Floor Statements

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

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

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 10 a.m., at Walter E. Washington Convention Center to conduct a hearing entitled ``Driving Automotive Innovation and Federal Policies.''

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``This is Not a Drill: An Examination of the Wireless Emergency Alert System.''

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michael B. Brennan, of Wisconsin, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit, Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, and Adam I. Klein, of the District of Columbia, to be Chairman and Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Special Committee on Aging

The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Turning 65: Navigating Critical Decisions to Age Well.''

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed hearing.

Subcommittee on Personnel

The Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of David J. Ryder, of New Jersey, to be Director of the Mint, PN1355.

I will object because the Department of the Treasury has failed to respond to a letter I sent on September 29, 2017, to a bureau within the Department seeking documents relevant to an ongoing investigation by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Despite several phone calls between committee staff and Treasury personnel to prioritize particular requests within that letter, the Treasury Department has to date failed to provide any documents.

My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Ryder in any way. However, the Department must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Iowans who have traveled to the Capitol today to be with us for the March for Life.

I commend them and the many other Americans who have traveled here

from every corner of the country to embrace the sanctity of life. Their participation in this march symbolizes their compassion and concern for the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

I also want to call on my colleagues to join us in supporting the immediate passage of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This common-sense measure, which I have cosponsored, recognizes that the government has an interest in protecting the unborn from the excruciating pain they are capable of experiencing during a late-term abortion.

Some people call this measure ``Micah's Law,'' in honor of an Iowa boy, Micah Pickering, who was born at 20 weeks postfertilization. I have met Micah and his parents. Micah didn't just survive. He is a beautiful little boy who is thriving.

Research suggests that, after the fifth month of pregnancy, the nervous system of the unborn child has developed to the point where that child is capable of detecting and responding to painful stimuli. This also is around the time when the unborn baby is soothed by the mother's voice. We are hearing that babies may learn within the womb, absorbing language sooner than we previously thought, so it should surprise no one that these same unborn babies can experience intense pain during a late-term abortion when their limbs are being torn apart in their mother's wombs.

Currently, the United States is one of only about seven countries in the world that permit elective abortions past 5 months. Among the very few that embrace late-term abortions are Vietnam, Singapore, and North Korea. Passing this bill, which imposes restrictions only on elective abortions and only after the fifth month of pregnancy, would bring the United States in line with the vast majority of countries around the globe. Lawmakers in these other countries have grasped the concept that late-term abortions are essentially barbaric and often unnecessary.

Many of my colleagues actively supported the Americans with Disability Act. How could you support a measure like that and not also seek to protect the unborn babies whose parents might choose to end their lives late in pregnancy merely due to a disability like Down syndrome? I believe that the lives of unborn babies with this condition have the same value as those of other unborn babies.

If you do not support restrictions on abortions after the fifth month of pregnancy, when infants at the same stage of development are being born prematurely and, like Micah Pickering, surviving long term, then what, exactly, is your limit--if any--on abortion?

I remind my colleagues that the American people overwhelmingly support restrictions on late-term abortions. Numerous States, including Iowa, already have passed similar legislation to protect the unborn baby who is capable of experiencing pain.

In 2016, I convened a congressional hearing at which two doctors testified in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. We learned that about a quarter of the babies born prematurely, around 5 months, will survive long term if given proper medical assistance.

One of the doctors who testified, Colleen Malloy, is an associate professor in the pediatrics department at Northwestern University's School of Medicine. According to Dr. Malloy, by 20 weeks of development, the unborn baby's pain receptors are present and linked. As further explained by Dr. Malloy, at 20 weeks' fetal age, premature babies are ``kicking, moving, reacting, and developing right before our eyes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. We can easily witness their humanity, as well as their experiences with pain.''

Dr. Anthony Levatino, a practicing gynecologist with decades of experience, testified similarly at a House hearing several years ago. Dr. Levatino estimates that he performed over 1,000 abortions in private practice, until his adopted daughter died in a car crash. His child's death was a life-changing event that led him to stop performing abortions. Performing an abortion on a 24-week-old unborn child is undoubtedly painful for that baby, Dr. Levatino testified. Scientific studies confirm that the unborn can experience pain after the fifth month.

The Judiciary Committee in 2016 also heard testimony from Dr. Kathi Aultman, a former abortion provider. She told us, an ``abortionist knows exactly what he or she is doing because they must count the body parts after each procedure'' to make sure they have cut the whole baby out of the mother.

Dr. Aultman also questioned why an unborn baby who can live outside the womb should be given no consideration, no protection, and no rights just because the child is unwanted, and she is right. Why shouldn't we have compassion for babies whose nervous systems are developed enough for them to experience pain? Why shouldn't we protect them from dismemberment with steel tools?

This is a measure that the majority of Americans--including a majority of women--broadly support. Once again, I urge my colleagues to embrace the sanctity of innocent human life and vote for this landmark legislation.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Should the Children's Health Insurance Program be reauthorized? Of course it should be reauthorized. It has a long history of strong bipartisan support. This is a major issue in reaching the point of whether we need to get something passed--and we do need to get something passed so the government doesn't shut down. In regard to the Children's Health Insurance Program being a part of that, this started very early last fall, when the Senate Finance Committee overwhelmingly passed a 5-year extension from that committee, once again stating the strong bipartisan support that the Children's Health Insurance Program has.

Thankfully, it is moving along in the House of Representatives. That body has included a 6-year extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program in the continuing resolution that we have to get through the U.S. Senate. That 6-year extension would be the longest extension of the program since it was created over 20 years ago.

I am sure this is going to be surprising to our constituents, for sure, and maybe even surprising to Members of this body, but this reauthorization of 6 years actually saves $1 billion.

I cannot believe that we are in a situation where people who have said that they support the Children's Health Insurance Program would vote against its reauthorization when the House resolution comes over here, but that is what the leadership of this body is dealing with. The reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program has been elevated in this debate, so people know that those who have been crying for a long period of time about finally having CHIP reauthorized could be in a situation of voting against what they have been pleading for over a long period of time.

My colleague from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Feinstein, said: ``Healthcare coverage for kids should be a no-brainer.'' I agree. This Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization is a no- brainer, both in the value it has for the kids and in saving us money at this point.

Senators Warner and Kaine from Virginia wrote: ``We ask that you include bipartisan legislation reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program in any upcoming funding legislation.'' Well, it is here for all of those Senators who want the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorized. This is the opportunity to reauthorize it.

Will you vote against what you have been advocating for a long time-- the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program? In my State of Iowa, 68,792 children--the latest enrollment--are in CHIP and are depending upon Congress to do the right thing. The right thing to do is to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program as soon as possible--which could be today or tomorrow--for 6 years so that we don't have to deal with it for a long period of time.

