Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1959.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, some of what I just heard, I can readily agree to. Certain things, such as that we are a nation of immigrants-- no doubt about that. We need immigrants. We take roughly 800,000 to 1 million legal immigrants a year. They are welcomed. We also, though, are a nation of laws, and as a nation of laws, we want people to come here according to our laws and abide by the laws.

We are working with a group of people. If you call them DACAs, it would be about 800,000. If you refer to them as Dreamers, it is maybe 1.8 million. We obviously have sympathy for them because as a baby brought here in diapers by a person or family who crossed our border without papers, hence entering our country illegally--we don't attribute the sin and the unlawfulness of the parent to the baby. A lot of that has happened.

There is a general agreement--maybe not everybody in my political party agrees with this, but I think 80 percent of them do--that we need to deal with people who are here through no fault of their own and give them legal status. That is the compassion we are showing for people who broke our laws by their parents doing it but not the kids doing it.

I also didn't ever think we would be here today debating this because I went through the 2013 debate on immigration. The Senate passed a bill; the House of Representatives didn't take it up. I was in the minority at that time, both in the caucus that was in the minority as well as in the minority that voted against that bill, because I didn't think it did things the way I would do them. Everything died in the House of Representatives. Then, 2 years later, I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We have jurisdiction over immigration legislation. I could have spent 3 months on immigration during 2015 or 2016 and sent a bill to the House of Representatives that probably would have died, but I made up my mind early in my chairmanship that I wanted to do things that we could get passed. So over the period of the last Congress, my committee voted out 31 bills, all bipartisan, and 18 of them got to a Democratic President. In 2015 and 2016, I felt, why go through that process if it is going to die in the House of Representatives?

Now, a year later, after the election of a President who campaigned so much against anything dealing with immigration and legalization of people who are here--even young people, whom he has now come to the conclusion we ought to legalize--I didn't think we would be having this debate, and somehow I think Members of the Democratic Party didn't think we would be having this debate. I think they probably were shocked 2 or 3 weeks ago when the government shut down and when the majority leader decided to make an agreement to bring up this issue. But here we are, debating an immigration bill that, quite frankly, I didn't think we would be debating. Here we are.

Then, of course, we didn't do anything Monday. We didn't do anything on this issue Tuesday. I don't know whether we are going to have any votes today, but here we are debating immigration. We have a chance to do what Members of the other political party, as advocates for Dreamers and DACA kids--and we have them on this side but maybe not as vocal or as loyal as Democrats are on this issue. Somehow, we are now having a difficult time getting the issue up and getting something passed.

I offer to my 99 colleagues something the President said he would sign. Maybe you don't like exactly what is in that proposal. Then get it up and amend it, and let's see what sort of compromise we can accomplish. But we are here because the leader said that we are going to work on this issue. It was something that the minority demanded. We ought to reach a conclusion on it and get something to the President of the United States.

Once we knew that this issue was going to come up--and we knew that on September 5 when the President said that he was not going to continue the illegal approach to the DACA kids that President Obama did. We have reason to believe this from court decisions on older people where they ruled that the President didn't have the authority to do what he did with the DACA kids. In fact, at least a dozen times before he made that decision, he was telling the entire country he didn't have the authority to do it, and then he went ahead and did it.

So this President comes in, takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country, and he decides that he can't continue what was considered illegal activity by the previous President. This is a congressional decision that needs to be made, and Congress ought to make it. We were told on September 5 to do something by March 5, and here we are.

I heard from the previous speaker--and maybe a lot of speakers--that this is the President's plan. Yes, this is something that the President said that he is going to support and will sign, but I want to say to you that the work that a group of us Senators have put into this issue over a period of the last 3 months, with about 18 meetings, 4 meetings with the President of the United States to discuss the issue--most of what is in the proposal that is put before you are things that a group of Senators put together. I would say that as our group met, we probably had subgroups of three who had different views, and some of them felt strongly about their positions, but everyone came together in a compromise that you see here before us in my amendment.

In some of those meetings, we discussed these things with the President, and I want to give the President credit. In a January 9 meeting that he had where he called together 23 of us--bipartisan and bicameral--we were able to dial down all the things that we would be discussing on immigration, and we came to the conclusion that there were four main points that we ought to be dealing with. You have heard of these as the four pillars, but let me repeat them.

No. 1 was legalization of these children who were brought here by their parents; No. 2 was border security; No. 3 was chain migration; and No. 4, diversity visa. We discussed these things with the President, and I suppose the President probably emphasized citizenship to a greater extent than maybe we did in our deliberations, but we have something that has been put together by Members of this body who have compromised, with none of us getting everything we wanted. We are fortunate enough to have the President's backing on this.

So I hope that you see this, not as we have heard from the other side as the President's plan--as if seven of us who introduced this proposal somehow just took something from the White House and put our names on it, and it is here before the U.S. Senate--because that isn't how it worked.

I want to address some of the issues that have been put before us by people on the other side. I want to express--as you probably have seen me expressing already in my remarks so far--my frustration with the current status of the immigration debate here in the U.S. Senate. It amazes me that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply aren't ready to have a serious immigration debate. They have been demanding to have this debate for months. They have even shut the government down to get to this point, and now we are actually on this issue that they have been demanding that we debate for months during this Congress--some on the other side of the aisle for

years--and now when it is time to put up or shut up, they have come up emptyhanded. Despite having weeks to prepare, Senate Democrats are still rushing to put some plan together.

Let that sink in. Think about this just for a moment. The Senate Democrats recklessly shut down the Federal Government over immigration, and they did it over plans that they still largely haven't drafted. That should be very frustrating, not only to this Senator but to most of my colleagues, and it is exactly why the American people seem to have less faith in this process in Washington, DC. Even more frustrating is that for 2 valuable days, they have refused to allow the Senate to debate immigration measures.

I do understand why the Democrats are afraid to vote on ending sanctuary cities. Those policies of sanctuary cities are massively unpopular with the American people. In other words, the American people feel that when the Constitution says that immigration law is one of the 18 powers of the United States, then no local or State government should be able to interfere with what the Constitution says is the supreme law of the land.

I can't understand why, for 2 days, Democrats have refused to allow us a debate on an issue like sanctuary cities. That amendment would help us keep our communities safe from dangerous criminals, besides carrying out the intent of the Constitution that the Federal Government has complete authority over immigration.

Who could be against an approach to send a signal that sanctuary cities aren't justified when that is how to protect the American people from the criminal elements that some sanctuary cities protect? Apparently, the Democrats are, since they don't seem to be for outlawing sanctuary cities.

I guess another way to say it is that they could do more to protect hard-working Americans from the criminal element that is, albeit, a small part of the immigration community we are talking about, but it still creates havoc for people like the Steinle family, for example, where Kate was murdered by an alien who was a felon who had returned to this country not once but five times.

In other words, I have to ask my colleagues whether enforcement issues are legitimately a part of the immigration debate, and that is what the sanctuary city situation is all about. Isn't border security more than just throwing money at infrastructure? Shouldn't we be discussing how to reform our Nation's laws so that dangerous criminal elements can't inflict harm on innocent families?

I am pretty sure--I am actually 100 percent confident--the answer to those questions is yes. Those are important issues to the American people. Those issues used to be discussed here.

I have already mentioned the name of Kate Steinle, who was murdered by one of these people. I could add the names of Sarah Root and Jamel Shaw. These people all had dreams, too, but they had their lives ended by felons who had been deported but had come back into this country.

If my colleagues were actually serious about debating this issue, we would be discussing border enforcement. Sadly, it seems as though the plans that I have seen so far from my colleagues fall short of that goal.

Legalizing Dreamers--yes, who is going to argue with that? A little bit of money for border security--there is a lot to argue about there. But not doing something about criminal aliens who are a threat to law enforcement in this country and to the safety of our country--it seems to me that ought to be a part of it.

So we get all the people in this room who say they want to do something about border security by throwing money at it; yet they refuse to actually give our law enforcement the legal tools that they need to protect Americans. Just a wall or whatever you want to call it--electric surveillance, more border patrol--it is all border security, but it is more than a wall. It takes more than just those things to protect the American people.

I am here to tell you that it is a tragedy that some people in this body just want to legalize some people for 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years and put maybe a little bit of money into border security with no commitment to the future. Then all we have done is kick the can down the road.

