than 2 years since the District of Columbia has no Senators. These decisions allowed President Obama then to stack the DC Circuit and also the Fourth Circuit with liberal judges.

Chairman Leahy also declined to hold hearings for two Sixth Circuit Court nominees to Ohio seats, even though both Ohio Senators had returned positive blue slips. The Democratic Senators from Michigan asked Chairman Leahy to halt proceedings on all Sixth Circuit nominees, not just those from Michigan. So Chairman Leahy honored this request and denied a hearing to the Ohio nominees, even though the blue slips had been returned. This was the first time ever a chairman allowed Senators to halt committee proceedings on nominees for seats in other States.

As Chairman Leahy's example shows, there isn't just one reason. There are multiple reasons for any chairman of the Judiciary Committee to deny a hearing to a nominee. Likewise, my decision not to hold hearings for the four nominees in 2016 wasn't based solely on the lack of blue slips. It is simply false, then, for my colleagues to say I changed my blue-slip policy since that particular time.

As to my decision then to hold a hearing on the nominee now before the Senate, Judge Brennan, I was satisfied that the White House adequately consulted with both Wisconsin Senators. The White House sought input from the Wisconsin Senators and considered all the candidates recommended by each Senator. I understand the frustration that Wisconsin's judicial nominating commission hasn't worked out as had been planned by the two Senators, but Judge Brennan was the only candidate to receive bipartisan support from the commission process that is used in Wisconsin. Moreover, the commission's dysfunction can't be used as an excuse to deny the President his constitutional authority to make judicial nominations.

I would also like to point out that each Senator who has withheld a blue slip this Congress also voted to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations back in 2013. The argument then was that 41 Senators shouldn't be allowed to block the will of a majority of this Senate, but now these same Senators have reversed themselves, saying any one Senator should have that right, through holding a blue slip, to denying the Senate an opportunity to vote.

Understand, just a few years ago, they wanted to abolish 41 Senators holding up a nomination, but today they stand before us and say one Senator ought to be able to do what they said 41 Senators shouldn't be able to do. I will not allow the blue slip to be abused in this way. The blue slip is meant to encourage consultation between the White House and home State Senators. It is not a way for Senators to have veto power over nominees for political or ideological reasons.

Finally, I hear a lot these days about the President stacking the courts or the Senate rubberstamping nominees. Well, I stand by our process. It gives Senators every opportunity to probe deeply into nominees' backgrounds. As five nominees from last year will attest, not everyone makes it through this rigorous scrutiny. I would like to bring attention to two recent Supreme Court decisions that the Trump administration lost.

In Sessions v. Dimaya, the Supreme Court held that the government could not deport an immigrant under a vague statutory provision. The pivotal vote was cast by President Trump's own Supreme Court nominee, Justice Neil Gorsuch.

In another case, Chicago v. Sessions, the Seventh Circuit held that the government could not deny funding to so-called sanctuary cities. It happens the three judges who carried that case were all appointed by Republican Presidents.

I bring up these cases not because I agree or disagree with their outcomes but simply to point out that the fears of the President stacking the judiciary are overblown. Conservative judges apply the law as written, regardless of the results, but I suppose liberals expect their judges to be results-oriented. That is why we can always confidently predict how a liberal judge might rule on a case. Liberal outside groups' real fear, then, is that newly confirmed judges recognize that their role is to neutrally apply the law, not to legislate from the bench.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today, April 26, 2018, we celebrate World Intellectual Property Day and recognize the important role intellectual property plays in the fabric of society. We take time to recognize the innovators and creators who are making our lives healthier, safer, and more productive through their ingenuity and the robust system of intellectual property protections enshrined in our laws.

This year's World Intellectual Property Day campaign in particular celebrates the women who are driving change and making our common future better though innovation in so many fields including science, healthcare, art, engineering, and design, just to name a few.

Inspiring contributions from countless women are powering innovation in our world. For example, Helen Murray Free was inducted into the National Inventor's Hall of Fame in 2000 and awarded the national medal of technology and innovation in 2010 for her pioneering work in self- testing systems for diabetes. She received seven patents for her work. Iowa's own Mary Florence Potts also used the American patent system to protect three of her inventions. Her work improved the safety of common household appliances, and her novel iron design was even displayed at the 1876 World's Fair in Philadelphia. Elise Harmon holds numerous patents for technology, ranging from microprocessor production to high- altitude carbon brush performance. Our intellectual property system must continue to protect and reward the work of women like Helen Murray Free, Mary Florence Potts, and Elise Harmon.