My fellow Senators, this is a time for statesmanship, not gamesmanship. It is time to vote for a prompt reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Mr. President, I would like to speak about a tax issue. It was nearly 3 weeks ago that the President signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It is the most sweeping reform of our Tax Code in more than three decades. This tax reform provides both tax simplification and tax cuts for the vast majority of taxpayers.

Importantly, the tax reform bill made good on its commitment to provide real relief to small business owners, and that also includes family farmers and ranchers. As one of only three Republican Senators on both the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee, it was a priority of mine to represent agriculture and the family farm institution throughout the tax reform debate.

Fair treatment for farmers under tax reform was especially important to me, given the large role agriculture plays in the economy of the State of Iowa. Ag accounts for one out of every five jobs in the State and makes up 33 percent of Iowa's economy. The tax reform bill provided a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make real and long-lasting reforms for farmers, ranchers, and every American working in our agricultural industry.

Broadly speaking, across the board, rate reductions will let Americans keep more of their own money. This will afford farmers the opportunity to reinvest in their operations instead of sending that financial capital to politicians in Washington.

Tax reform legislation expands section 179 of the Tax Code, which helps farmers finance overhead costs. It enables farmers to deduct more expenses in the year they occurred and also expands the availability of cash accounting to more farmers in Iowa and throughout the country. These provisions will allow farmers to invest in the equipment necessary to do the job of feeding the Nation and the world.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowers taxes on capital investment and includes a business income deduction, which will help level the playing field between farms that file as corporations and those that file as individuals. More than 94 percent of farms are taxed under the IRS provisions affecting individual taxpayers. The bulk of agriculture producers who operate outside the corporate tax code deserve basic fairness. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act makes sure that those taxed under the individual and corporate tax codes are treated with more equity.

One of the most frequently discussed issues in tax reform discussion is the estate tax, which can force family farms to break up operations to pay the IRS following the death of family members. That doesn't happen at the death of a lot of farmers, but in a few cases it does, and it seems to me to be very unfair to break up a farming operation to pay as a result of the consequence of death. I support a full repeal of this unfair tax, but was pleased that in this tax reform legislation we were able to make significant progress in alleviating its burden on family farmers by doubling the estate tax exemption. This substantial change would let more family farmers pass their hard-earned life's work on to their children, paving the way for the next generation of family farmers.

According to the Iowa Farm Bureau, given the price of farmland, about 30 percent of crop farms in Iowa exceeded the $5 million estate tax exemption in 2016, based on land values. The doubling of the exemption amount will go a long way toward alleviating the nightmare that is the death tax for many Iowa farmers.

I have long advocated for commonsense tax relief measures because they will help Iowa and the Midwest and will make life easier for middle-class Americans.

Farmers' hard work provides the healthy and affordable food that we so often take for granted. We should do everything in our power to support that segment of our economy and create an environment where these small

businesses and hard-working families can thrive and prosper. That is what tax reform will do for farmers, for Iowans, and for all Americans. Whether they are middle-class farmers or middle-class nonfarmers, all will benefit from other provisions of the tax bill, such as doubling the standard deduction, doubling the child tax credit, reducing the 15- percent bracket to 12, reducing the 25-percent bracket to 22, and there are a lot of other features in this bill to benefit not only farmers but also other middle-class families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I speak--because Senator Perdue wants to speak right after me--I ask unanimous consent that Senator Perdue, assuming he shows up before I am done, be the next one in line to follow me.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer remarks about an issue of utmost important to this body and to the American people--the ongoing negotiations over the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

I should explain the justification for these young people. The children were brought here by their parents. Their parents crossed the border without papers, violating the law, but the children cannot be held guilty for the sins of their parents. That is why we feel it is very legitimate to do this humanitarian thing of legalizing DACA children--not in and of itself, but, as you heard from my colleague from North Carolina and you will hear from other people, the necessity of making sure that we have border security, that we do away with chain migration, and that we also do away with diversity visas--this is the scope of negotiations that ought to be going on to get a compromise for the humanitarian reason of giving certainty to these young DACA people.

Those things were narrowed at the White House a week ago Tuesday, not the famous Thursday meeting that you heard so much about last weekend but the meeting of 23 Republican and Democrat Members of both the House and Senate. When you get a bicameral, bipartisan group of people together with the President--and you want to do that because you want to make sure that when you reach an agreement, the President will sign it--it seems to me that is a significant way to move forward. But things tend to take different routes around here, and I am here because of some routes that I think are very puzzling at this point--pretty much along the lines of what the Senator from North Carolina just stated.

Last week, speaking to my colleagues, I told this body that we still weren't any closer to a legitimate and fair deal that promotes and protects the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration system, and, at the same time, what is very important is providing a fair and equitable solution on DACA. But we also want to take care of the interests of the American people, particularly the safety of the American people when it comes to criminal aliens.

Since I made that speech a week ago, we made some progress in a meeting that went on at the White House, which I just told you about. In spite of the many events of these past 2 weeks, the pronouncement I just made that we don't have a legitimate, fair deal on one hand to protect the American people and, on the other hand, to deliver the humanitarian ends that we need for the DACA kids--that pronouncement still holds true.

Unfortunately, immigration has become the ``Groundhog Day'' of the U.S. Senate. Democrats, and even some Republicans, keep repeating the same mistakes that we have been making for the past 30 years, and they don't seem to be learning from them. I should probably tell my colleagues what I have learned in those 30 years.

Thirty years ago, when I voted for an immigration bill--the last great big reform of immigration--we had 3 million undocumented people here. In good faith, we thought we had secured the border because throughout the history of the country, from the beginning, it had never been illegal to hire an illegal alien, and for the first time, we made it illegal for our employers to hire someone who is undocumented, taking away the magnet to come to this country. We thought it would secure the border if they couldn't be legally hired, and we legalized 3 million people. We didn't take into consideration the whole industry of false documents in which, if I go to an employer and show him a false document and they believe it is a true document, then they are not guilty of hiring me, even though I am technically an undocumented worker, because I am using a fraudulent document.

What happens when you reward illegality? You get more of it. So instead of the 3 million people we had legalized, we now have an 11- million person issue. That is what I have been told.

We don't want to repeat those mistakes, and that is why, besides legalizing DACA kids, border security and doing away with chain migration are so important. One of the bombers in New York was here because of chain migration--the terrorist who was just about ready to-- well, he didn't kill anyone, but he injured a lot of people. Then we have another person who was here on a diversity visa and killed 8 people and injured 12 while driving down the streets of New York. So we have a major problem we have to take care of.

The President is very interested in taking care of this problem, as he enunciated in that Tuesday meeting, which was bicameral and bipartisan and narrowed the issues so that it would be easier for us to reach an agreement here. Instead of dealing with 100 things, 4 are taken care of--DACA, border security, doing away with diversity visas, and doing away with chain migration.