Worse still, none of my colleagues' proposals are being developed in a way that they can actually become law. Maybe for them, simply passing a partisan bill is enough. Leader Schumer said that this morning, and I was here listening to him. But that is not enough for this Senator. This Senator actually wants to see something passed into law that will provide real protection for DACA kids.

That is why I have offered an amendment that could actually pass the House of Representatives, and we know the President would sign it. Polls show that the framework a number of us developed, along with the President's input, is overwhelmingly popular. A Harvard Harris poll showed that 65 percent of the voters agreed with our plan, including 64 percent of Democratic voters. So despite the hyperbole we hear from our colleagues, the plan that the President said he would sign is not only popular, but, again, it is the only plan that has any chance of becoming law.

It is time for all of my colleagues to get serious about fixing DACA. It is time to stop posturing, to stop showboating, and to stop simply trying to pass a bill out of the Senate that will not get considered in the other body and will not be signed by the President of the United States.

The focus ought to be on making actual law. If all of us here in the Senate, particularly those who are in the Democratic Caucus, focus on those things, then the choice for them will be very clear. They will vote for the amendment that the seven of us have put before the Senate called the Grassley amendment, they will back the President, and they will provide real security and real certainty to the DACA recipients and the American people.

In fact, it is so simple for some on the other side who have been promising DACA certainty for years and some for a few months, but, more importantly, really strongly over the last three or four months. It is an opportunity for everything you have told those kids, including that you are going to get them legal and even give them a path to citizenship that you can deliver.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am going to address, as I do often on the floor, problems with the False Claims Act. As author of the False Claims Act of 1986, I want to say upfront, before I talk about some problems, that this is a piece of legislation that has brought into the Federal Treasury $56 to $57 billion of fraudulently taken money.

Each year, the Department of Justice updates the amount of money that has come in under the False Claims Act, about $3 billion to $4 billion a year. We are talking about a piece of legislation I passed more than 30 years ago, that had been good for the taxpayers, to make sure their money is handled the way the law requires. Obviously, if it is taken fraudulently, it isn't handled the way the taxpayers would expect.

With that introduction, I want to bring up some problems with the False Claims Act. Today, there are some troubling developments in the courts' interpretation of the False Claims Act. To understand these developments, I want to review a little history.

In 1943, Congress gutted the Lincoln-era law known as the False Claims Act. At that time, during World War II, the Department of Justice said it needed no help from whistleblowers to fight fraud. The Department of Justice said, if the government already knows about the fraud, then no court should even hear a whistleblower's case. In 1943, Congress amended the False Claims Act to bar any whistleblower from bringing a claim if the government knows about the fraud.

Looking back at World War II, we know what they did to the False Claims Act was a big mistake because the bar led to absurd results that only hurt the taxpayers. It basically meant that all whistleblower cases were blocked, even cases where the government only knew about the fraud because of the whistleblower. In other words, whistleblowers are patriotic people when they are reporting fraud, but it didn't make any difference because of the way the law was amended in 1943.

In 1984, the Seventh Circuit barred the State of Wisconsin from a whistleblower action against Medicaid fraud. Even today, Medicaid fraud is a major problem. We have ways of getting at it now, but in 1984 they didn't. In this case in Wisconsin, that State had already told the Federal Government about the fraud because it was required to report that fraud under Federal law. Because of the so-called government

knowledge bar enacted in 1943, whistleblower cases went nowhere and neither did prosecution of wrongdoers.

Getting back to what I was involved in, in 1986, I worked with many of my colleagues--particularly a former Democratic Congressman from California by the name of Mr. Berman--to make it possible for whistleblowers to be heard again. In other words, these patriotic Americans just want the government to do what the law says it ought to be doing and money spent the way it ought to be spent. They want people to know about it so action can be taken.

In 1986, for whistleblowers to be heard again, that included eliminating the so-called government knowledge bar. Since then, what the government knows about fraud has still been used by defendants in false claims cases as a defense against their own state of mind. Courts have found that what the government knows about fraud can still undercut allegations that defendants knowingly submitted false claims. The theory goes something like this: If the government knows about the defendant's bad behavior and the defendant knows the government knows, then the defendant did not knowingly commit fraud. That doesn't make sense, does it? Once you wrap your head around that logic or puzzle, I have another one for you.

In 2016, the question of what the government knows about fraud in False Claims Act cases began to take center stage once again. In Escobar, the Supreme Court rightly affirmed that a contractor can be liable under the ``implied false certification'' theory. That means a contractor can be in trouble when it doesn't make good on its bargain. And it doesn't matter whether the contractor outright lies--a misleading omission of its failures is enough.

Unfortunately, parts of the Court's ruling are getting some defendants and judges tied in knots. Justice Thomas wrote that the false or misleading aspect of the claim has to be material to the government's decision whether to pay it. Justice Thomas said that one of several ways you can tell whether something misleading is also material is if the government knows what the contractor is up to and pays the claim anyway. That is a good way for people to commit fraud. At first glance, I suppose that kind of makes sense. If someone gives you something substantially different in value or quality from what you asked for, why would you pay for it? But if the difference really isn't that important, you might still accept it.

Even if that is true, the problem here is that courts are reacting the way they always have. They are trying to outdo each other in applying Justice Thomas's analysis inappropriately or as strictly as possible, to the point of absurdity. In doing so, they are starting to resurrect elements of that old government knowledge bar that I worked so hard to get rid of in 1986. And remember, that government knowledge bar goes back to the big mistake Congress made in 1943 by eliminating it from the False Claims Act.

Justice Thomas actually wrote:

[I]f the Government pays a particular claim in full despite

its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated,

that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not

material. Or, if the Government regularly pays a particular

type of claim in full despite actual knowledge that certain

requirements were violated, and has signaled no change in

position, that is strong evidence that the requirements are

not material.

Justice Thomas did not say that in every case, if the government pays a claim despite the fact that someone, somewhere in the bowels of democracy might have heard about allegations that the contractor may have done something wrong, the contractor is automatically off the hook. Think about that. Why should the taxpayer pay the price for bureaucrats who fail to expose fraud against the government? That is why the False Claims Act exists--to protect taxpayers by rewarding whistleblowers for exposing fraud.

Justice Thomas said that the government's actions when it has actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated are evidence of whether those requirements are material. What does it mean for the government to have actual knowledge? Would it include one bureaucrat who suspected a violation but looked the other way? Would that prove the requirement was material? Courts need to be careful here.

First, this statement about government knowledge is not the standard for materiality. The standard for materiality is actually the same as it has always been. The Court did not change that definition in Escobar. Materiality means ``having a natural tendency to influence, or being capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property.'' The question of the government's behavior in response to fraud is one of multiple factors for courts to weigh in applying the standard.

Second, courts and defendants should be mindful that Justice Thomas limited the relevance here to actual knowledge of things that actually happened. There are all sorts of situations where the government could have doubts but no actual knowledge of fraud. Maybe the government has only heard vague allegations but has no facts. Maybe the rumors are about something that may be happening in an industry but nothing about a particular false claim by a particular defendant. Maybe an agency has started an inquiry but still has a long way to go before that inquiry is finished. Maybe someone with real agency authority or responsibility hasn't learned of it yet. There are a lot of situations where the government might not have actual knowledge of the fraud.

Third, even if the government does pay a false claim, that is not the end of the matter. Courts have long recognized that there are a lot of reasons why the government might not intervene in a whistleblower case. There are a lot of reasons why the government might still pay a false claim. Maybe declining to pay the claim would leave patients without prescriptions or lifesaving medical care. Paying the claims in that case does not mean that the fraud is unimportant; it means that in that moment, the government wants to ensure access to critical care. That payment cannot and does not deprive the government of the right to recover the payment obtained through fraud.

Can you imagine if that were the rule? Can you imagine if providers could avoid all accountability because the government decided not to let someone suffer? Then fraudsters could hold the government hostage. They could submit bogus claims all the time with no consequences because they know the government is not going to deny treatment to the sick and the vulnerable. That is just not what the False Claims Act says. Courts should not read such a ridiculous rule into that statute.

Fourth, courts should take care in reading into the act a requirement for the government to immediately stop paying claims or first pursue some other remedy. There could be many important reasons to pay a claim that have nothing to do with whether the fraud is material. Further, there is no exhaustion requirement. The False Claims Act does not require the government to jump through administrative hoops or give up its rights. And that would be an unreasonable burden on the government, in any event.