We need to continue creating an environment where innovative, creative women are empowered, connected, and celebrated. This involves ensuring a robust, inclusive intellectual property system that fosters and rewards innovation and the widespread ingenuity that has made America a leading force in the global economy.

The Founding Fathers recognized that robust intellectual property infrastructure fosters creative talent and enhances innovative spark. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says ``Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' Placing this authority within Congress's enumerated powers underscores the weight that our Founding Fathers placed on intellectual property's value to the budding Nation. Although the American system of intellectual property rights has evolved since the ratification of the Constitution, its core mission of promoting innovation has remained constant. As a result, America has long been on the forefront of intellectual property and a leader in so many IP-intensive fields. Our IP system is one that rightly rewards creativity and passion, characteristics common to so many Americans.

Intellectual property is also critical to our national economy because it fuels innovation that improves lives and creates jobs. The United States is one of the most dynamic and innovative countries in the world. Our Nation's success in areas such as agriculture, manufacturing, computer technology, and medicine can be traced in large measure to our respect for and protection of intellectual property. In our modern, innovation economy, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and other forms of IP are more critical than ever. IP protections and incentives drive enormous economic activity and development, helping assure America's place as an economic and intellectual beacon to the world. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, IP-intensive industries account for more than 45 million direct and indirect U.S. jobs--that is nearly a third of the workforce--and almost 40 percent of U.S. GDP. In addition, these jobs pay well. Average weekly wages in IP-intensive industries are 46 percent higher than in non-IP intensive fields. As a society, we depend on innovators not just to fuel our economy, but to make our lives better and to solve the challenges we face. These innovators, in turn, depend on different forms of intellectual property.

The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in protecting intellectual property. The committee exercises jurisdiction over our Nation's intellectual property laws, including those governing patents, trademarks, and copyrights. We consider legislation that helps to ensure that intellectual property rights continue to promote jobs and innovation. The committee also exercises important oversight of the Patent and Trademark Office, the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, and various law enforcement entities charged with protecting IP. Just last week, we held an oversight hearing with Director

Iancu from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We heard about what is going well and about some of the difficulties facing the Office, as well as other intellectual property stakeholders. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to embrace my role as a promoter of intellectual property rights, innovation, and ultimately American jobs.

This World Intellectual Property Day, it is important to once again recognize the significance of our Nation's robust system of intellectual property protection and enforcement. As we recognize the positive impacts IP has on innovation, let's continue to find ways to work together to ensure its protection against infringement. We want the United States to maintain its position as the most innovative and creative country in the world.

Mr. President, at a time when we are facing serious international challenges, from Russian meddling, to North Korean sabre- rattling, to an increasingly assertive China, it is very essential that the President have a qualified Secretary of State whom he trusts to be on the job.

Mike Pompeo unquestionably understands the international challenges we face and is more than capable of being a very effective Secretary of State. When I talk to our allies, they are anxious to see him on the job.

Unfortunately, some on the other side of the aisle are now claiming that he is not suited for the post of Secretary of State because of positions he took as a Member of Congress or his holding to traditional Christian teachings, as if a person's religion ought to have something to say about their being in public office or public service. Others have spoken about that, and I don't have a whole lot more to add on that point. I would note the irony, though, that many of the Senators who are most likely to vote against Cabinet nominees are also rumored to have Presidential ambitions. They should ask themselves if they truly want to live with the precedent they are setting.

You don't have to like the President personally or support the President's policies, but as an American, it is in all of our interests to have a fully functioning executive branch, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

If a mainstream Republican former Member of Congress is deemed unacceptable because of his beliefs, how should mainstream Republicans vote when faced with future nominees who do not share the beliefs that Republicans hold? Should Republicans just willy-nilly vote against any future nominee who does not share our political or religious views?

That said, I would like to focus on other attributes of Director Pompeo's which some have criticized but which I see as assets.

By all accounts, this nominee's tenure at the CIA has been a success. However, some Senators who supported him then are now arguing that he should not be Secretary of State because he is not diplomatic enough.

First, let's dismiss the more radical talking points about his being a warmonger. The theory is that President Trump is liable to start a war at any moment, so we need to force him, as President, to have Cabinet officials surrounding him who will counteract his impulses. We could have a hypothetical debate about whether, if the American people elect a warmonger as President, he should be allowed to appoint a warmonger Cabinet, but suffice it to say that I don't think that label applies to Mike Pompeo or Donald Trump, and I view such accusations as simply cheap partisan talking points.