We don't want ``Groundhog Day'' to happen again in the U.S. Senate because it has been happening quite frequently. In the last 30 years, we thought we could solve this problem once and for all by taking away the magnet for people to come here for jobs, and we would secure the border. Well, 30 years later, you can understand why the President wants a wall and more border security.

In recent days, several of my colleagues formed what can best be described as a poor man's version of the Gang of 8. The Gang of 8 is affiliated with a very bad bill called comprehensive immigration. It passed in 2013 and went nowhere in the House of Representatives because it was unrealistic. These six Senators have decided that they--and they alone--will come up with a solution to the DACA crisis. Now they are demanding that their solution--and no other solution--receive a vote or they will shut the government down at midnight tomorrow night. That is right. These Senators, along with many Democrats, are threatening to shut the government down unless this plan gets a vote.

Surely, if these Senators are willing to prevent basic services from being provided to law-abiding, tax-paying American citizens and legal immigrants, their plan must be something that could garner wide bipartisan support, pass the House, and be signed into law by the President. It is far short of those four things that were agreed to at the bipartisan, bicameral meeting at the White House.

What is actually in this grand plan these Senators have come up with? Well, as of today, neither I nor my staff have actually seen text of the bill they are promoting. Why are they threatening a shutdown of the Federal Government over a bill that almost no one has been given a chance to read, and why are they threatening to shut down the government when there is still plenty of time? The deadline is March 5 to come to a meaningful solution that can earn bipartisan support.

Well, here is what we do know about their proposal, from one-page summaries. The bill would provide a massive amnesty to millions of people who are in this country unlawfully--before border security, making the same mistake we did in 1986. Their proposal doesn't just provide status to the young men and women enrolled in the DACA Program, which everyone in this Chamber agrees should be done; it dramatically expands the scope, granting legal status to potentially millions of others, including those who knowingly violate the law. It is unthinkable to me that we should reward that unlawful conduct, and it is ridiculous that Democrats and some Republicans are turning the tables and making this last-minute demand when there was such a successful meeting at the White House a week ago Tuesday. It was bipartisan, bicameral, with the President leading the discussion and everyone agreeing that we would narrow the 100 issues down to 4: DACA, border security, diversity visas, and ending chain migration.

Surely then, in exchange for this massive amnesty, their proposal would provide significant border security, enforcement, and chain migration reforms. If you were hoping for that answer to be yes, don't hold your breath. Their proposal has a paltry amount of funding for existing border security infrastructure improvement. That is right--no new infrastructure.

Their proposal also doesn't add new legal authorities to make it easier for law enforcement to apprehend, detain, and deport dangerous criminal aliens. Now, I think they are somewhat embarrassed that they don't have some proposals in there that dangerous criminal aliens ought to be deported easier than they are today.

So I have to ask, is there a reason why these Senators don't want to make it easier to remove these dangerous criminals? Do they want to protect sex offenders? Do they want to protect child molesters? Do they want drunk drivers, gang members, like MS-13, human traffickers, and drug smugglers roaming throughout this great United States of America?

I can't imagine the answer to any of these questions is yes. If I am right, then they need to tell the American people why they refused to give our government the new authorities needed to remove these individuals who have endangered our communities. They either support removing dangerous criminals or they don't. There is no going in between.

Their plan also fails to truly end chain migration. In fact, in that one-page document I have seen, these Senators acknowledge their chain migration fix would only affect 26,266 visas per year. That is right, just a little above 26,000. So in exchange for a potential amnesty for 8 million people, they have agreed to eliminate 26,000 visas a year. I am no mathematician, but that doesn't seem to be a very balanced agreement to me. They seem to be making the same mistakes I made in 1986.

Finally, their proposal doesn't even end the Diversity Visa Program. Remember, this is one of four agreements in a bicameral, bipartisan meeting with the President of the United States that everybody left the White House with an agreement that we were going to break within those four.

This Diversity Visa Program, we all know, is subject to fraud and abuse, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle have long called for its elimination--and I mean elimination, not reallocation. The proposal they are floating around doesn't do that.

To sum it up, this proposal is heavy on amnesty, learning nothing from the 1986 mistake I learned a lot from. Too bad there is only a handful of us around the U.S. Senate from that time because there would be a lot more missionaries saying that what happened in 1986 shouldn't be repeated.

Also, more importantly, it is nonexistent on security measures. This approach has been tried time and again, and that approach has failed. The American people simply don't want to provide a massive amnesty first and secure the border later. For those Members who think we can do amnesty first and security second, I think I made it quite clear: I think that is the wrong approach. I know because I have been here a long time, and I have been here at the time those mistakes have been made. We know they failed the goals we sought. I remember why it failed. Maybe--just maybe--if we actually provide safety first and then consider more comprehensive reforms later, we can break this repetitive cycle and end this immigration ``Groundhog Day.''

Maybe I ought to add to those four points that were agreed to at the White House. The President was promoting another step or two called comprehensive immigration reform, but get this done first. Secure the border first. If we actually provide security first, doing so would instill trust with the American people that we are dedicated to fixing this immigration issue, not simply delaying the same debate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I stand today in support of S. 139, the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act.

As we know, the first responsibility of the U.S. Government is to protect our citizens. To do so, we must make sure that those who protect us have the tools to keep us safe. This bill does exactly that. It provides the intelligence community and law enforcement with the right tools, but it also minds the civil liberties and the privacy protections that our Constitution requires, especially given the ever- changing technological landscape.

The importance of our country's safety and security has been highlighted in several events from just the past 2 years. We often get lost in the constant news cycle, but let's not forget that New York City suffered three significant terrorist attacks in the last 15 months alone.

In September 2016, a terrorist detonated a pressure-cooker bomb in New York's Chelsea neighborhood. A second pressure-cooker bomb was found a few blocks away but didn't detonate. Earlier that day, a bomb went off near the start of a Marine Corps charity race.

This past October, Sayfullo Saipov drove a rented truck onto the bike lane and pedestrian walkway on the West Side Highway. He mowed down numerous civilians, killing eight and injuring 12 others.

And this past December, Akayed Ullah detonated a bomb in New York City's subway tunnel to the Port Authority Bus Terminal, injuring several people near him. He told investigators that he did it in the name of ISIS.

In June 2016, Omar Mateen shot and killed 49 and injured 53 others in Orlando, also an act in the name of ISIS.

In September 2016, a terrorist stabbed 10 people at a mall in St. Cloud, MN.

In November 2016, a terrorist injured 13 after driving into and trying to stab students and teachers at Ohio State.

And in December 2015, we had the San Bernardino shooting, where terrorists killed 14 and injured 22.

We have also seen terrorist incidents evolving around the world, especially impacting our friends in Europe.

In the United Kingdom alone, there have been at least a half dozen terrorist attacks in the past year, including a subway bombing in London, injuring 30 people; a van plowing down pedestrians on London Bridge, injuring 48 and killing 8 people; the Manchester concert bombing, in which 22 people were killed; and the attack on the British Parliament in London, killing 4, including a person from Utah.