We have decades of data showing that the government cannot stop fraud by itself--hence the importance of whistleblowers; hence the importance of the False Claims Act. I also know from many years of oversight that purely administrative remedies are very time-consuming and often toothless.

The government should be able to decide how best to protect the taxpayers from fraud. The False Claims Act is the most effective tool the government has. The government should be able to use it without the courts piling on bogus restrictions that are just not law.

I started with the importance of the False Claims Act. It has brought $56 billion to $57 billion into the Treasury since its enactment in 1986. Each year, the Department of Justice updates the law, usually reporting $3 billion or $4 billion coming in under that act in the previous year.

I hope the courts understand that every bureaucrat in government has to have the opportunity to report what is wrong so that we make sure the taxpayers' money is properly spent.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, about 20 minutes ago, our majority leader, Senator McConnell, tried to move debate along on an immigration bill, and I am puzzled that our minority leader, Senator Schumer, objected. The reason I am puzzled is, for a long period of time--maybe 10 years--some of the Senators on the other side of the aisle and even some Senators on our side of the aisle have been advocating for giving certainty to the young people who have been brought here by their parents whom we call either Dreamers or DACA people. They have been advocating for giving them legalization.

The majority leader, 2 weeks ago, promised the minority an opportunity to have a debate on that issue--the first debate on immigration since 2013, I believe. The majority leader, today, tried to carry out that promise and get this bill moving, and we had this objection. It is very puzzling.

I think it is legitimate to ask the minority leader, in his objecting to a unanimous consent agreement, why the objection is coming with regard to the very debate that he has, on his side of the aisle, been demanding of the majority for a long period of time. Hasn't the minority leader and the entire Democratic Party been asking for this debate? Yes, they have been.

Leader McConnell has honored his commitment and allowed us to have an open, fair immigration debate this week. The key words are an ``immigration debate,'' not a DACA-only debate, not an amnesty-only debate but an immigration debate. An immigration debate has to include a discussion about enforcement measures. An immigration debate has to include a discussion about how to remove dangerous criminal aliens from our country. A real immigration debate has to include discussions about how to protect the American people.

The leader has asked unanimous consent to allow us to start debating these issues, and the Democrats are refusing. Puzzling, I say it is, because they have been the ones to demand this debate. Why don't they want to debate things like sanctuary cities, as one example, which was asked for? Are they unprepared to discuss the vital public safety issues or is it more likely they are worried that some bills on enforcement on this side of the aisle could actually pass? Maybe that is the case, but it is no reason not to allow this body to start debate on this very important issue.

The American people deserve a real immigration debate about the four pillars we agreed to at the White House and not just a debate about the Democrats' preferred policy preferences. Yes, DACA is an important part of that discussion, but it is only one part. If the Democrats are insisting that we debate their preferred policies only, that is not a real debate at all.

We have filed an amendment that takes into consideration the four pillars that were agreed to at a bicameral, bipartisan meeting at the White House, with the President presiding on January 9. Those four pillars include: legalization and a path to citizenship, border security, the elimination of chain migration, and, fourthly, the elimination of the diversity visa lottery. Those all fit in, maybe not in detail and exactly the way the President might want it, but they fit into the four pillars as to which he said he would sign a piece of legislation.

I suggest to my other 99 colleagues that there is a provision that can pass the U.S. Senate, pass the House of Representatives, and be signed by the President of the United States because he has said he agrees with those principles. Other people have bills but not bills that can become law based upon what the President will sign or not sign.

Again, I think it is very puzzling that the Democratic leadership will not allow this debate to go forward, for it is something they have been asking for. More importantly, maybe it is quite the surprise that the majority leader would allow this debate to move forward, but that is how a consensus was met about 2 weeks ago on the issue of opening up government and having this debate and moving forward to a budget agreement. Those things have been done. Now the leader is carrying out his promise. I hope the other side will agree to move ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Madam President, before the Senator from Texas leaves the floor, I think he needs to be complimented because one of the four things in the bill which I am talking about our introducing and which he is going to be one of the cosponsors of is border security. He has worked for years on border security. He needs to be complimented on it. He is chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of our Judiciary Committee. And I think Senator Johnson of Homeland Security has some aspects of border security as well. I think he and Senator Johnson ought to be complimented for being in the lead of 100 Senators to make sure we don't make the same mistakes we made in 1986 when we gave amnesty because we thought we had border security. Quite obviously, the numbers

show we didn't do a very good job on border security in 1986. The Senator from Texas and the Senator from Wisconsin are going to make sure we don't make that same mistake again, so I thank them very much.

Madam President, I rise today to announce the formal introduction of an amendment to H.R. 2579. H.R. 2579 is the vehicle for immigration. This amendment is cosponsored by Senators Cornyn, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, Cotton, and Ernst. It is a product of several months of hard work between these Senators and including the White House.

Since this past September, I have held more than two dozen meetings with interested Senators in an attempt to craft a fair and permanent solution to DACA. I have also met with the President on four separate occasions to figure out exactly what he needs to see in a legislative package so that it can be signed into law, because what is the point of our working hard if we are not going to get something that is going to be finalized by a signature from the President of the United States?

I just said I have met with the President on four separate occasions. I should have said that this group of introducers of this legislation met with the President on those four occasions. But most importantly, I have been continuously listening to what my colleagues have said they need in any immigration consensus. As a result of our meetings and conversations with our colleagues, the Senators sponsoring this amendment have attempted to develop a simple, commonsense framework that can address everyone's concerns while also providing necessary and critical changes to our Nation's immigration laws.

What does our amendment do? Working off the broad bipartisan, bicameral framework agreed to on January 9 at the White House, our amendment has four key pillars. I said bipartisan, bicameral. Members of Congress met with the President for an hour and a half to boil down all the issues that can be brought up, and we ended up with these four key pillars.

First and most importantly, our amendment fully funds the President's border security request. Other plans that we have heard about claim that they fund the President's border security request by--I want to put this word in quotes--``authorizing'' money. But anyone who knows Washington knows that just an authorization turns out to be a gimmick sometimes. It turns out to be a promise sometimes or an IOU to maybe fund something at some later date. Every Member of the Senate knows that in this town, Washington, DC, promises are quite cheap.

We went down the road in 2006 when Congress authorized money for border fencing, much of which Congress never actually funded. Our amendment rejects that approach. Instead, we actually appropriate $25 billion into a border security trust fund. This trust fund will allow Homeland Security to use between $2.5 billion and $3 billion a year for infrastructure, technology, and personnel recruitment and retention.

By setting up a border security trust fund, we ensure that the Department of Homeland Security will actually have the money that it needs every single year to secure our borders, while also retaining Congress's ability to exercise oversight.

Unlike other plans, we also recognize that real border security is more than just throwing money at the border. This group of Senators realized that real border security means that we have to close the legal loopholes in the current law that allow dangerous criminals to enter and remain at large within our country. Our amendment ends these dangerous loopholes and makes it easier for our law enforcement to apprehend, detain, and speedily remove sex offenders, drug smugglers, human traffickers, international terrorists, criminal gang members, repeat border crossers, drunk drivers, and other dangerous people.

Second, our amendment provides a generous and permanent solution for DACA and DACA-eligible recipients. Our plan contains an earned path to citizenship for these young people. Provided these young men and women have no criminal record and either serve in the military, attain a college or vocational degree, or maintain full-time employment, they can eventually gain citizenship. This represents a major concession for many Republicans, including this Senator, but this concession is necessary to provide a permanent and fair solution to this issue.

The third pillar of our proposal reforms family-based immigration to place greater emphasis on the nuclear family. Moving forward, we limit family-based immigration to the nuclear family, meaning the spouses and minor children of citizens and lawful, permanent residents.

This change doesn't end family-based immigration. It simply recognizes that extended-family immigration doesn't serve the American people or our country's economic interest. It is important for all of my colleagues to recognize that these family-based changes are prospective. This means that all 4 million immigrants who are waiting in line for a family-based petition will continue to have their petitions processed under the old rules.

This group of Senators understands that we can't penalize the millions of people who actually followed the law and, by following the law, did the right thing.