On the other hand, it is fair to say that Mike Pompeo doesn't always couch his words in diplomatic niceties. He doesn't mince words about the threats that we face. And his time at the CIA has surely enhanced his strategic thinking. That is good, and that is exactly what we need at the State Department. We need less diplomatic double-talk and more clear-eyed, strategic thinking about international threats.

Real diplomacy isn't always about sweet talk. Sometimes it requires taking a firm stand, and to be effective, it should be part of a strategic vision that incorporates all the elements of statecraft. For instance, I hope we have finally discarded once and for all the diplomatic impulse to make unilateral concessions to President Putin in hopes they will be reciprocated, as exemplified by the Obama-Clinton reset. We all know it didn't really reset. If you understand Russian history and Russian political culture, you know that Russians, especially from a KGB pedigree, are likely to see this as a sign of weakness to be exploited. Diplomatic overtures to the Russians without a corresponding demonstration of strength are simply an invitation to further aggression and misbehavior.

I think we are finally arriving at a bipartisan consensus that Russia is a major geopolitical foe. Mike Pompeo has made clear that he has no doubts about the threat from Russia. He understands the need to push back and push back hard against Russia's attempt to dominate its neighbors and sow discord in the West. The threat from Russia will need a strategic plan that integrates all the elements of statecraft, including government-to-government diplomacy alongside military deterrence, intelligence and counterintelligence, cyber security, and

public diplomacy, just to name a few, and there are a lot of others.

Another area where some clear-eyed strategic thinking is even more crucial is our approach to the People's Republic of China. So I just stated: Consider China a bigger threat than Russia. I just returned from a trip to China with several colleagues at the beginning of this month. It was an eye-opener. We hear a lot about how China is embracing capitalism and becoming more and more like us. Just don't believe it. The Chinese Communist Party has modified its economic policy to allow for economic growth, but it still serves the interests of the state, not the interests of the people. It is not a free market, clearly, because they admit that their economic system is what they would call authoritative capitalism, aka mercantilism.

I visited with government officials at the national and local level, Chinese and American businesses, and American diplomats. The Chinese officials and the Chinese businesses had their talking points down almost too well. However, the impression that I took away from the visit is that the Chinese Government will do anything--legal or illegal, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical--to get ahead of the United States, and when they get ahead, to stay ahead.

China coined the term ``peaceful rise'' to describe its drive to become a great power, which is designed to sound very benign. In fact, China later changed this slogan ``peaceful rise'' to ``peaceful development'' out of concern that the word ``rise'' sounds threatening. Just to be clear, I am not threatened by Chinese economic growth.

The development of a truly peaceful, free market democracy, no matter how large, would not be threatening because democracies generally do not threaten each other, and free enterprise is mutually beneficial. The fact that so many Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty and into the middle class is a good news story for humanity. It is also good for the United States. The more Chinese people who can afford to buy our pork and soybeans, our John Deere tractors, and our advanced manufacturing, the better for Iowa and our national economy.

Free trade on a level playing field enriches both participants. Unfortunately, China is not interested in a level playing field. It seeks dominance economically, militarily, and politically. Confucius said: ``Heaven does not have two suns and the people do not have two kings.'' By the same token, the Chinese leadership does not think there is room for two great powers in the world.

China seeks the advantage of trade with the United States but not mutually beneficial free trade in the spirit of the WTO. Despite having a middle class that is bigger than ours in the United States in absolute numbers, China still claims to need special preferences extended to developing countries. China erects nontariff barriers in ways that just very barely skirt triggering WTO compliance in violation of the spirit of the level playing field the WTO seeks to create.

The Chinese military is 60 percent larger than the U.S. military, and its efforts to claim exclusive control over the South China Sea, in violation of international law by creating artificial islands, reveals an expansionist impulse. You can't hide those islands. You know it implies dominance.

However, the threat from China is not mainly military. The influential ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu focused on the role of deception over combat. He famously said: ``To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.''

Now, get this. The problem we face is, we are being treated like an enemy to be subdued without realizing it. I say all of this not to be an alarmist but to point out that China sees itself in a long-term strategic struggle with the United States. We don't need to overreact to this fact, but we do need to be aware and to apply some clear-eyed strategic thinking of our own. In that respect, Mike Pompeo's unique background seems perfectly aligned with the task ahead to develop a strategic foreign policy toward China incorporating all the elements of statecraft.

Because I have mentioned aspects of Chinese culture to illuminate the strategic thinking on the part of the People's Republic of China, I don't want to give the impression that this is a clash of civilizations. On the contrary, it is not traditional Chinese culture that is the problem; it is the unreconstructed Leninist nature of the state system that is the problem.