All of these attacks and more show that the threats are real, and we must protect our country by lawful constitutional means. Congress has done so by providing lawful authority such as section 702. The section 702 program has been called ``the most significant tool'' in the NSA arsenal for the detection and disruption of terrorist threats. The NSA Director has said publicly that ``there is no alternative way'' to replicate section 702 collection. Some estimate that over 25 percent of all current U.S. intelligence is based upon section 702 collection.

There are some key examples. Hajji Iman rose from a high school teacher to become the second in command of ISIS. He was a main focus of NSA's counterterrorism efforts. The U.S. Government offered a $7 million reward for information leading to his capture. We spent over 2 years looking for him. He

was ultimately captured based almost exclusively on intelligence information from section 702.

Najibullah Zazi is in prison for planning an attack of the New York City subway system with explosives in 2009. He received explosive training in Pakistan from al-Qaida. He was discovered after he corresponded with an email address used by an al-Qaida courier in Pakistan, seeking advice on how to build explosives. The section 702 program uncovered the correspondence. Without that discovery, the subway bombing plot might have succeeded.

In October 2013, the FBI began investigating Shawn Parson, a foreigner from Trinidad and Tobago, after Parson began posting comments online expressing a desire to commit an attack against Western interests. Information collected through section 702 revealed Parson's efforts and was instrumental in identifying additional members of Parson's network.

Through the section 702 program, the FBI assisted foreign partners to identify the individual who committed the 2016 New Year's Eve terrorist attack at a night club in Turkey. During that attack, 38 people were killed or seriously injured, including an American citizen.

Those are just the unclassified examples.

It is important to remind my colleagues of the purpose behind section 702. It provides the government the authority to collect the electronic communications of foreigners located outside of the United States. Under section 702, it is against the law to target anyone in the United States or any American citizen, wherever that citizen is in the world.

The program is targeted. It is not a bulk collection system. Furthermore, the FISA Court must approve targeting procedures to ensure that only appropriate individuals are subject to surveillance. Minimization procedures limit the handling and use of information that is collected. All three branches of government have a hand in overseeing the program to protect the constitutional rights of the American people.

It is also important to remind my colleagues that this legislation was first signed into law in 2008. When we took up consideration in 2012 and debated the law, we authorized this legislation with no changes. The 2012 clean reauthorization had the full support of President Obama.

Some of our Senate colleagues oppose this bill. Their first, and most consistent, claim is that section 702 violates the Fourth Amendment. Our colleagues claim that it is an ``end-run'' around the Constitution. Others call it a ``legal loophole,'' a ``backdoor,'' or ``warrantless surveillance.''

Nothing could be further from the truth. Section 702 is fully consistent with the Constitution. Every Federal court to review section 702--even including the very liberal Ninth Circuit--has upheld the law. The Supreme Court's recent decision to deny review of the Ninth Circuit case lets stand that court's decision. These courts consistently determined that a warrant is not required to collect or query section 702 information.

Moreover, the independent PCLOB review board has reviewed the entire legal framework of section 702 and has also found it to be constitutional.

The other main claim against this bill is that it provides ``new'' powers to the government. Again, this is not true.

Nevertheless, this bill does include some significant reforms. First, the bill requires the FBI to get a warrant in some criminal cases. In other words, we have added a warrant where courts have held that none are necessary. The bill also provides protection for whistleblowers and requires an inspector general's report.

In short, this bill provides our government the tools it needs to protect our national security while providing some much needed transparency measures and increased privacy and civil liberties protections.

My colleagues can tell that I am very strongly in support of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important national security protection legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I don't know whether it is four, five, or six, but some Senators would like to have colloquy on the issue of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and I ask unanimous consent that we have that privilege.

Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues to offer remarks about the current status of the negotiations on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA Program, as it is known in the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately, this body still isn't closer to a legitimate and fair deal that accomplishes two goals: First of all, to promote and protect the interests of the American people in a lawful immigration system and, two, provide a fair and equitable solution on DACA.

Back in December, I introduced a bill, along with Senators Cornyn, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton. The bill, with the acronym SECURE Act of 2017, was a product of months of discussion between this Senator, these other Senators I just named, and the White House. Our plan, simply put, has five pillars.

First, based on the hard work and leadership of Senator Cornyn, our bill provided real, robust border security by mandating the construction of tactical and technological infrastructure at the border.

Second, our bill took meaningful steps to end the lawlessness of dangerous criminal aliens by cracking down on sanctuary cities, ending the misguided catch-and-release policies of the previous administration, and, finally, taking steps to address intentional visa overstays.

Third, our bill took steps to eliminate many of the ``pull'' factors that encourage people to immigrate illegally by permanently authorizing the E-Verify Program and by taking meaningful steps to reduce immigration court and asylum adjudication backlogs.

Fourth, thanks to the leadership and advocacy of Senators Graham, Perdue, and Cotton, our bill eliminated the phenomenon known as chain migration and made a major downpayment toward transitioning to a merit- based immigration system.

Fifth, and finally, our bill provided a bipartisan solution to protect undocumented young people brought to the United States as children by adopting Senator Durbin's Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy--that has the acronym BRIDGE Act.

Our plan was fair, serious, and bipartisan. Most importantly, it was and is pro-American. As I have continually said since the bill's introduction, this group of Senators is ready and willing to negotiate with our counterparts in good faith and to find an equitable solution to the DACA situation that incorporates our bill's five pillars of reform.

I said negotiate. I had at least one Democratic Senator infer that I could not negotiate in good faith because I did not vote for the Gang of 8 immigration bill in 2013. So, sadly, our good-faith offers have consistently been rejected by Democratic leadership. Instead, they decide to engage in a game of brinksmanship.

So I ask several questions: Why doesn't Democratic leadership negotiate with us? Because we refuse to simply pass what is referred to as the Dream Act, as is, with no proportional border security and interior enforcement majors. As the Democrats see it, it is take it or leave it, their way or the highway. This isn't good faith, this isn't negotiating, and that approach is doomed to failure.

I have to ask: Why do my colleagues in the Democratic leadership refuse to even consider measures that would beef up border security and interior enforcement? Do they want people to continue to immigrate to this country illegally? Do they want sex offenders and human traffickers to continue to manipulate

our porous border and enter our country unchecked? Do they want criminal illegal immigrants--people like Jose Zarate, who murdered Kate Steinle, or Eswin Mejia, who killed Sarah Root, to roam free in our country? Are they comfortable allowing criminal alien gangs like MS-13, whose motto happens to be ``kill, rape, and control,'' to continue to terrorize immigrant communities?

I am assuming--in fact, I am hoping--the answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. If that is correct, then why does Democratic leadership refuse to discuss the border security and interior enforcement provisions in the SECURE Act?