In addition to rewarding those who did the right thing by grandfathering all pending petitions in the pipeline, it will take years--by some estimates, more than a decade--for Congress to debate and enact merit-based immigration reform.

Finally, our plan reallocates the 55,000 visas and the diversity visa lottery to clearing backlogs in the family-based and employment-based backlogs. By reallocating these visas, we not only promote faster family reunification but also speed up the immigration of skilled workers in the EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 categories.

As you can see, this is an eminently fair plan that closely mirrors the President's framework. This plan is a true compromise, and supporting it will require concessions from all Senators-- conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between.

This Senator is ready and willing to make a major concession and, once again, vote for a path to citizenship. Other Senators need to be willing to do the same, to make sacrifices when it comes to border security and to chain migration.

But at the end of the day, in spite of everything else, the simple fact remains that this amendment is the only plan that the President supports. This plan is the only Senate plan that has any possibility of passing the House of Representatives and becoming law.

So I have asked my colleagues who oppose this proposal: Are you interested in actually getting something done, in actually providing a path to citizenship for these DACA kids, or are you interested in a political issue for the 2018 elections? If you are actually interested in getting something done, in getting a bill signed into law, and fixing the DACA issue, the choice is obvious: You will vote to support this plan.

But if my colleagues are more interested in grandstanding, in passing a bill that will never become law and that will not actually protect DACA kids, well, that choice is pretty clear as well.

To all my colleagues, I urge your support for this amendment. Let's fix this issue. Let's demonstrate that we can find solutions to the challenging problems that Americans are calling on us to solve.

This is a compassionate compromise. As for the people who have been advocating for this for years--longer than I have been, because I have been at it just a short period of time--let them accept a compassionate compromise. Let them do what they have called on to be done for a long period of time--settling the DACA issue once and for all. Then, let's show the world that we are serious about finding a long-term solution, instead of kicking the problem to a future date.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have had a chance today to listen to my colleagues discuss what we think is the only piece of legislation that can get through the Senate, through the House of Representatives, and, most importantly, be signed by the President of the United States. All are cosponsors of this bill, except Senator Hatch, who spoke on another issue that he is very interested in, but it is a very important immigration issue as well.

We heard from Senator Cornyn. Then I spoke. Senator Cotton spoke and Senator Ernst, Senator Tillis, and Senator Lankford. Senator Perdue is one of those who is a cosponsor of the bill and would have liked to have been here to speak, but he is just now returning from his constituency.

We have tried to lay out a path to giving DACA kids certainty, doing it from a standpoint of being humanitarian for people who were brought to this country by their parents. Their parents may have broken the law--and they did break the law--by coming over our borders without documentation, but we never should hold children responsible for what their parents did. This legislation takes a compassionate and reasonable approach to reforms, including a pathway to citizenship for a broad population. It grandfathers people waiting in line for family- based visas, and it expedites clearing that backlog. It helps to keep young people out of the same legal limbo in the future.

This legislation is a product of compromise. The President and many conservatives have come a long way to offer this plan and especially the part of the plan that offers citizenship to this group of people. For one example of compromise, as chairman of this committee, there are a lot of things I would have liked to have seen in this legislation that can't be in there, as a way of getting a broad base of compromise. I am a strong supporter of mandatory E-Verify, but that is not in this document. I think the other side needs to be willing to compromise as well. We need to pass something that can become law. Several times my colleagues have been told that this is the only plan the President supports, and you have heard him say that on television many times since he put out the four-pillars program, as we call it, that came from his White House. The House isn't going to bring up anything that the President will not sign. I think we need to stop political posturing and pass something that can fix a real problem by providing border security and certainty for DACA kids.

This legislation is a reasonable approach to shielding children illegally brought to our country through no fault of their own while also taking meaningful steps to ensure that nobody finds themselves in the same situation in the future. This is a rare opportunity to fix a real problem and protect the country in a thoughtful and compassionate way. We simply have to correct the loopholes in current law that allow dangerous criminals to enter and remain at large in our country.

Our proposal is supported by the President, who has come a long way to reach a compromise. Just think of the long way from the positions he took during his campaign for President. This President can be very correct in stating that a platform he once ran on he wants to serve on.

In this particular case, I think he has come to the same conclusion as a lot of us have: These young people are here through no fault of their own. They may be technically violators of the law, but as a practical matter, humanitarianism calls for us to make a legalization. This is the only Senate proposal that has any chance of passing the House and being signed into law. If my colleagues are serious about actually finding a real and permanent solution to the DACA crisis, they should be ready and willing to support this compromise.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 387. I ask consent that the Senate vote on the nomination with no intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Did the Senator make his formal objection?

Thank you.

Normally, I would speak right after the Senator from Texas, but I am going to call on three of my colleagues who are here to speak because I have more time than they have. I know the Senator from Texas has to go. He accurately did describe our relationship, generally, in this body as Senators from Iowa and from Texas. I want to let everybody know that we have that good relationship.

We sure disagree on this issue. I am sorry we do. With that said, I am going to defer to the Senator from Michigan. I want to say that she is the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee and represents the farmers of Michigan very well, but also, in her leadership position as former chairman of the Agriculture Committee and now the ranking member, she has done a great job of leadership in the area of agriculture.

Would the Senator proceed.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague who spoke very highly of the qualifications of Mr. Northey to be Under Secretary at the Department of Agriculture. I may say just a little bit about his qualifications, but I want to spend most of my time expressing my thoughts to my colleagues in the Senate, and to Senator Cruz primarily, on what I think about the argument over RINs being an impediment to some refineries operating efficiently, going into bankruptcy, or other problems they have.

Senator Cruz has said there are some things that could be put together to help this situation. I will name three of them that I think would work, and then I will say why I disagree with the Senator from Texas about the RINs issue and why he thinks that is a solution to it and why I feel it is not a solution to it.

First of all, my colleague from Texas said there is a problem with Wall Street speculators. I don't know whether that happens every day, but it happens sometimes, and it is something that should be taken care of. I recognized that back in November of 2013, when I wrote a letter on that very subject urging the regulators to take a position on that.

I think greater transparency of this whole market would be very good as well. I think that is a possibility. That is something the Senator and I have discussed as being very helpful, the EPA putting out regulations on vapor so we could get more ethanol in the percentage of

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I just need 1 minute because all of my colleagues are waiting to speak now.

For the benefit of the Senator from Texas, I wish to just say one thing. I don't question that he accurately quoted the union leader at the Philadelphia refinery, but I also, maybe within the last 2 weeks, read a statement by the so-called president--and I believe it is the same person whom we are talking about--that RINs were not an issue.

The other thing that I would add just for clarification of what the Senator said, that nobody has offered any relief, I have offered to make two offers. One of them would be the Reid vapor pressure thing, the issue connected with E15--that could be done by a regulation out of EPA--and also transparency to make sure the markets work.

I thank the Senator from Texas for his consideration of my effort to get Secretary Northey confirmed. I am sorry that he has objected, but that is the way the Senate can work and will work, and we will have to keep working to get Secretary Northey confirmed.

I thank my colleagues for their patience.

Mr. President, two decades ago, I championed passage of the Congressional Accountability Act. It was the first piece of legislation passed by the 104th Congress and the first time in history that Congressional employees enjoyed any legal protections relating to harassment and discrimination.

Today, I am introducing a measure to update and improve this landmark legislation. I call on my colleagues to support these proposed reforms, which already have passed the House of Representatives. Doing so will promote greater transparency, accountability, and an improved work climate in the halls of Congress.

For decades before the enactment of the original Congressional Accountability Act, our branch of government adopted legislation setting workplace safety, civil rights, labor and health policies that directly impacted workers and employers in our hometown communities. Until 1995, Congress was exempt from these Federal laws, which meant that Congressional staff enjoyed none of the employment protections that applied to private sector and executive branch employees.

Because Members of Congress are elected to represent the people, it seemed to me rather disingenuous that the people's branch had authored laws that applied to the men and women on Main Street but didn't apply to the members of Congress who wrote them. Why shouldn't Congress be held to the same set of standards as everyone else?

That's what prompted me to champion the development of the original, bipartisan Congressional Accountability Act.

My initial good government effort wasn't met with open arms on Capitol Hill. It took tremendous effort and half a dozen years to secure enough support to pass these reforms. The Congressional Accountability Act finally passed when Republicans gained majority control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. President Bill Clinton signed this legislation on January 23, 1995.