It is sometimes claimed that Chinese culture is not compatible with democracy, but that is hogwash. The proof to the contrary is the Republic of China on Taiwan. Taiwan is a fully functioning, prosperous democracy with the same Chinese culture and traditions.

This same democracy is what mainland China could have also if it is able to shed its one-party dictatorship, and I hope it will shed that someday.

In the meantime, we need leaders in our government who see China clearly and have the ability to think strategically. Mike Pompeo seems to me to be just that kind of a person, so I am happy to support his confirmation as Secretary of State.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, Senator Cochran and I met while serving together in the House of Representatives, but it was in the Senate that we became close colleagues. Throughout his service, Senator Cochran has remained devoted to the U.S. Senate functioning as a bipartisan, deliberative body. It is a goal I have long admired about Senator Cochran and a mission I share.

As only the second Republican to be elected to represent Mississippi in the House of Representatives since Reconstruction and the first Republican to win a statewide election in a century at the time he was elected to the U.S. Senate, Senator Cochran proved that it is ideas and commitment to constituents that move communities and

States forward. Throughout his career, Senator Cochran continued to prove time and again that this is the path to legislative success.

You really get to know a colleague when you travel with them. I know Senator Cochran as a deliberative and thoughtful colleague. Though collegial and cautious, Senator Cochran was dogged in his pursuit to represent the interests of Mississippi. Senator Cochran and I often exchanged ideas in the Senate Agriculture Committee while he served as chairman. I can say with certainty that he represented the farmers of his State extremely well.

A hallmark of Senator Thad Cochran's distinguished career has been his ability to work effectively and thoughtfully on behalf of Mississippi. He has a courteous manner but commands the attention and respect of his colleagues. His deep institutional knowledge and dedication to public office will make him a sorely missed member of the United States Senate.

I thank him for his faithful service to this body and wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for

the online sex trafficking legislation that is before us today. Immediately passing and sending this measure to the President's desk will help ensure that children and youth are less vulnerable to human traffickers and others who would profit from this terrible crime.

This bill originally was introduced in this Chamber by Senator Portman, and I salute him for his leadership on the issue of online sex trafficking.

Last year, I joined dozens of my Senate colleagues as a cosponsor of this measure after working with the Commerce Committee on the title 18 language in this legislation.

Senator Portman, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, introduced the earliest version of this legislation after his subcommittee produced a bipartisan report exploring the link between Backpage and online sex trafficking. Entitled ``Backpage.com's Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex Trafficking,'' that report was the result of nearly 2 years of investigation by the subcommittee's investigative staff. I encourage my colleagues to review the Senate report, which is posted on the subcommittee's website.

It makes a very strong case for updating the Communications Decency Act and title 18 of the U.S. Code to protect children as the bill before us proposes.

I, too, have made ending human trafficking a top priority as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the first major bills our committee produced in the 114th Congress, under my leadership, was the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. It established a new fund, comprised of assessments imposed on convicted offenders, to provide resources to serve victims of human trafficking. It also equipped prosecutors with new tools to fight the heinous crime of human trafficking. Senator Cornyn introduced that bill, and I was a cosponsor.

Last year, I sponsored legislation to extend the key programs authorized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Our committee cleared this bill and a related measure that Senator Cornyn introduced known as ``Abolish Human Trafficking Act'' in 2017. The Senate passed both bills without a single dissenting vote last September.

These two bills would extend the authorization for a number of the victim-centered programs that Congress established years ago as part of the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act. They also include provisions to promote greater education and awareness of human trafficking in the United States.

For example, the Senate-passed Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017, which I introduced, calls for training of judges, school personnel, and Federal investigators so that they can better identify and respond to human trafficking victims. It would authorize the U.S. Secret Service to offer investigative and forensic assistance to other law enforcement agencies. It would establish an Office of Victim Assistance within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ensure that the office is staffed by trained victim assistance personnel. Lastly, the measure promotes coordination among and data collection by the Federal agencies that are tasked with helping human trafficking victims and bringing the perpetrators to justice.

The Abolish Human Trafficking Act, which I joined Senator Cornyn in introducing, ensures that victims will receive restitution, authorizes funding of investigations, and enhances penalties imposed for trafficking offenses, including sexual exploitation or abuse, sex trafficking of children, and repeat convictions for transportation for illicit sexual activity.

We currently are working with the other Chamber on a package that would include these two bills, a related measure introduced by Senator Corker, and the House-passed version of legislation to renew and extend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Sending this package of four bills and Senator Portman's online sex trafficking bill to President Trump for his signature sends a very strong message to human traffickers that we will not tolerate the scourge of human trafficking in the United States.