Despite the hysteria and the hyperbole you may hear from pro-amnesty, open-border immigrant advocates, the SECURE Act does not contain draconian enforcement measures. If anything, our bill contains the commonsense security and enforcement measures this body has been debating, discussing, and considering for years.

Our bill adds new Border Patrol agents, U.S. attorneys, and judges to make it easier to apprehend, prosecute, and deport illegal entrants and criminal aliens. We authorize money for critically necessary port of entry and exit improvements so we can know who is here, how long they are here, and when they left--if they left.

Our bill increases criminal penalties for human smugglers, these offenses that are committed by repeat offenders, often resulting in death, resulting in human trafficking, and including even sexual assault. We also increase penalties for criminal aliens who commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

Our bill makes clear that individuals who engage in acts of terrorism, criminal gang members, aggravated felons, and drunk drivers are not admissible to our country, and makes it clear that they can be put into expedited removal if they somehow make it into our country.

Finally, our bill permanently authorizes the voluntary E-Verify Program, and it also provides incentives for employers to participate in that voluntary program. It doesn't make E-Verify mandatory. It just provides employers certainty by making the program permanent.

I hope, as I described these things, they are seen as commonsense measures. Why would my colleagues on the other side ever want to oppose those provisions? It wasn't that long ago that many Democrats supported border security and interior enforcement. I would like to list some quotes from recent Democratic Presidents who supported some of these propositions.

In his 1996 State of the Union Address, then-President Clinton championed his actions to crack down on illegal immigration. He proudly noted his administration was ``increasing border patrol by 50 percent . . . [and] increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants.''

In 2006, then-Senator, later President Obama spoke in favor of enhanced border security and enforcement measures. He acknowledged, even then, that ``we need tougher border security, stronger enforcement measures . . . [we] need more resources for Customs and Border Agents, and more detention beds.''

When speaking in favor of the Secure Fence Act, Mr. Obama said: It would ``certainly do some good'' and would go a long way in ``stem[ming] . . . the tide of illegal immigration in this country.''

Do my colleagues no longer agree with former Presidents Clinton and Obama? Do they no longer believe we need to stem the tide of illegal immigration?

My colleagues on the other side consistently talk about how DACA kids shouldn't be used as bargaining chips for any potential deal. What about the innocent American citizens they are using as bargaining chips? What about the thousands of victims every year of crimes committed by dangerous criminal aliens? Do the lives of these people not matter as well? Does the safety of these people, the happiness of these people, the well-being of these people deserve to be bargained away?

This group of Senators whom I have named who are going to participate in this colloquy remain ready and willing to negotiate in good faith and to make tough sacrifices in order to find common ground on this issue. Our counterparts need to be willing to do the same. I am asking them, pleading with them, in all sincerity, to sit down and have an honest conversation.

Let's strike a deal that is fair to all, including to law-abiding Americans. Any deal cooked up by this poor man's version of a Gang of 8 that doesn't have real border security, doesn't have real interior enforcement measures, and doesn't have the other pillars of reform in the SECURE Act--well, it is pretty simple: That is no deal at all, and I will not support that.

I yield the floor.

I call on my colleague, the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis.

Madam President, the Senator has been a leader on this with his separate piece of legislation for a long time.

The next speaker is Senator Cotton; after that is Senator Lankford.

In the meantime, I yield the floor to my colleagues as I have a meeting to go to.

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent requests at the present time relating to the nominations of David J. Ryder, of New Jersey, to be Director of the Mint, and of Isabel Marie Keenan Patelunas, of Pennsylvania, to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of the Treasury.

I will object because the Department of the Treasury has failed to respond to a letter I sent on September 29, 2017, to a bureau within the Department seeking documents relevant to an ongoing investigation by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Despite several phone calls between committee staff and Treasury personnel to prioritize particular requests within that letter, the Treasury Department has to date failed to provide any documents.

My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Ryder or Ms. Patelunas in any way. However, the Department must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to pass the most sweeping changes to our Tax Code in more than 30 years. This historic moment is long overdue, and my constituents in Iowa will benefit from it.

Since the last tax reform effort in 1986, the Tax Code has grown out of control in both length and complexity. All told, taxpayers spend over 6 billion hours annually just complying with the dictates of the Internal Revenue Code. Moreover, our outdated corporate tax system puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage as they try to compete in the 21st century global economy.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will make good on our commitment to provide significant tax relief to middle-income taxpayers both in my State of Iowa and in the entire United States, while making the Tax Code simpler, fairer, and, obviously, more pro-growth.

The bill provides significant tax simplification for the vast majority of tax filers. Most taxpayers will find that they are better off simply by taking the standard deduction. No longer will they have to spend hours sifting through receipts and forms to determine what they can and cannot deduct.

Middle-income taxpayers can also expect to see significant tax cuts. A median income family of four could see their tax bill reduced by over $2,000. This is relief that families will see almost immediately, as less tax is withheld from their paychecks. This tax relief stems from many pro-family and pro-middle-class income tax provisions in the legislation.

First, there is the nearly doubling of the standard deduction. For families, this means the first $24,000 of their income will be exempt from tax altogether. As a result, a significant number of lower income Americans will be removed from the tax rolls entirely.

Second, the middle-income tax brackets are significantly lowered and expanded to include more taxpayers. This includes reducing the current 15 percent bracket to 12 percent, and the 25 percent bracket to 22 percent.

Third, the tax bill specifically recognizes the costs associated with raising a child by doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. Furthermore, to ensure that lower income families with children are able to benefit from this expansion, the refundable portion of the tax credit is increased from $1,000 to $1,400.

While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attempted to claim that this tax bill is all out to help the wealthy, I want to make very clear that this is simply not true. This is evidenced from the features of the bill that I just discussed, but, also, if you need more evidence, look no further than the distribution analysis of the bill by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation of the Congress of the United States. According to the analysis of the Joint Committee on Taxation, on average, every income group will experience a tax cut, with the largest percentage tax cuts going to the middle-income groups. Moreover, the tax bill would make the Tax Code more progressive, with taxpayers earning more than $1 million shouldering a larger share of the tax burden than they do under current law.

The bill also enacts much needed tax relief for job creators. It provides a significant deduction on business income for small businesses, effectively lowering the top tax rate to under 30 percent. All small businesses down to the smallest family-owned corner store and the family farmer stand to benefit from this provision. As small businesses are responsible for creating the majority of new jobs, this is a key provision promoting economic growth and job creation.

Additionally, the bill lowers the statutory corporate rate down from the highest in the developed world to 21 percent. The highest rate in the developed world at 35 percent makes our current corporate tax rate on American companies the highest of those industrialized nations and puts us at a

competitive disadvantage globally, costing American jobs.