The Federal legislative branch employs tens of thousands of workers on Capitol Hill, in state offices around the country, and in associated offices, such as the Capitol Police. Thanks to the Congressional Accountability Act, these legislative employees are covered by over a dozen Federal workplace laws, including provisions that mandate minimum wage and regulate overtime; make accommodations for workers with disabilities; spell out anti-discriminatory policies for workers based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or military service; guarantee family and medical leave; require hazard- free workplaces; clarify collective bargaining rights for union members; and explain rules about lie detector tests for employees.

The legislation I'm introducing today makes significant reforms, in three areas, to the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA). The purpose of these reforms is to enhance transparency, ensure accountability, and promote a more respectful work climate in both chambers of Congress.

First, this legislation would streamline and enhance the dispute resolution process for Congressional staff and interns. For example, it would enable Congressional employees to have access to an advocate who can offer assistance in proceedings before the Congressional Office of Compliance. It would require that every Congressional office adopt an anti-harassment policy. It would make it optional, not mandatory, for staffers complaining of harassment to engage in mediation. And it would institute a periodic survey of employees to assess attitudes about harassment in Congress.

Second, this legislation would make Congressional lawmakers personally liable for their harassment of employees and interns. It imposes a 90-day deadline by which Congressional lawmakers must reimburse the Treasury for awards or settlements of harassment claims. It bars the use of official House or Senate funds to cover a settlement of a harassment claim. It also ensures the automatic referral of harassment claims against a lawmaker to the Ethics Committee.

Third, and finally, this measure would increase public transparency of Congressional settlement awards. It does so by ensuring that detailed information on awards and settlements will be reported twice a year and posted online.

These reforms are overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the immediate passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Congressman Gregg Harper for introducing and championing the passage of very similar legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this week.

Mr. President, two decades ago, I championed passage of the Congressional Accountability Act. It was the first piece of legislation passed by the 104th Congress and the first time in history that Congressional employees enjoyed any legal protections relating to harassment and discrimination.

Today, I am introducing a measure to update and improve this landmark legislation. I call on my colleagues to support these proposed reforms, which already have passed the House of Representatives. Doing so will promote greater transparency, accountability, and an improved work climate in the halls of Congress.

For decades before the enactment of the original Congressional Accountability Act, our branch of government adopted legislation setting workplace safety, civil rights, labor and health policies that directly impacted workers and employers in our hometown communities. Until 1995, Congress was exempt from these Federal laws, which meant that Congressional staff enjoyed none of the employment protections that applied to private sector and executive branch employees.

Because Members of Congress are elected to represent the people, it seemed to me rather disingenuous that the people's branch had authored laws that applied to the men and women on Main Street but didn't apply to the members of Congress who wrote them. Why shouldn't Congress be held to the same set of standards as everyone else?

That's what prompted me to champion the development of the original, bipartisan Congressional Accountability Act.

My initial good government effort wasn't met with open arms on Capitol Hill. It took tremendous effort and half a dozen years to secure enough support to pass these reforms. The Congressional Accountability Act finally passed when Republicans gained majority control of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. President Bill Clinton signed this legislation on January 23, 1995.

The Federal legislative branch employs tens of thousands of workers on Capitol Hill, in state offices around the country, and in associated offices, such as the Capitol Police. Thanks to the Congressional Accountability Act, these legislative employees are covered by over a dozen Federal workplace laws, including provisions that mandate minimum wage and regulate overtime; make accommodations for workers with disabilities; spell out anti-discriminatory policies for workers based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or military service; guarantee family and medical leave; require hazard- free workplaces; clarify collective bargaining rights for union members; and explain rules about lie detector tests for employees.

The legislation I'm introducing today makes significant reforms, in three areas, to the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA). The purpose of these reforms is to enhance transparency, ensure accountability, and promote a more respectful work climate in both chambers of Congress.

First, this legislation would streamline and enhance the dispute resolution process for Congressional staff and interns. For example, it would enable Congressional employees to have access to an advocate who can offer assistance in proceedings before the Congressional Office of Compliance. It would require that every Congressional office adopt an anti-harassment policy. It would make it optional, not mandatory, for staffers complaining of harassment to engage in mediation. And it would institute a periodic survey of employees to assess attitudes about harassment in Congress.

Second, this legislation would make Congressional lawmakers personally liable for their harassment of employees and interns. It imposes a 90-day deadline by which Congressional lawmakers must reimburse the Treasury for awards or settlements of harassment claims. It bars the use of official House or Senate funds to cover a settlement of a harassment claim. It also ensures the automatic referral of harassment claims against a lawmaker to the Ethics Committee.

Third, and finally, this measure would increase public transparency of Congressional settlement awards. It does so by ensuring that detailed information on awards and settlements will be reported twice a year and posted online.

These reforms are overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the immediate passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Congressman Gregg Harper for introducing and championing the passage of very similar legislation in the House of Representatives earlier this week.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to raise a very important issue that is impacting our veterans population. That issue is the systematic denial of these veterans' Second Amendment rights. This comes up in discussions with Iowa veterans, and I have candidly discussed this issue before on the Senate floor.

Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Manchin, called the Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2018. This bill is being introduced to solve the problem of denying these rights to veterans.

The legislation is about the fidelity of the Constitution and about the fidelity of the Bill of Rights. It is also about due process and fairness for veterans. What this is not about, I want to make clear, is allowing anyone to purchase a firearm who is prohibited to do so under current law or regulations. I want it to be very clear right off the bat so that no one misinterprets this as some effort to let people own firearms who would normally be prohibited.

This legislation is needed because a very disturbing trend has occurred in the past decade. The Veterans Health Administration has been reporting veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--the national gun ban list--just because these veterans have been determined by the VA to be veterans who require a fiduciary to administer benefit payments. This is a pretty simple proposition that denies veterans their Second Amendment rights. It is that simple, as I just said. A fiduciary's administering benefit payments to a veteran could and does lead to that veteran's being denied Second Amendment rights. Once on the gun list, a veteran is outlawed from owning or possessing firearms.

It is crucial to note that the regulations that the Veterans Health Administration is relying on are from way back in the 1970s. It predates even the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and is long before the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental, constitutional right. These regulations grant limited authority to determine incompetence only in the context of financial matters.

The regulation reads like this: ``Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency or incompetency for purposes of: insurance and . . . disbursement of benefits.''

There is nothing wrong with that language, but it is that language that leads to the problems that veterans have with their Second Amendment rights. From this language, it is clear that the core regulatory authority applies to matters of competency for financial purposes. It has nothing to do with regulating who can purchase firearms, but that is exactly what is happening. Veterans are losing their Second Amendment rights because they have people managing their checkbooks. It is that simple. If you cannot handle your finances, you lose your Second Amendment rights.

Everybody wants to know how this is happening. Federal law requires that before a person is reported to a gun ban list, he be determined to be a ``mental defective.'' The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive created a regulation to define what ``mental defective'' means. It includes, among other requirements, that a person is a danger to self or others. The VA has taken the position that this Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulation can then be made to fit within its own preexisting regulatory structure for assigning a fiduciary, thus requiring that name be put on the gun ban list.

The intent and purpose between these two regulations is entirely different. On the one hand, the VA regulation is designed to appoint a fiduciary. On the other hand, the ATF regulation is designed to regulate firearms. That is a great big, huge distinction. The level of mental impairment that justifies taking away the right to possess and own firearms must rest at a severe and substantial level--a level at which the mere possession of a firearm would constitute a danger to self or others. That decision is never made by the VA before submitting names to this gun ban list. As such, imposing a gun ban is a harsh result that could sweep up veterans who are fully capable of appropriately operating a firearm.

It gets worse.

When veterans are then placed on that gun ban list, they must prove that they are not dangerous to the public in order to get their names removed from that list. That dangerousness standard is much higher than the mere assignment of a fiduciary. Thus, veterans are subjected to a more rigorous and more demanding evidentiary standard to get their names off the gun ban list than the Federal Government must prove to put their names on that list. We ought to all agree that is patently unfair. I also believe that it is unconstitutional. When dealing with a fundamental, constitutional right like the one protected by the Second Amendment, at the very minimum, the government ought to be held to the same standard as we the people.