I close by calling on my colleague to support the immediate passage of H.R. 1865 without any weakening amendments.

Madam President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention an issue that is important to millions of individuals who understand that American citizenship is something that ought to be treasured.

The American people understand that our citizenship is a blessing and shouldn't be given away cheaply. Unfortunately, for too many years, this body has witnessed the perversion and degradation of a program that sells--yes, we sell citizenship to some people.

This program originally had a good purpose. In return for investing money in underserved areas and creating good-paying American jobs, immigrant entrepreneurs could eventually become U.S. citizens. Sadly, in the last decade, this program has been hijacked by big-moneyed New York City real estate interests--to be specific, the Real Estate Roundtable. These developers now take almost all the foreign investment from this program, and for the last few years, they have actively prevented this body from enacting any reforms and needed reforms.

For those who are not aware, I am talking about the EB-5 Regional Center Program. I have been fighting in a bipartisan way for years to reform this corrupt and scandal-clad program. I have been fighting to protect our national security, to ensure foreign investment is going to the most deserving areas, and to make sure that American citizenship isn't sold at rock-bottom prices in order to feed the addiction of New York interests to cheap money. But no matter how hard I fought, each and every time we tried to reform this program, these same moneyed interests have used their political influence and political connections to block any meaningful reforms. This is sickening and is exactly why most American people sometimes question what we do here in Washington,

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would implement the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (``Marrakesh Treaty''). I'm pleased that Senators Feinstein, Corker, Menendez, Hatch, Harris and Leahy are joining me as original cosponsors.

The Marrakesh Treaty was signed by the United States in October 2013. It seeks to help address the global ``book famine'' and facilitate access to printed works for visually impaired individuals by providing, with appropriate safeguards, that copyright protection should not impede the creation and distribution of accessible format copies, including the exchange of such copies internationally.

The Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act represents a consensus approach developed by the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees with stakeholders within the publishers, libraries and print disabilities communities, in consultation with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office as well as other interested industry and public interest stakeholders. I particularly want to commend the National Federation of the Blind, the Association of American Publishers and the Library Copyright Alliance for working with us in reaching an agreement on legislative text and proposed legislative history. We would not be here today without their efforts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Menendez, on ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty in the Senate, and with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Feinstein on passing the Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would implement the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (``Marrakesh Treaty''). I'm pleased that Senators Feinstein, Corker, Menendez, Hatch, Harris and Leahy are joining me as original cosponsors.

The Marrakesh Treaty was signed by the United States in October 2013. It seeks to help address the global ``book famine'' and facilitate access to printed works for visually impaired individuals by providing, with appropriate safeguards, that copyright protection should not impede the creation and distribution of accessible format copies, including the exchange of such copies internationally.

The Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act represents a consensus approach developed by the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees with stakeholders within the publishers, libraries and print disabilities communities, in consultation with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office as well as other interested industry and public interest stakeholders. I particularly want to commend the National Federation of the Blind, the Association of American Publishers and the Library Copyright Alliance for working with us in reaching an agreement on legislative text and proposed legislative history. We would not be here today without their efforts.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Menendez, on ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty in the Senate, and with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Feinstein on passing the Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act.

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Jason Klitenic, of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), until the ODNI and the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) provide fulsome responses to questions posed and documents requested concerning the Acting IC IG's efforts to terminate the Executive Director for Intelligence Community Whistleblowing and Source Protection and to hamstring the whistleblower protection program in the intelligence community.

To be clear, I have no concerns regarding Mr. Klitenic's capabilities or qualifications, and ultimately no intent of withholding my support for him as soon as this matter is resolved.

On November 29, 2017, I sent a letter to ODNI Director Daniel Coats and to Acting IC IG Wayne Stone noting disturbing allegations my office received that the IC IG was moving to terminate the Executive Director as part of an effort to significantly weaken the IC IG's role in ensuring consistent and effective whistleblower protections throughout the intelligence community. I requested that the offices seek to preserve all information contained in the Executive Director's office, much of which concerned highly sensitive protected disclosures made by individuals within the intelligence community, as well as allegations of wrongdoing against senior officials within the IC IG. I also sought all documents related to the IC IG's efforts to place the Executive Director on administrative leave and pursue personnel action against him. At that time, I informed the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that I would object to any unanimous consent request to confirm Mr. Klitenic until I received an answer to my letter. To date, I have received no response.