Moreover--and this is important for the John Deere workers in Waterloo, IA, or in any other corporation--economists generally agree that a significant portion of the corporate tax falls on workers in the form of reduced wages. Estimates of this burden of the corporate tax on workers ranges from a low of 25 percent to a high of 70 percent. While the exact amount may be debated by economists, one thing is very clear. A corporate rate reduction will result in bigger paychecks for hard- working Americans.

These business tax reforms are crucial to getting our economy growing. We can't continue to settle for the anemic growth of less than 2 percent that we have experienced since 2010. Lower tax rates, coupled with greater expensing of depreciated equipment under the bill, will encourage new capital investments that are necessary to increase productivity, generating both higher wages and higher growth.

The bill before us signals the faith we have in the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, rather than putting our faith in government to grow the economy. We do this to get our economy on the right track, and this legislation will put us on the right track. In all, tax reform will put more money in the pockets of middle- class Americans, make U.S. industry and workers more competitive, and get the economy growing again after 8 years of stagnation--the most stagnation in any decade since World War II.

This is a historic opportunity to help Americans from every walk of life. I look forward to joining my colleagues to pass this once-in-a- generation tax bill and have it signed into law before the new year.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in the 114th Congress, we came very close to passing Kevin and Avonte's Law, a bill named in honor of two boys with autism who wandered away from their caregivers and drowned.

I reintroduced this legislation last month with Senators Klobuchar, Tillis, Schumer, and others to equip communities with important tools to help locate individuals who wander away from their families or caregivers due to dementia or a developmental disability. The bill we crafted adds new protections for children with developmental disabilities, like autism, which are linked to wandering.

The original version of this bill, which I authored with Senator Schumer, passed both Chambers of Congress late last year. It passed this Chamber by voice vote over a year ago, while a similar House companion garnered over 90 cosponsors before passing the other Chamber, 346-66, last December. Unfortunately, we ran out of time to resolve the differences between the two Chamber's versions before the 114th Congress adjourned.

This year, the Judiciary Committee approved Kevin and Avonte's Law by voice vote, and, before reporting the bill to the full Senate last month, we reached bipartisan consensus on an offset. Our offset consists of the Federal Register Printing Savings Act, which Senator Portman introduced earlier this year. Senator Portman's office agreed to work with us and incorporate S. 1195 into Kevin and Avonte's Law. We currently are seeking unanimous consent to pass both bills in one legislative package.

Meanwhile, the House has passed its own version of the Federal Register Printing Savings Act, introduced by Congressman Russell of Oklahoma. The House-passed version of that bill won the approval of the Homeland Security Committee earlier this year, and that panel is seeking unanimous consent to pass it. I support this legislation, which is virtually identical to Senator Portman's bill, but I placed a temporary hold on the House companion yesterday, so that we can find a way to pass that legislation and Kevin and Avonte's Law simultaneously.

By ensuring that both measures pass as one package, we can make additional resources available to equip first responders, law enforcement officials, and other community leaders with the training and tools necessary to better prevent and respond to missing person cases. By doing so, we also can make grants available to educate and train caregivers as well as other members of the community on how to prevent wandering by those with dementia or developmental disabilities.

Mr. President, I have been doing oversight of the executive branch for a very long time. I have done it as ranking member, I have done it as chairman, I have done it when my party held the White House, and I have done it when the other party held the White House.

Earlier this year, I stood up for the rights of my Democratic colleagues to do oversight of the Trump administration, even while they are in the minority. I did it because it was the right thing to do. Lots of people give lip service to the notion of bipartisan oversight, but very few actually practice it. It is tough. You have to be willing to work with colleagues in the other party to ask tough questions of your own political allies.

You can't just ask. If you actually want answers, you have to follow through. True bipartisan oversight is impossible unless it is a two-way street. If Democrats are unwilling to ask hard questions and force answers from their own political allies, then there is simply no way to move forward together in good faith. Both sides need to be committed to getting the whole story--not just the half they think helps their side. Regardless of whether my Democratic colleagues join me, I am interested in that whole story.

There are two major controversies plaguing the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI right now. On the one hand, the Trump- Russia investigation, and then on the other hand, the handling of the Clinton investigation. Any congressional oversight related to either one of these topics is not credible without also examining the other.

Both cases were active during last year's campaign. Both cases have been linked to the firing of the FBI Director. I have been trying to explain this to my Democratic colleagues for months. The political reality is, half of the country thinks our law enforcement establishment gave Hillary Clinton and her aides a pass. These questions go to the heart of the integrity of our Federal law enforcement and justice system.

They are not going to go away just because Clinton lost the election. The independent inspector general at the Justice Department certainly isn't ignoring that issue. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have asked the inspector general to look into a host of issues involving the handling of the Clinton investigation during the campaign. His hard work has already uncovered some pretty disturbing information.

Over the past week, the press has reported that an FBI agent was removed from the special counsel's team and demoted at the FBI due to-- what do you think--political bias. The agent was at the very center of both of these high-profile investigations. High-ranking FBI agent Peter Strzok reportedly used his work phone to send anti-Trump and pro- Clinton text messages to another FBI agent with whom he was having an illicit and immoral relationship.

This man was the Deputy Assistant Director for the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. He worked on the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to conduct--what do you think--official business.

According to news reports and according to documents, it looks like he also helped draft Comey's controversial public statement ending that case of Hillary Clinton and emails. Specifically, he apparently edited out language that suggested legal jeopardy for Clinton. Press reports state he opened the FBI's investigation of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. It has been reported that he was one of the two FBI agents who interviewed former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? What if a high- ranking FBI official got caught expressing pro-Trump political bias on his work phone while leading what is supposed to be a professional, objective, and nonpartisan search for the truth? Why, of course, if that were happening, Democrats would go ballistic, and they would have every right to go ballistic.

This man held a crucial position of public trust, charged with protecting this country from counterintelligence threats. He was a key part of Director Comey's Clinton investigation and his Russia investigation. I have been saying for months that these two cases are forever linked. You cannot separate them.

The same people in the same agency handled both cases at the same time, and now a huge segment of the American people have no faith that these cases were treated, as they should be, impartially. I don't blame the American people.

It is interesting that before he was fired, FBI Director Comey lectured our Judiciary Committee and lectured the public about how the men and women of the FBI ``don't give a rip about politics.''

I believe that for most of the hard-working, rank-and-file FBI agents, that is absolutely true. Their jobs normally don't involve controversial political questions, and their own political views aren't relevant because they are professionals.

But no human is perfect, and no organization is immune from error. It does no good for the leaders of the FBI to pretend that its senior management is above all reproach, that they would never show any improper political bias, and that they would never make mistakes.

The only way to protect against bias or misconduct is to recognize that it exists and to confront it, not to hide it from Congress and the American people.