We owe it to our veterans to fix this problem. As of December 31, 2016, the Veterans Health Administration reported 167,815 veterans to the gun ban list for having been assigned a fiduciary. That is 167,815 out of 171,083 or another way of saying it is 98 percent of all names reported.

It is important to note that since the VA reports names to the gun ban list merely when a fiduciary is assigned to that veteran, not one of those names has been reported because a veteran has been deemed to be a public danger. Accordingly, not all veterans reported to the gun ban list should be on it.

On May 18, 2016, I debated this very issue on the Senate floor with Senator Durbin. He said, ``I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do.''

Then Senator Durbin said, ``Let me just concede at the outset that reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far.''

I am pleased that Senator Durbin acknowledged that many of the names supplied by the VA on the gun ban list do not pose a danger and should be removed.

I thank his staff for working with my staff during this process.

The essential question then is, How do we go about fixing it the right way?

I believe my legislation does just that. This legislation adds a new step before the VA can report names to a gun ban list. The step requires that once a fiduciary is assigned, the VA must first find the veteran to be a danger to self or to the public before taking away his firearm. That is the same standard that the veteran must satisfy currently in order to get his name off the gun ban list.

My legislation also provides constitutional due process. Specifically, it shifts the burden of proof to the government to prove a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. Currently, the entire burden of proof is on the veteran to prove that he or she is not dangerous. When a constitutional right is involved, the burden must always be on the government.

My bill also creates an option for the veteran to seek legal redress via an administrative board or the Federal court system. The veteran is in control. It provides an avenue for every veteran already on that gun ban list to get his name removed. That last point is important to note.

My bill does not automatically remove every veteran from the list, which was a concern Senator Durbin raised previously when we debated this issue. It does require the VA to provide notice to every veteran on the list of his right to go through the new process to have his name removed. Should a veteran choose to do that, the protections, the process, the procedure, and the standards set forth in my bill would then apply to him. Every veteran is free to apply for relief, and every veteran will be treated equally under my bill. Of course, that is the fair thing to do. That is the constitutionally sound way to manage this process.

The bill does provide authority for the government to seek an emergency order if it believes a veteran is a serious and imminent risk to self or to others. That was a suggestion by Senator Durbin--to provide for a short-term safety mechanism when the situation is too urgent to wait for a judge to evaluate all of the facts.

The bill also retains a mechanism for the VA to systematically refer veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This was another of Senator Durbin's main concerns. A simpler bill passed the House of Representatives last year that is similar to the amendment I tried to offer and that Senator Durbin objected to in the year 2016. It would, simply, stop the VA from referring veterans to the gun ban list without first finding them a danger to self and others. However, it did not set up any system to make that happen. The argument is that this puts veterans using the VA in the same boat as everybody else. Of course, I am sympathetic to that argument, but the legislation I am introducing today is a good faith effort to overcome objections that have prevented action on this important issue in the past.

My bill solves a problem that has existed for many years: denying veterans their Second Amendment rights. Veterans should not be subject to a harsher standard than what the government is subject to. Veterans deserve full due process protections when their constitutional rights are at stake. That is the core of this legislation.

The regulatory process at the back end to remove a veteran from the gun ban list is simply moved to the front end; that is, the Federal Government must first prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. This is the same standard applied to nonveterans.

This fix will not change existing firearms laws. Felons are still prohibited from owning firearms. Persons with domestic violence convictions are still prohibited. Persons adjudicated as mentally defective are still prohibited. Persons involuntarily committed are still prohibited. If my bill were to become law, every Federal firearm prohibition would still exist.

Again, the core of my bill simply requires the Federal Government to prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away his or her firearms. That is the same standard our veterans must live by currently in order to remove their name from the gun ban list and get their guns back.

If we, the people, have to live under that standard, then, so should our Federal Government.

Mr. President, I would like to raise a very important issue that is impacting our veterans population. That issue is the systematic denial of these veterans' Second Amendment rights. This comes up in discussions with Iowa veterans, and I have candidly discussed this issue before on the Senate floor.

Today, I am introducing bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Manchin, called the Veterans' Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2018. This bill is being introduced to solve the problem of denying these rights to veterans.

The legislation is about the fidelity of the Constitution and about the fidelity of the Bill of Rights. It is also about due process and fairness for veterans. What this is not about, I want to make clear, is allowing anyone to purchase a firearm who is prohibited to do so under current law or regulations. I want it to be very clear right off the bat so that no one misinterprets this as some effort to let people own firearms who would normally be prohibited.

This legislation is needed because a very disturbing trend has occurred in the past decade. The Veterans Health Administration has been reporting veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--the national gun ban list--just because these veterans have been determined by the VA to be veterans who require a fiduciary to administer benefit payments. This is a pretty simple proposition that denies veterans their Second Amendment rights. It is that simple, as I just said. A fiduciary's administering benefit payments to a veteran could and does lead to that veteran's being denied Second Amendment rights. Once on the gun list, a veteran is outlawed from owning or possessing firearms.

It is crucial to note that the regulations that the Veterans Health Administration is relying on are from way back in the 1970s. It predates even the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and is long before the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental, constitutional right. These regulations grant limited authority to determine incompetence only in the context of financial matters.

The regulation reads like this: ``Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency or incompetency for purposes of: insurance and . . . disbursement of benefits.''

There is nothing wrong with that language, but it is that language that leads to the problems that veterans have with their Second Amendment rights. From this language, it is clear that the core regulatory authority applies to matters of competency for financial purposes. It has nothing to do with regulating who can purchase firearms, but that is exactly what is happening. Veterans are losing their Second Amendment rights because they have people managing their checkbooks. It is that simple. If you cannot handle your finances, you lose your Second Amendment rights.

Everybody wants to know how this is happening. Federal law requires that before a person is reported to a gun ban list, he be determined to be a ``mental defective.'' The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive created a regulation to define what ``mental defective'' means. It includes, among other requirements, that a person is a danger to self or others. The VA has taken the position that this Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulation can then be made to fit within its own preexisting regulatory structure for assigning a fiduciary, thus requiring that name be put on the gun ban list.

The intent and purpose between these two regulations is entirely different. On the one hand, the VA regulation is designed to appoint a fiduciary. On the other hand, the ATF regulation is designed to regulate firearms. That is a great big, huge distinction. The level of mental impairment that justifies taking away the right to possess and own firearms must rest at a severe and substantial level--a level at which the mere possession of a firearm would constitute a danger to self or others. That decision is never made by the VA before submitting names to this gun ban list. As such, imposing a gun ban is a harsh result that could sweep up veterans who are fully capable of appropriately operating a firearm.

It gets worse.

When veterans are then placed on that gun ban list, they must prove that they are not dangerous to the public in order to get their names removed from that list. That dangerousness standard is much higher than the mere assignment of a fiduciary. Thus, veterans are subjected to a more rigorous and more demanding evidentiary standard to get their names off the gun ban list than the Federal Government must prove to put their names on that list. We ought to all agree that is patently unfair. I also believe that it is unconstitutional. When dealing with a fundamental, constitutional right like the one protected by the Second Amendment, at the very minimum, the government ought to be held to the same standard as we the people.

We owe it to our veterans to fix this problem. As of December 31, 2016, the Veterans Health Administration reported 167,815 veterans to the gun ban list for having been assigned a fiduciary. That is 167,815 out of 171,083 or another way of saying it is 98 percent of all names reported.

It is important to note that since the VA reports names to the gun ban list merely when a fiduciary is assigned to that veteran, not one of those names has been reported because a veteran has been deemed to be a public danger. Accordingly, not all veterans reported to the gun ban list should be on it.

On May 18, 2016, I debated this very issue on the Senate floor with Senator Durbin. He said, ``I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do.''

Then Senator Durbin said, ``Let me just concede at the outset that reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far.''

I am pleased that Senator Durbin acknowledged that many of the names supplied by the VA on the gun ban list do not pose a danger and should be removed.

I thank his staff for working with my staff during this process.

The essential question then is, How do we go about fixing it the right way?

I believe my legislation does just that. This legislation adds a new step before the VA can report names to a gun ban list. The step requires that once a fiduciary is assigned, the VA must first find the veteran to be a danger to self or to the public before taking away his firearm. That is the same standard that the veteran must satisfy currently in order to get his name off the gun ban list.