Since that time, the IC IG has indeed moved to terminate the Executive Director, and I have continued to receive reports that this process has been marked by significant irregularities, conflicts of interest, and ongoing efforts to ``stack the decks'' in hiring prior to the arrival of a new permanent, Senate-confirmed head of that office, who rightfully should have the authority to make such decisions. Moreover I have reason to believe these latest efforts may be a direct response to displeasure within the IC IG with Congress's exercise of its constitutional responsibility to provide fully informed advice and consent with respect to the President's nomination of a permanent IG. If true, such behavior is totally unacceptable. It is an affront not only to this institution but to the President's prerogative to choose nominees, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to lead the agencies under his authority. On the contrary, I would note that there is no independent authority anywhere in the Constitution granted to freewheeling bureaucrats.

Based on these ongoing concerns, Senator Ron Wyden joined me in sending a letter on March 6, 2018 to Director Coats following up on my original letter and seeking a stay of any personnel action against the Executive Director until Congress has an opportunity to review this action and fully understand exactly how the IC IG is, or is not, appropriately administering the IC whistleblowing program. Until we have answers, I will object to Mr. Klitenic's confirmation.

Mr. President, the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus has been without a Republican cochair.

This is a critical time to show solidarity with our Baltic allies, given Russian aggression against Ukraine starting in 2014, following on Russian military intervention in the Republic of Georgia in 2008.

It is also a significant milestone year for all three Baltic countries as they celebrate the 100th anniversary of their statehood. As such, it is important that the Baltic Freedom Caucus have its leadership in place. I have been a member of the Baltic Freedom Caucus for some time, and I have now agreed to be the Republican cochair, along with Senator Durbin, who is the longtime Democrat cochair.

So, in my new capacity as cochair of the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus, I would like to offer congratulations first to the Republic of Lithuania, which celebrated 100 years since the establishment of the modern Lithuanian state on February 16.

I say the modern state because Lithuanians trace their country's history to 1253. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania controlled a large amount of territory from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea during medieval times. It later joined with Poland as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Then, with the partitions of Poland starting in the 18th century, it came under the control of the Russian empire.

In the wake of World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, on February 16, 1918, representatives of the Lithuanian nation signed the Act of Independence of Lithuania ``reestablishing an independent state, based on democratic principles.'' Lithuania today holds true to those principles. This makes it a natural and close ally of the United States and other freedom-loving nations. In fact, the Lithuanian Government has become a particularly outspoken defender of democratic principles in the face of attacks on those principles by its large neighbor, Russia.

I would also like to recognize the Republic of Estonia, which marked 100 years of statehood on February 24. Like the United States, Estonia counts its statehood starting with its declaration of independence. Also like the United States, Estonia had to fight a war against an empire with a much larger army to secure its independence. Actually, Estonia had to fight both the German empire and Bolshevik Russia.

Germany gave up when it lost World War I, and Soviet Russia was pushed back by the new Estonian army, ultimately signing the Treaty of Tartu that recognized the independence of Estonia in perpetuity. More recently, the Estonian army has fought side by side with the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Estonia is one of the few NATO allies that meets its commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense.

I should add that Latvians will celebrate their 100th anniversary of statehood in November, so there will be time to congratulate them in due course, but I should mention that there are many connections between Latvia and Iowa.

Iowa was partnered with Latvia in a civic education exchange program a number of years ago; a prominent Iowan, Chuck Larson, served as Ambassador to Latvia from 2008 to 2009; and we have a Latvian-American community in Iowa.

Some people may have a vague notion that the Baltics are breakaway Soviet republics, but that is not accurate if you know your history. On the eve of World War II, the Soviets and the Nazis signed the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact, which contained a secret protocol agreeing to divide up several sovereign countries between them. The Nazis were to get western Poland, and the Soviets claimed the Baltic countries and Finland, eastern Poland, and the part of Romania that is now the Republic of Moldova. Then both totalitarian governments proceeded to take those territories by force, although the Finns only lost part of the Karelia region after repelling the Soviet invasion in the Winter War.

The Soviets organized rigged elections and claimed that the Baltic countries voluntarily joined the Soviet Union. However, the United States never recognized the annexation of these countries, and we continued to maintain diplomatic relations with the three Baltic countries throughout the Cold War.

The Lithuanian Embassy is still in its original location, and during the Soviet occupation, the Estonian representative to the United States became the longest serving member of the Washington diplomatic corps.

In 1989, on the 50th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, citizens of the three Baltic countries formed a human chain connecting the capital cities protesting the continued occupation and highlighting the history of

how it came about, which was officially denied by the Soviet regime.