The law and the facts, whatever they are, should guide the work of the FBI and the Justice Department. If politics infected the Department's decisions during a hotly contested national political campaign, we would have to look at it. That is true whether it occurred in the Clinton case, or in the Trump-Russia case, or if it included both.

Anyone claiming to do bipartisan oversight of the executive branch has to examine both. Ignoring either half of this story simply will not be credible with the other half of the country.

Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to be President--everyone. The perception of a huge segment of the public is that the whole Washington establishment worked overtime to get her name cleared before the Democratic Convention last summer. The FBI even called its case ``Mid Year Exam.''

Director Comey testified that the former Attorney General refused even to name the FBI's work and investigation. That is how political it became. It was really the Attorney General who was at that time insisting on calling it not an investigation but ``a matter''--m-a-t-t- e-r--whatever that means.

We have learned that Director Comey started drafting his exoneration statement long before the investigation was done. It looks like there was a rush to clear her. It looks like the fix was in. I know Democrats don't want to hear that. They only want to talk about Trump.

There is a double standard here in the way they desperately want to go after the President but ignore all other potential wrongdoing in the previous administration. It stinks to high heaven.

But Democrats have visions of impeachment dancing in their heads. Rather than reserve judgment and carefully examine the facts--all of the facts--they are jumping to all sorts of conclusions.

The Judiciary Committee has an obligation to do a deep dive into the firing of James Comey and both of the two controversial political investigations that preceded it. Unfortunately, the Democrats are preventing any truly bipartisan path forward. They appear to be assuming the conclusion at the outset.

They complain publicly, and they complain privately that I am not doing enough to investigate ``obstruction of justice,'' but ``obstruction of justice'' is a legal term of art. It is a conclusion, not evidence. That is not how I conduct my investigations.

I do not make my conclusions first and try to shoehorn the facts to fit my conclusions. I try to get the facts and then go where those facts lead.

Let's consider examples of where investigations have uncovered facts that point to ``obstruction.''

Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon both lied to investigators. That is obstruction, and that behavior got one of them impeached and forced the other to resign.

We also recently learned that Hillary Clinton's lawyers used a program called BleachBit to delete 33,000 emails under subpoena by the House of Representatives.

Now, those government records--and they are government records--can never be recovered. Those facts certainly look like obstruction, but we don't have all of the facts here yet.

So far, I have seen no credible evidence that President Trump has told anyone to lie. I also have seen no credible evidence that he or his aides have destroyed records being sought by investigators.

Many people firmly believe that the President fired the FBI Director in order to improperly halt an investigation of Lieutenant General Flynn.

Now, I am not only willing but I am eager to delve deeply into all of the circumstances surrounding Director Comey's removal, but to claim at the outset that his removal was obstruction of justice puts the cart before the horse.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article by the well-known liberal law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Now, Professor Dershowitz is not a fan of Donald Trump, and he and I probably would not agree on many issues, generally speaking.

The title of his article is ``Senator Dianne Feinstein may be provoking a constitutional conflict.'' Professor Dershowitz strongly disagrees with the ranking member's statement on ``Meet the Press'' the weekend that Comey was fired: `` . . . directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation, that's obstruction of justice.''

This is how Professor Dershowitz replied:

No, it isn't. . . . under our constitutional system of

separation of powers, the president cannot be charged with a

crime for merely exercising his authority under Article 2 of

the Constitution. This authority includes firing the director

of the FBI, for whatever reason or no reason.

That is not to say that the President can engage in illegal conduct. But the professor's point, as I understand it, is that when a President takes an action that is within the scope of clear constitutional authority and discretion, it should be a political question not a criminal one.

The Judiciary Committee still needs to investigate the circumstances surrounding Comey's firing and the Flynn investigation. Those facts may have nothing to do with the obstruction but could still provide important insight about the potential reforms of how the FBI and the Justice Department operate.

For example, he explains how President Trump could have halted any investigation of Flynn if he really wanted to. This is what the professor says:

Trump would have been within his constitutional authority

to pardon Flynn, as Flynn hoped he would do. That would have

kept him from cooperating with the special counsel and

becoming a government witness. Had the president done that,

he would have acted entirely lawful, as President George H.W.

Bush did when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger in order to stop

the Iran-Contra investigation. Although special prosecutor

Lawrence Walsh complained bitterly that the Bush presidential

pardon had the intent and effect of completely closing down

his investigation, no one suggested that Bush had committed

the crime of obstruction of justice.

Then, finally, Professor Dershowitz explains what real obstruction looks like and how it is different from a President's merely exercising his constitutional authority. So I, once again, quote the professor:

Both Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were accused

of obstruction of justice, but in both cases they were

accused of going well beyond the mere exercise of their

constitutional authority. Nixon was accused of telling

subordinates of lie to the FBI, paying hush money to

potential witnesses, and destroying evidence. Clinton was

accused of trying to get witnesses, such as Monica Lewinsky,

to lie. These charges constituted acts--independent crimes--

that go well beyond presidential authority. Trump has not

been accused of any facts that would independently constitute

crimes. The entire case against him, as outlined by

Feinstein, consists of constitutionally authorized acts that

were well within the president's authority under Article 2.

That is an enormous and consequential difference under our

system of separation of powers.

But our constitutional system of checks and balances is too important to throw it aside when it isn't politically convenient. You don't have to be a Trump fan to worry about the consequences of taking shortcuts in going after your political opponents. That is why bipartisan investigations are so very valuable.

When it works, a bipartisan inquiry can provide comfort that all angles have been explored and explored thoroughly.

But it takes two to tango, as they say.

Earlier this year, Ranking Member Feinstein expressed concerns about reports that former Attorney General Lynch asked Director Comey to downplay the FBI's investigation as merely, a ``matter'' instead of using the term ``investigation'' during the campaign. Yet, since then, the ranking member has told me plainly that she will not join in any oversight of the FBI's Clinton email investigation.

Even on Trump-Russia oversight, where we have been able to cooperate a great deal, there have been similar problems.

First, all year, I have wanted to learn more about the origins of the dossier that largely kick-started the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign.

In July, the ranking member joined me in a bipartisan letter seeking voluntary cooperation from the firm that produced the dossier. The dossier was based largely on Russian sources within Russia and was put together by a former British spy. It made salacious and unverified claims about Trump. The company responsible for producing it--Fusion GPS--was uncooperative.

In response to our bipartisan request, it dumped on the committee about 32,000 pages of press clippings and 8,000 pages that were entirely blank. Since then, it has provided zero additional documents.

The founder of Fusion GPS initially indicated that he would rely on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than testify at the committee hearing in July. He later agreed to a private staff interview but refused to answer dozens of key questions.

I would like to compel him to answer questions and compel him to provide the documents that Senator Feinstein and I both asked him in July to provide voluntarily, but under our committee rules, I don't have the authority to do that on my own.