My legislation also provides constitutional due process. Specifically, it shifts the burden of proof to the government to prove a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. Currently, the entire burden of proof is on the veteran to prove that he or she is not dangerous. When a constitutional right is involved, the burden must always be on the government.

My bill also creates an option for the veteran to seek legal redress via an administrative board or the Federal court system. The veteran is in control. It provides an avenue for every veteran already on that gun ban list to get his name removed. That last point is important to note.

My bill does not automatically remove every veteran from the list, which was a concern Senator Durbin raised previously when we debated this issue. It does require the VA to provide notice to every veteran on the list of his right to go through the new process to have his name removed. Should a veteran choose to do that, the protections, the process, the procedure, and the standards set forth in my bill would then apply to him. Every veteran is free to apply for relief, and every veteran will be treated equally under my bill. Of course, that is the fair thing to do. That is the constitutionally sound way to manage this process.

The bill does provide authority for the government to seek an emergency order if it believes a veteran is a serious and imminent risk to self or to others. That was a suggestion by Senator Durbin--to provide for a short-term safety mechanism when the situation is too urgent to wait for a judge to evaluate all of the facts.

The bill also retains a mechanism for the VA to systematically refer veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This was another of Senator Durbin's main concerns. A simpler bill passed the House of Representatives last year that is similar to the amendment I tried to offer and that Senator Durbin objected to in the year 2016. It would, simply, stop the VA from referring veterans to the gun ban list without first finding them a danger to self and others. However, it did not set up any system to make that happen. The argument is that this puts veterans using the VA in the same boat as everybody else. Of course, I am sympathetic to that argument, but the legislation I am introducing today is a good faith effort to overcome objections that have prevented action on this important issue in the past.

My bill solves a problem that has existed for many years: denying veterans their Second Amendment rights. Veterans should not be subject to a harsher standard than what the government is subject to. Veterans deserve full due process protections when their constitutional rights are at stake. That is the core of this legislation.

The regulatory process at the back end to remove a veteran from the gun ban list is simply moved to the front end; that is, the Federal Government must first prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. This is the same standard applied to nonveterans.

This fix will not change existing firearms laws. Felons are still prohibited from owning firearms. Persons with domestic violence convictions are still prohibited. Persons adjudicated as mentally defective are still prohibited. Persons involuntarily committed are still prohibited. If my bill were to become law, every Federal firearm prohibition would still exist.

Again, the core of my bill simply requires the Federal Government to prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away his or her firearms. That is the same standard our veterans must live by currently in order to remove their name from the gun ban list and get their guns back.

If we, the people, have to live under that standard, then, so should our Federal Government.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the nomination of Andrei Iancu to be Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Intellectual property is critical to our national economy because it encourages the innovation that improves lives and creates jobs. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office plays a critical role in fostering innovation by protecting intellectual property rights, so it is important that the office have strong and accountable leadership.

Mr. Iancu holds a B.S. and M.S. in engineering from the UCLA School of Engineering and a J.D. from the UCLA School of Law. He currently is the managing partner of the Los Angeles law firm Irell & Manella, where he has practiced intellectual property law since 1996. Mr. Iancu has represented both patent owners and accused infringers, large and small companies, and individuals in a large number of patent cases.

Mr. Iancu possesses strong legal qualifications, has a proven record in the field of intellectual property law, and is well respected in the intellectual property community. Last December, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved Mr. Iancu's nomination by a voice vote. I support Mr. Iancu's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to vote for him.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. This legislation, which Senator Feinstein sponsored and I cosponsored, would promote mandatory reporting of suspected abuse of young athletes and give survivors new tools to hold perpetrators accountable.

As Senate Judiciary chairman, I last year convened a hearing on this legislation, which helped build momentum for its committee approval and passage. I am proud to have helped shepherd this bill through our committee and the Senate, and I am delighted that we are about to send this bill to the President for his signature.

Our congressional hearing illustrated just how bad the problem of sexual abuse in youth sports has become, how long it went on, how many athletes were affected, and, in some cases, how slow the response was from those charged with ensuring these young athletes' safety. To say that I was alarmed by what we learned at that March 28 hearing would be a huge understatement.

Abuse that occurs by someone in a position of trust, in what should be a safe environment, such as youth athletics programs, is simply outrageous. Sadly, however, sports officials adopted policies that may have allowed predators to victimize children long after they had good reason to suspect sexual abuse.

Recently, we have heard reports that gymnastics officials took as long as 5 weeks to report suspected abuse to the FBI. We have also heard allegations that gymnasts were pressured to remain silent after they brought the

abuse to gymnastics officials' attention. It is imperative that we uncover whatever systemic failures that allowed a predator to singlehandedly target hundreds of girls and young women for so long.

Sexual abuse is a heinous crime, so we must continue to seek justice for these victims. We also need to understand why allegations of sexual abuse so often remain hidden, instead of being immediately reported to law enforcement. The average perpetrator strikes multiple times before being caught, which is why it is so important that these crimes be promptly reported and investigated. I intend to continue to do oversight in this area and champion policies to protect the innocent from sexual abuse.

I thank each of the athletes who came forward to report abuse. Their courage helped make passage of this bill possible.

Madam President, I rise today to strongly support an important nomination and also to tell you my position on the legislation before the U.S. Senate right now, the one Senator Sasse has just spoken eloquently about.

First, I strongly support the nomination of Minnesota's Supreme Court Justice David Stras to serve as a circuit judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Second, I strongly support the passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. I will briefly address both of these issues.

Over the next couple of days, the Senate will vote on whether to invoke cloture and then confirm the nomination of Justice David Stras to serve on the Eighth Circuit. Justice Stras is eminently qualified and exceptionally bright. He has received praise and support from the legal profession and across the political spectrum.

Justice Stras is the grandson of a Holocaust survivor. He graduated No. 1 in his class from Kansas School of Law in 1999. He served as a law clerk to two Federal circuit judges and to a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Stras has served on the Minnesota Supreme Court since his appointment in 2010. In 2012, he ran for a full 6-year term. He handedly defeated his opponent, winning 56 percent of the vote.

Justice Stras has received wide bipartisan support from the Minnesota legal community. He has taught law for many years at the University of Minnesota. He also teaches law at the University of Iowa, which is in my home State. Many of the faculty, including even liberal professors, such as Professor Shelly Kurtz, strongly endorse Justice Stras's nomination. His time in the private sector was spent at two highly regarded law firms.

During his service on the Minnesota Supreme Court, Justice Stras has participated in over 750 cases. As my colleague Senator Klobuchar noted, Justice Stras's judicial record demonstrates that he is impartial and apolitical in his writings. Justice Stras has sided with the Minnesota Supreme Court majority 94 percent of the time. Justice Stras has dissented one-third of the time with then-Justice Alan Page, who was the first African-American justice in Minnesota and has a record of being very liberal. Former Justice Page strongly endorses Justice Stras's nomination to the Eighth Circuit, and four former justices from all political stripes also endorsed Justice Stras's nomination. This shows me that Justice Stras will not be a rubberstamp for any political ideology. I am convinced Justice Stras will rule fairly and impartially, finding and applying the law as written, not legislating from the bench.

Justice Stras is a very accomplished and impressive nominee. He has a long judicial record of impartiality. I strongly support his nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Madam President, I also come to the floor to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This commonsense bill recognizes that the government has an interest in protecting our children from the excruciating pain they are capable of experiencing during late-term abortions. This is a bill many Americans, including a majority of women, broadly support, and it is time we get this bill passed.

As the Judiciary Committee chairman, I convened a hearing on this bill in 2016. Three witnesses, including a

Northwestern professor of pediatrics, a woman who survived a botched abortion as a baby, and a former abortion provider, offered compelling evidence in support of this very important legislation.

There is also the history of an Iowa boy, Micah Pickering, who is living proof that we need to do more to protect unborn babies at this stage of development. Micah and his parents visited me in Washington last September. They told me that when Micah was born at 20 weeks postfertilization, he received intensive care, including medication to minimize his pain and discomfort. Babies like Micah, born in the fifth month of pregnancy, are capable of feeling such pain. That is why it has now become routine procedure to give premature infants anesthesia for fetal surgeries.

How could anyone think these unborn babies would not experience the same excruciating pain from abortions when premature babies like Micah, from Iowa, are being born at the same stage of development and are surviving late term?

Once again, I call upon my colleagues to support the passage of this bill, entitled the ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,'' and to embrace at the same time the sanctity of an innocent human life.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, about our important oversight work, the investigative work, and to kind of concentrate on the past year.

There are a lot of issues that need more sunlight and more scrutiny. One of my key concerns is the loss of faith in the ability of the Justice Department and the FBI to do their jobs free of partisan political bias.

The American people are rightfully skeptical because of how the Department and the FBI have handled the following subjects: on one hand, Hillary Clinton, and on the second hand, Donald Trump and his associates. Hiding from tough questions about these controversial cases is no way to reassure the public. If the Department is afraid of independent oversight, that just reinforces people's suspicion and skepticism. The only real way to reassure people is to let the sunshine in and let the chips fall where they may. In each of these cases, the government should obviously find out what happened and hold people accountable if there was any wrongdoing, but it also has to play by the rules and be held accountable for its actions as well. We need to shine the light of day on all of it.

As part of our investigation, we have requested documents and other information from the Department of Justice and the FBI. Much of that information is classified. The Department has provided very limited access to those classified materials. It has limited the Judiciary Committee's review to the chair, this Senator; the ranking member of the full committee, and that would be Senator Feinstein; and the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, and that would be Senator Graham and Senator Whitehouse. The government has also tried to severely limit the number of appropriately cleared staff who can review documents and even take notes.

We have reviewed some information related to whether the FBI used a so-called Trump dossier and the extent of its relationship with its author, Christopher Steele. As we know now, Mr. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to research Mr. Trump's alleged ties to Russia. His work was funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. Now, remember, it took a subpoena and a court battle with the House Intelligence Committee to force that fact out into the open. Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign officials denied it to the press for months. In other words, they lied. The founder of Fusion GPS denied that his firm was ``Democratically linked.'' That, too, was untrue.

When the news finally broke, New York Times reporters actually complained that people who knew better had flat-out lied to them about who funded Mr. Steele's dossier. But back before the 2016 election, it is unclear who knew that Steele was gathering dirt on Trump for the Democratic National Committee and for the Clinton campaign. Many of his sources for claims about the Trump campaign are Russian Government officials. So Steele, who was working for Fusion GPS, who in turn was working for the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, was also working with the Russians. So who was actually colluding with Russians? It is becoming more clear.

Mr. Steele shared his at least partially Russian-based allegations far and wide. He shared them with the FBI. He shared them with the media. According to public reports, he shared them with high-ranking officials in the Justice Department and the State Department.

In the course of our review, Senator Graham of South Carolina and I came across some information that just does not add up. We saw Mr. Steele swearing one thing in a public libel suit against him in London, England, and then we saw contradictory things in documents that I am not going to talk about in an open setting here. I know everybody understands that. From everything we have learned so far, Senator Graham and I believe these discrepancies are significant. So we sent a referral of Christopher Steele to the Justice Department and the FBI for potential violations of 18 U.S.C. 1001.

I guess people are going to say whatever they want to say about this whole matter no matter what the facts are, but it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the public debate to ignore those facts or to speculate wrongly about Senator Graham's motivations, or mine.

First, despite all the hubbub, this is not all that unusual. Anyone can ask for a criminal investigation. I have done it in the past when I have come across potential crimes in the course of my oversight work, and I have done so publicly. This situation is no different.

Second, as the special counsel has reminded us all recently, lying to Federal officials is a crime. It doesn't matter who is doing the lying, politics should have nothing to do with it.

I have said repeatedly that I support Mr. Mueller's work and I respect his role. I still do. Nothing has changed. I think it ought to be said again in case anyone missed it. The special counsel

should be free to complete his work and to follow the facts wherever they lead, but that doesn't mean that I can ignore what looks like false statements. If an individual sees what might be evidence of a crime, he or she should report that to law enforcement so it can be fully investigated. That is exactly what Senator Graham and I did. That does not mean that we have made up our minds about what happened. It is possible that Mr. Steele told the truth and the other, contradictory statements that we saw were wrong. But, just as any court would do, we start by assuming that government documents are true until we see evidence to the contrary. If those documents are not true and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele's, then we have another problem--an arguably more serious problem.

Of course, even aside from these inconsistencies, the public reports about the way the FBI may have used the dossier should give everyone in this Chamber pause. Director Comey testified in 2017 that the dossier was ``salacious and unverified.'' If it was unverified in 2017, then it had to be unverified in 2016 as well. So it was a collection of unverified opposition research funded by a political opponent in an election year. Would it be proper for the Obama administration--or, for that matter, any administration--to use something like that to authorize further investigation that intrudes on the privacy of people associated with its political opponents? That should bother civil libertarians of any political stripe.

Now, I wish I could speak more openly about the basis of our referral and other concerns, but right now that information is largely classified. That information is controlled by the Justice Department. As I said, the Department has permitted only the chair and ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism of the Judiciary Committee, and a limited number of their cleared staff to see the underlying documents. I have been pushing for the Department to provide the same access to other Judiciary Committee members and their appropriately cleared staffs, but the Department refuses to provide that access or even to brief the other members on the underlying information.

Fortunately, the Department has agreed that it has no business objecting to our members reviewing our own work, so I have encouraged our committee members and their appropriately cleared staff to do just that--review that work. Look at the memo that Senator Graham and I sent to the Deputy Attorney General and the FBI Director. Members can then make up their own minds about what Senator Graham and I have concluded.

I have also encouraged them to review the committee's transcripts and other unclassified materials that have been available to them and their staffs for a long period of time now--many months.

Finally, I have encouraged them to let me know if they believe that any of that information should be made public. I believe in transparency. We may agree that certain information should be released at the appropriate time, with care to preserve classified information and the integrity of any investigation. I have already been pushing the Department to review the classified referral memorandum to confirm the memo's classification markings so that we can release the unclassified portions as soon as possible. But now the Department has deferred to the FBI, and the FBI is falsely claiming that three of our unclassified paragraphs--each contains the same, single classified fact. Now, that really surprised me because these particular paragraphs are based on nongovernment sources and do not claim to repeat or confirm any information from any government document.

Even if these portions of our referral did reference the allegedly classified fact at issue, it is hard to understand why that fact should be classified.

First, the Deputy Attorney General has discussed the fact at issue with me more than once in an unsecure space and on an unsecure phone line. That ought to tell us something.

Second, the FBI is not acting as if this information would harm national security if released. The FBI never notified the entities copied on the memo's transmittal--for example, including the inspector general and the Intelligence Committees--to ensure that fact was protected as classified. If the FBI really believed this fact was classified, then the FBI and the Department should take better care to act consistent with that belief.

Unfortunately, I suspect something else is really going on. It sure looks like a bureaucratic game of hide the ball rather than a genuine concern about national security.

I am pressing this issue with Director Wray, and I hope we can provide this information to the public as soon as possible. In fact, just this morning, I took a long period of time to handwrite a letter to Christopher Wray, the Director of the FBI, to let him know these very concerns. It has been scanned to him, and I hope people make sure he gets it because I am not sure he always gets my letters, handwritten or typed.

I also believe that the Department should carefully review the entire memorandum and begin an orderly process to declassify as much of that information as possible.

The Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives recently voted to allow all House Members to review a short memo summarizing what it has learned. Senators are not allowed to see what the House Members know. However, House Members who have seen it have been calling for a vote to release that memo.

Here in the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee has access to the same information that the House Intelligence Committee saw before drafting its summary memo. Our committee does not have the same authority to release classified information that the House committee has. We have to rely on the agency to review and potentially declassify our memo.

Based on what I know, I agree that as much of this information should be made public as soon as possible through the appropriate process--and I don't just mean the summary memos. The government should release the underlying documents referenced in those memos after deleting any national security information that needs to be protected.

But most of this story can be told, and the part that can be told should be told. The American people deserve the truth. Stale, recycled media spin from journalists and pundits who do not have all the facts is not enough. The country is filled with frenzy and speculation, but the people are very hungry for facts. However, I cannot release this information on my own, and neither should anyone else. Classified information is controlled by the executive branch. We should work together to achieve the greater transparency while still protecting legitimately sensitive national security information.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.