Vladimir Putin's regime continues to deny that the Baltic countries were illegally occupied and to insist that they ceased to be independent states when they were annexed in 1940.

In 2015, a member of the ruling party in Russia even initiated an inquiry with the Russian Prosecutor General as to the legality of the decision allowing the independence of the Baltic states from the Soviet Union in 1991. That decision was declared illegal. Since the entire 50- year occupation of the Baltic countries was illegal, the legality of a decision by a defunct evil empire is hardly relevant. What is relevant is that the current regime in Russia is continuing the Soviet legacy of rewriting history to fit its agenda. That is a form of political warfare.

Many Americans are now waking up to the fact that the Putin regime is bent on undermining Western democracies.

Well, the Baltic countries have been warning about that for years while leaders of our government were cozying up to Putin and playing around with reset buttons.

Estonia was the subject of a massive propaganda campaign combined with a cyber attack back in 2007 when it moved a Soviet war memorial to a less conspicuous location.

Estonia's experience of weathering a cyber attack and its strong IT sector have made it a cybersecurity expert, and it now hosts the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.

What Russia is doing now is out of the same KGB playbook it used throughout the Cold War. For instance, the Soviets planted articles in newspapers in the 1980s claiming that the United States created AIDS. They then got other papers to pick it up and echoed the story via its own news agencies. This is exactly what Russia is still doing, only with more modern technology.

We have a lot to learn from all three Baltic countries, where the governments, the media, and the citizens are more sophisticated about identifying and exposing propaganda campaigns. The best response to propaganda is education and exposure--in other words, truth.

The citizens of the three Baltic countries fought back against Soviet distortion of history with historical truth and were able to reclaim their independence.

So today I want to recognize historical truth on the Senate floor and congratulate Lithuania and Estonia on their recent statehood centennials. I look forward to celebrating the upcoming centennial of Latvia in November.

These bastions of Western civilization and Western values in a tough neighborhood are valuable partners in advancing our shared goals of securing democracy and the blessings of liberty for our people.

Mr. President, today the Senate is voting to confirm Judge Elizabeth Branch to serve as a U.S. circuit court judge for the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Branch was favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a 19-2 bipartisan vote. She has broad bipartisan support from her home State of Georgia. The American Bar Association rated Judge Branch as unanimously well-qualified. If the Senate confirms Judge Branch, as I am confident it will, she will be the fourth woman confirmed by the Senate to the Federal courts of appeals in the 115th Congress, three more than the one woman confirmed at this point in President Obama's first term.

Judge Branch's judicial career and broad range of legal experiences have well prepared her to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Branch was appointed to the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2012. In her time on the appellate bench, she has participated in over 1,500 cases. Before joining the bench, Judge Branch spent several years in private practice. She also served in government, including her role as a top lawyer for the Department of Homeland Security. Judge Branch received her B.A. from Davidson College and her J.D. from Emory. After law school, Judge Branch clerked for Judge Owen Forrester on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As I noted earlier, if confirmed, Judge Branch will become the fourth female circuit court judge confirmed under President Trump. Her confirmation puts her in good company, joining a class of first-rate female jurists and legal scholars. She will join a group that includes: Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a former professor at Notre Dame University Law School and law clerk to Justice Scalia; Tenth Circuit Judge Allison Eid, a former Colorado Supreme Court Justice and law clerk to Justice Thomas; and Sixth Circuit Judge Joan Larsen, another clerk of Justice Scalia and former Michigan Supreme Court justice. I am confident that Judge Branch will serve as an excellent addition to this outstanding class of female circuit court judges.

Judge Branch's impressive background and bipartisan support suggest that she will be an excellent court of appeals judge. I am pleased to support her nomination today.

Madam President, I come to the floor now to offer brief remarks on the introduction of the latest so-called bipartisan proposal. There is simply no way to say it, but to say it: This proposal fails to meet the mark, will result in massive amnesty, and will result in a surge of illegal immigration, even encouraging the illegal crossing of our borders. It has absolutely no chance of becoming law because we have been reminded of what the President has said he would sign, and he has said that this bill we are talking about now would not be signed by the President of the United States. It would be vetoed.

In my mind, the Department of Homeland Security, when they commented on this bill, has this one point right. This bill will absolutely destroy our ability--meaning the ability of DHS--to enforce our laws, secure our borders, and then, consequentially, not protect the American people. The American people expect our government to fulfill their No. 1 responsibility, which is to protect the American people.