Why would Democrats not want to follow up and get the documents from Fusion GPS that we already asked for together--in other words, in a bipartisan way? Do they not want to know more about how this company put together its anti-Trump dossier from Russian Government sources?

Well, in light of recent news, the resistance from Democrats to this line of Trump/Russia inquiry is now a little more understandable. It turns out that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee are the ones that paid Fusion GPS for the information they gathered from Russian Government sources.

I don't know whether the ranking member or her staff knew the facts earlier this year when I was trying to persuade her to do bipartisan followup work with Fusion GPS, but I do know that unless both sides are willing to ask tough questions no matter where the facts lead, there can be no bipartisan oversight.

We have learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for an anti-Trump dossier based on information from Russian Government sources. Second, we have learned that the inspector general uncovered evidence of partisan bias by a senior FBI official at the center of both the Clinton and the Trump-Russia investigations, which led to his dismissal from the Mueller team.

Before that news broke, back in October of this year, I wrote to the FBI official requesting voluntary cooperation and a private transcribed interview with the committee. The ranking member did not sign that letter. The committee has received no letter in reply. We are still waiting for documents from the FBI about his and other officials' participation in the draft Comey statement.

The FBI should comply voluntarily, but if they don't, I would issue a subpoena to require that the documents be provided and that the witness sit for a deposition. However, under our committee rules, I don't have the authority to do that without support from the ranking member.

Finally, I have long had concerns that the scope of the FBI Clinton investigation was artificially narrow. Recent revelations about these text messages showing political bias only heighten these concerns.

In recent Federal court rulings, the FBI said that the scope of the investigation was limited in two ways. First, it was limited to two issues dealing with the handling of classified information. Second, the scope of the FBI review was limited to the time when former Secretary Clinton was at the State Department. But what if there was evidence of crime not related to the mishandling of classified information? What if the facts showed some obstruction such as intentional destruction of documents after she was Secretary of State? Why exclude those topics from the scope of the inquiry? Who made those decisions? Why were those decisions made? Was there any political bias in those decisions? Certain areas should not be declared off limits beforehand in an investigation. An investigation should go--common sense--where the facts take it.

In multiple letters to the FBI last year, I raised concerns about the scope of the FBI investigation. I asked Director Comey back in May of 2016 whether the Justice Department had improperly narrowed the scope of the investigation to look at the mishandling of classified information and ignore other important legal issues. I wish to quote from that letter:

If federal records on the private server were hidden or

destroyed, then there may have been a violation of 18 USC

Section 2071, which prohibits concealing or destroying such

Federal records.

If any of the deleted emails were responsive to

Congressional inquiries or to agency inquiries, such as ones

from the State Department Inspector General, then there may

have been violations of 18 USC Sections 1505 and 1519,

respectively.

Later in my letter, I specifically asked whether the Justice Department limited the FBI's investigation in any way.

Then-Director Comey eventually responded months later. He claimed that the FBI did investigate whether the unlawful obstruction of Federal records occurred. But an FBI agent said under penalty of perjury that the FBI investigation did not include destruction of Federal records. So which is it? Who is telling the truth? The FBI agent who signed the affidavit, or is Mr. Comey right? Did the FBI really examine whether Secretary Clinton and her associates used the server to avoid Federal records retention requirements, or did Mr. Comey simply pay lipservice to that concern and focus only on classification issues?

Understanding what really happened is incredibly important, and let me tell my colleagues why. During the course of the FBI's investigation, it recovered thousands of work-related emails that were not turned over to the State Department by Secretary Clinton. The FBI also recovered work-related emails that Secretary Clinton and her associates apparently deleted. All of this is clear evidence of alienation of Federal records. Indeed, even the FBI's now-public investigative files show that the FBI had knowledge that Federal records were deleted.

The FBI's interview summary of Secretary Clinton said that she was asked about ``a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015.'' I am going to repeat that. She was asked about ``a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015.'' PRN stands for Platte River Networks, the company that administered Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server. Kendall is David Kendall, her lawyer. Mills is Cheryl Mills, her former Chief of Staff at the State Department.

Paul Combetta, the administrator of her server, was also on the conference call and was interviewed multiple times by the FBI. He admitted that he lied to the FBI in his initial interviews and got immunity from the FBI in exchange for agreeing to tell them the truth. According to the summary of that interview, Mr. Combetta deleted Secretary Clinton's email archives on March 31, 2015.

So we have a conference call with Secretary Clinton's attorneys on March 31, 2015, and on that very same day, her emails are deleted by someone who was on that conference call, using special BleachBit software. The emails were State Department records under subpoena by Congress.

What did the FBI do to investigate this apparent obstruction? According to affidavits filed in Federal court, absolutely nothing. The FBI focused only on the handling of classified information. Maybe now we know why.

Recently released FBI records show that by May 2, 2016, Mr. Comey sent around a draft of his statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. The FBI interview with Mr. Combetta hadn't even happened yet. The exoneration statement was already in progress before the key witness had coughed up the truth about deleting Federal records under subpoena by Congress.

Did the FBI look at obstruction in the Clinton case? Mr. Comey said the FBI looked very hard at obstruction, but that is hard to believe. Director Comey began drafting an exoneration statement in April or early May of 2016. That is months before he publicly announced that he would not recommend charges on July 5, 2016.

According to the testimony of senior FBI officials, Comey began drafting his statement early because the FBI knew where the investigation was headed. That is according to testimony of senior FBI officials. But at that point, the FBI had not yet interviewed 17 witnesses. That ought to be understood. They hadn't yet interviewed 17 witnesses. And one of those witnesses--can you believe it--was Secretary Clinton. Others included her closest aides and associates. How can you possibly know where an investigation is headed without interviewing the main witnesses and the subject of the investigation?

Maybe none of this raises any concerns for Democrats, but it should. The American people deserve to have the whole story. Congress and the public have a right to understand whether the fix was in from the very beginning. If so, then it must take steps to make sure it never happens again.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, to help ensure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy, today I rise to reintroduce the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act. This important bill would establish within the Judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional system of checks and balances.

During my many years in Congress, I've worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Federal Inspectors General who serve as the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs.

I've come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. And when that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action.

During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated roughly $7 billion in taxpayer dollars to support the Federal judiciary. Put in context, the Small Business Administration and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received less funding than the judiciary but both entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, doesn't it make good sense that the Judiciary would deserve the same assistance?

Beyond fiduciary factors, the current practice of self-regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. In fact, in the past seven years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges.

In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. It took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements made to his colleagues who were assembled to investigated him as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him.

In the second case, you will recall that the Senate found former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. guilty on multiple articles of impeachment, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. This Judge's misbehavior came to light through a federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge.

Moreover, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status that would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.''

The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and

abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. Further, the bill establishes important whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees to help keep the judiciary accountable.

Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They're supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only help ensure continued public confidence in our federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch.

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