It is hard to decide where to start when you dissect this ill- conceived proposal, but to quote, I think, J.R.R. Tolkien, I guess the best place to begin is at the beginning. This proposal claims to have border security measures, but the simple fact is that it doesn't have border security measures. This proposal does something that Democrats and Republicans agreed last year isn't sufficient border security, and we have all agreed that simply throwing money at the border is not border security. So what does that lead you to, other than just what you do at the border?

Everyone in this Chamber knows how hard Senators Cornyn and Johnson have worked on border security. Their hard work has shown all of us that real border security isn't just about infrastructure and money; it is about legal authority policy changes, as well, which may be more important. Like it or not, the simple fact is that our current laws contain numerous loopholes that actually prevent our law enforcement officers from apprehending, detaining, and speedily deporting dangerous criminal aliens.

Professional staffers at the Department of Homeland Security--and I emphasize the words ``professional staffers,'' not political employees--all agree we need these authority changes.

I ask my colleagues: What is the point of throwing money at the border if sex offenders, terrorists, gang members, child molesters, and war criminals can continue getting into our country? What is the point if we can't actually remove people who are entering illegally? What is the point if Americans continue to be victimized by crimes committed by undocumented immigrants?

This bipartisan plan falls miserably short of providing real border security and doesn't do anything to make Americans safer.

Worse than the border security problems, this bipartisan plan massively expands the number of individuals who are eligible for citizenship. The way this plan is written, more than 3 million individuals could become eligible for citizenship, and many of these people wouldn't be the very same people we have been trying to deal with all week--DACA and Dreamers.

The way this bill is written, people as old as 43 could benefit. I thought when we began this debate we were talking about protecting young people, not middle-aged adults. This is clearly beyond the pale and is just another example of moving the amnesty yardstick.

But the worst thing in this plan, the most egregious thing, is that it effectively suspends immigration enforcement until June 2018. Think about that. Why would you effectively suspend immigration enforcement at any time? If my colleagues look at the last page of this amendment, it clearly says that any person who illegally enters our country before the end of June 2018 will never be a priority for deportation. Think of the invitation that comes for people between now and June 30 to get to this country because they won't be a priority for deportation. Isn't that quite an invitation to violate our laws, to violate our sovereignty? I can't imagine that people in the States of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota--any State, for that matter, but particularly in some of these really conservative States--that they would be thinking about voting for something that would actually be inviting people to this country because they won't be a priority for deportation. Let that point sink in.

The authors of this plan are telling everyone in the world--not just south of our border--no matter who they are, what they have done, that if they get here before June, they will never be an enforcement priority. Isn't that immigration madness? I can't, for the life of me, understand why my colleagues would want to end immigration enforcement. What justification do they have?

I would urge them that if they have justification, please come to the floor and please explain to the American people why you want people who aren't already here to come illegally. What could be the reason for that?

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It just isn't serious and will totally undermine our Nation's border security and immigration laws. This should not pass. I hope it doesn't pass. The President has proposed a veto.

For the people who introduced it, it is a good bill, but are you interested in a good bill or are you interested in getting a law passed? That takes 60 in the Senate, takes a majority in the House, and takes a Presidential signature. I hope you are serious about working for things that can actually become law. That is what we have promised the Dreamers. That is what we can deliver if we get those 60 votes. We can do it in a way that is sound immigration policy, not something that is going to encourage more people to cross our borders without documentation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we offer you commonsense reforms. More than half of the Senators on that side just voted for a massive amount of funding that we need for border security. We offer that as well, but we also make it easier for authorities to remove criminals. We end chain migration. We end the diversity visa. We also have a path to citizenship for 1.8 million DACA recipients and Dreamers.

In a sense, this is it. It is the only plan that can become law because the President has said he would sign it. This is it. This is one's last chance to vote for a path to citizenship for all of the people we have been talking about giving justice to and being compassionate about and bringing out of the dark. So here we are with an opportunity to do it. I hope you will vote yes and support it.

Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget.''

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 15, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Andrea L. Thompson, of South Dakota, to be Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, Susan A. Thornton, of Maine, to be an Assistant Secretary (East Asian and Pacific Affairs), and Francis R. Fannon, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary (Energy Resources), all of Department of State.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 14, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 1917 and the following nominations: Michael B. Brennan, of Wisconsin, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, Susan Paradise Baxter, and Marilyn Jean Horan, both to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, Adam I. Klein, of the District of Columbia, to be Chairman and Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, McGregor W. Scott, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, Gary G. Schofield, to be United States Marshal for the District of Nevada, and Jonathan F. Mitchell, of Washington, to be Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 14, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing