EXECUTIVE CALENDAR; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 125
(Senate - July 24, 2019)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S5032-S5038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Brian 
C. Buescher, of Nebraska, to be United States District Judge for the 
District of Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                            Budget Agreement

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this week, the administration and 
House Democrats reached a bipartisan budget deal to deliver on the 
President's priorities and prevent a funding crisis this fall.
  As our Armed Forces continue their global engagements, this agreement 
importantly secures the funding necessary to maintain readiness and 
modernize the force. It provides increased defense spending to recover 
from the depressed military readiness rates of the previous 
administration. It provides our men and women in uniform with the 
resources, equipment, and training they need in order to defend our 
freedoms.
  I know Congress deals with a lot of different topics, and all of 
them, by and large, are important, but there is nothing more important, 
nor is there anything more quintessentially a Federal Government 
responsibility than national security.
  All other considerations aside, if this bipartisan budget deal did 
nothing more than fully fund our national security efforts, I would 
support it, but importantly, it also keeps other important elements of 
the congressional consensus intact--things like the Hyde amendment, 
which, as the Presiding Officer knows, since the late 1970s has ensured 
that no taxpayer dollars can be used to fund abortions. In addition, 
this agreement prevents our Democratic colleagues from trying to block 
President Trump from using funds to strengthen border security.
  The administration--Secretary Mnuchin--negotiated a tough deal and 
one that excludes any radical, leftwing poison pills--a difficult task 
in these times, to be sure.
  We know they wanted to use policy riders--nearly 30 of them and 
counting--to try to implement elements of the Green New Deal to undo 
the President's regulatory reforms or to rewrite our immigration laws 
through the back door. Earlier this year, their far-left policy riders 
led to the longest government shutdown in history and almost prevented 
the enactment of bipartisan border supplemental funding. I saw the 
devastating impact that shutdown had on dedicated public servants 
across the country, especially in Texas. This agreement will prevent 
another senseless shutdown and ensure that the trains of government run 
on time.
  To be sure, no bipartisan agreement is ever perfect. That is the 
definition of a negotiation--both sides give a little. It is the nature 
of compromise, which

[[Page S5033]]

is a necessary part of effective governing. There is no doubt that 
there are other priorities I would have liked to have seen included in 
the deal. I wish we had done something to reform our entitlement 
programs, which will continue to outpace inflation and increase our 
national deficit. Someday, we are going to have to deal with our 
deficits and debt; I just hope it is not during the time of a national 
emergency. But as a practical matter, Speaker Pelosi wasn't going to 
agree with such far-reaching reforms in the context of this spending 
deal and debt limit provision. Thankfully, the President was able to 
secure half of the spending cuts he asked for--roughly equal to next 
year's increase in nondefense spending.
  Above all, this deal carries out the most critical responsibilities 
of the Federal Government, which is to support our national defense and 
fully fund the government's operation.
  Again, I appreciate the President's efforts here and particularly 
those in his administration who helped negotiate this bipartisan deal--
particularly Secretary Mnuchin. I look forward to supporting it.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. President, last week, the National Center for Health Statistics 
released preliminary data showing that drug overdose deaths in America 
declined by about 5 percent last year. Before anybody begins to 
applaud, let me point out that drug overdoses killed more than 70,000 
Americans the year before. So a 5-percent reduction is welcome, but 
obviously it is still very alarming. This 5 percent decline is the 
first national drop in three decades, though, and for communities 
across the country that continue to battle the opioid epidemic, it is a 
small indication that our efforts here in Congress are having an 
impact. We certainly have a long fight ahead of us, but this is an 
encouraging sign.
  If you look closer, the data shows that the decline is due almost 
entirely to a decrease in prescription opioid-related deaths. Those 
caused by other opioids--particularly fentanyl and heroin--remain on 
the rise.
  The cruel reality is that the more we step up our efforts to limit 
prescription opioid diversion, the higher the demand is for other 
illegal drugs, many of which come across our southern border. We can't 
limit our efforts to what can be done here at home. In order for our 
work to be successful and for us to save more lives, we have to stop 
this poison from entering our country in the first place.
  I have the honor of cochairing the Senate Caucus on International 
Narcotics Control with Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, where we 
are working on ways to do exactly that--to slow down the poison coming 
across our borders.
  If you look at many of the challenges we face here at home--whether 
it is the opioid epidemic, the humanitarian crisis at the border, the 
criminal gangs on our streets--much of that can be directly traced to 
the violence that exists in Central America and Mexico.
  This morning, I had the pleasure of speaking at the Hudson Institute 
about my proposal to attack this crisis from every angle, an all-
government approach, something we call the New Americas Recommitment to 
Counternarcotics Operations and Strategy. As the Presiding Officer 
knows, we love a good acronym here in Washington, DC, so we can simply 
refer to this initiative as the NARCOS Initiative.
  First, it takes aim at the dangerous substances that are crossing our 
southern border. Customs and Border Protection officers are incredibly 
well-trained and equipped to find illegal drugs, and seize an average 
of 5,800 pounds of narcotics each day. By the way, on June 16, Customs 
and Border Protection seized 20 tons of cocaine--which is the largest 
seizure in the 230-year history of Customs and Border Protection--with 
an estimated street value of $1.3 billion. So good for them. They are 
extremely professional and well-trained law enforcement officers.
  As we know, many of these drugs managed to make their way into the 
interior of our country and into local communities, causing untold 
misery and grief. Stopping their production and movement is not a fight 
we can win alone. It will take a bipartisan, long-term commitment from 
the Federal Government, as well as our foreign partners. An important 
step is to strengthen law enforcement cooperation by improving 
intelligence-sharing and providing training for some of our foreign 
partners. It is an important force multiplier and a necessary component 
of our counternarcotics efforts.
  In addition to attacking the drugs themselves, the NARCOS Initiative 
goes after the cartels and transnational criminal organizations that 
profit from this business. These groups are what I call commodity-
agnostic. They really don't care who they hurt or what they ply. The 
only thing they care about is making money. It is not just narcotics 
they are dealing; it is human trafficking, migrant smuggling, money 
laundering, counterfeit goods, public corruption. The list of crimes is 
long, indeed, and they do all of it.
  These transnational criminal organizations turn an enormous profit 
from their corrupt dealings, and then they have to launder the money 
they use to finance their operation. We know that one of the most 
effective ways to suffocate criminal networks is to cut off the money, 
so that is precisely where we should aim.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed legislation to combat 
money laundering and other illicit financing, which includes a 
provision that I offered that has to do with the role of remittances. 
According to the United Nations, over $300 billion in illicit 
transnational crimes proceeds likely flows through the U.S. financial 
system. The provision included on remittances requires Treasury to 
submit an analysis of the use of remittances by drug kingpins and crime 
syndicates and develop a strategy to prevent them from using that 
remittance system in order to launder proceeds from criminal 
enterprises.
  It is also time for us to reevaluate our current strategy and to 
determine how to update the Bank Secrecy Act, which was enacted more 
than 50 years ago and is the primary money laundering law regulating 
financial institutions.
  In addition to fueling violence and instability, the conditions in 
Central America serve as a push factor. As human beings, we all 
understand people fleeing violence and poverty. So encouraging those 
countries to provide safety and stability for their own people so they 
can stay in their homes and live their lives ought to be one of the 
things that we do. Otherwise, these push factors encourage migrants to 
take the same routes used by cartels and criminal organizations to 
reach the United States. As we know, some of them simply don't make it. 
They die in the process. Young girls and women are routinely sexually 
assaulted. It is a miserable alternative to staying at home and living 
in safety and security.
  We know all of this has contributed to the humanitarian crisis at our 
southern border. We all know but have not yet had the political will to 
reform our broken laws and prevent these smugglers and criminal 
organizations from gaming the system.
  I know the Presiding Officer was at the border earlier this week. I 
have tried to figure out how we crack this nut. How do we take this 
polarized environment and provide the tools necessary to begin to 
staunch the flow of humanity coming across our border? They are 
attracted by the easy access to the United States through our broken 
laws but also the push factors, like the violence and poverty in their 
countries.
  I am working with a Democratic colleague of mine from Laredo, TX, 
Henry Cuellar. Together, we introduced the HUMANE Act, which made great 
strides to help fix our broken asylum system in a way that would give 
legitimate asylees an opportunity to present their case on a timely 
basis in front of an immigration judge. It would also make sure the 
conditions of their custody while they are here in the United States 
are something we can be proud of. Specifically, what this bill does is 
closes a loophole in the law known as the Flores settlement, which is 
often used by smugglers to gain entry into the United States. It would 
streamline the processing of migrants and improve standards of care for 
individuals in custody.
  If we want to restore law and order and make it sustainable, we need 
to look at ways to invest in economic development to help these 
countries build

[[Page S5034]]

stronger economies. But I share some of the concerns expressed by the 
President and others. We need some metrics. We need a strategy. We need 
reliable foreign partners that can work with us.
  The one effort I can think of where we actually were successful 
working with foreign partners and strong leaders to really effect a 
dramatic change is the nation of Colombia, so-called Plan Colombia. 
Obviously, Mexico and the region are much more complex, and Plan 
Colombia doesn't easily fit on top of that region. I think the concept 
is a sound one, one in which we come together on a bipartisan basis, 
develop a strategy, help train our foreign partners, and seek out 
strong leaders who can help us work through these challenges, because 
there is a multiplicity of challenges, as I have indicated.

  One of the things that would help is to ratify the new and improved 
NAFTA, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or the 
USMCA. Obviously, a strong economy in Mexico means people don't have to 
come to the United States in order to provide for their families. The 
International Trade Commission's analysis of the agreement shows some 
positive indicators for North American workers, farmers, ranchers, and 
businesses. About 5 million American jobs depend on the binational 
trade with Mexico alone, which is some indication of how important this 
is.
  We can strengthen public-private partnerships in other ways to help 
add to the effort to provide for investment, a clean environment, and a 
positive relationship with our colleagues in Mexico. One example is the 
North American Development Bank. For every one NAD Bank dollar that has 
been invested in a project, it has successfully leveraged $20 in total 
infrastructure investment in using both private- and public-sector 
dollars. To that end, I have introduced legislation with Senator 
Feinstein, of California, that would authorize the Treasury Department 
to increase NAD Bank's capital and provide additional authority that is 
specifically related to port infrastructure.
  We know the ports of entry are not only avenues of commercial trade 
and traffic but are where a lot of the high-end or expensive illegal 
drugs are smuggled through. We need to modernize those ports of entry. 
We need to expand the infrastructure and make sure they are adequately 
staffed, not only to facilitate the flow of legitimate trade and travel 
but also to stop these drugs from coming through the ports of entry.
  I just want to say a few words about this NARCOS Initiative. I 
believe that we do need an all-government approach that would address 
the broad range of problems across Central America and Mexico, 
including with the transnational criminal organizations themselves, 
with the products and services they provide, as well as with the 
corruption they fuel and the means by which they stay in business, but 
we are going to need responsible partners in this effort.
  As our own experience with nation-building in the Middle East has 
demonstrated, we can't want something for them that they don't want for 
themselves. That is why it is so important to have a clear 
understanding about what the strategy is, what the goals are, and to 
have strong, reliable leaders in those countries who will work with us 
in a bipartisan way to accomplish our collective goal.
  We have both the responsibility and the opportunity to make 
meaningful changes to stabilize the region, and I believe the time to 
act was yesterday. I hope our colleagues will join me in supporting 
this legislation to promote a secure and prosperous Western Hemisphere.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


        29th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to celebrate one of the seminal 
moments in American civil rights history. This week marks the 29th 
anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On 
July 26, 1990, President George H. W. Bush signed a sweeping, 
bipartisan bill that acknowledged and affirmed the rights of people 
with disabilities.
  The passage of the so-called ADA promised that people with 
disabilities would be included in the guarantee of fundamental rights--
just by way of examples, the right to petition the court when 
discriminated against; the right to apply for and be considered for a 
job; the right to have and having the access to vote; the right to 
economic security; the right to live where you want to live.
  Twenty-nine years later, our country is better because we agreed to 
make the opportunities of our country accessible to all. The ADA 
changed the lives of 61 million Americans with disabilities and has 
made our Nation more accessible. The ADA proclaimed that Americans with 
disabilities must have the right and the means to fully participate in 
their communities. The ADA offers a path toward a truly accessible 
nation and elevates the voices of millions of individuals.
  One of those voices belongs to Jean Searle from the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. Jean works at Disability Rights Pennsylvania, where she 
protects the rights of people with disabilities so they may live the 
lives they choose--free from abuse, neglect, discrimination, and 
segregation.
  As a child and young adult, Jean was forced to live in an 
institution. In that institution, she faced many indignities, the worst 
of which may have been having had her infant child taken from her 
without her consent. Simply because Jean lived with a disability, it 
was often assumed that she was not capable of making her own decisions, 
but she worked hard to find a way out of that institution. When she 
finally succeeded, she chose to live independently in her community and 
has found a fulfilling career in Harrisburg.
  The rights affirmed by the ADA and the services and supports Medicaid 
and other programs have provided have made it possible for Jean to be a 
full citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, yes, even of the 
United States of America. Jean has dedicated her life to protecting the 
rights of people with disabilities.
  During this ADA anniversary week, it is also fitting that today is 
Jean's birthday.
  So, Jean, in looking at your picture on my left, I say happy 
birthday. I know many here would wish the same if you were here in 
person on the floor with us. I am honored to share your birthday.
  Let me pause here.
  Almost 30 years after her infant son, whom I referred to earlier, was 
taken from her, Jean had the opportunity recently to meet him for the 
first time. Jean often says that to make the world a better place, we 
need to spend our time listening to people with disabilities and 
learning from the disability community.

  Well said, Jean.
  When I listen, I hear about the greatness of the ADA and, at the same 
time, about much more that still needs to be done. One of those things 
is to protect what we have. That includes protecting access to 
healthcare, preventing the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and 
ensuring that Medicaid remains intact. We also need to combat threats 
to people with disabilities.
  Over the past 2 years, we have seen a systemic and concerted effort 
to sabotage supports that are necessary for equality, opportunity, and 
the full participation of people with disabilities. What this 
administration has failed to do with legislation it is trying to 
accomplish through regulation and court cases. Cutting Medicaid is 
contrary to the ADA's goals, and it makes it difficult--or even 
potentially impossible--for people with disabilities to work, to go to 
school, or to be engaged in their communities.
  While we protect the hard-fought rights the disability community has 
earned, we can also build upon the ADA's promises. As we celebrate the 
ADA's 29th anniversary, we can do at least three things--honor the 
great advancements that have been made because of the ADA; remain 
vigilant to attacks on those civil rights; and work to ensure that the 
ADA's goals are realized for all people with disabilities.
  I believe Jean's own words make the point clearer than I can.

       We must never go back. We must never forget the struggle 
     that people with disabilities have gone through and are still 
     going through today.


[[Page S5035]]


  We must never go back, as Jean said. So, as we celebrate the ADA's 
29th anniversary, I promise--and I know it is the promise of many 
Members of Congress--to never forget that struggle. I also promise to 
stand side by side with the disability community to fully accomplish 
the ADA's goals.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?
  Mr. CASEY. I yield to Senator Brown.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Casey's advocacy for 
disabled Americans and for children especially.
  I just want to make a brief comment, for I know he has some other 
comments to make, on his support for Medicaid and on the efforts that 
we have made together on the Finance Committee in fighting against 
President Trump's attacks on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
  I know, in my State, the expansion of Medicaid and what came out of 
that meant that 900,000 more people had insurance, including a whole 
lot of people who were disabled. I know that Pennsylvania is the same 
way. So I thank Senator Casey.
  Mr. CASEY. I thank the senior Senator from Ohio, who makes the point 
broadly about the importance of Medicaid in the context of healthcare 
but especially with regard to Americans with disabilities. I thank him 
for his comments, and I thank him for his advocacy.


                            Border Security

  Mr. President, my second topic involves a visit that I and a 
delegation of Senators made just a week ago--it will be a week ago on 
Friday--to McAllen, TX. I guess there were 13 of us in total. During 
that visit and throughout the course of the day, we toured DHS 
detention facilities--DHS is the Department of Homeland Security--
including the Border Patrol facility in McAllen, TX, and the processing 
centers in both Donna and Ursula, TX.
  I saw children who needed better care. I saw the overcrowding of 
adults, who were packed into cages or glass-enclosed rooms, and you 
couldn't hear the voices of those behind the glass. I saw the need for 
hygiene products and better access to showers. At the same time, we 
also saw Catholic Charities--the Respite Center, run by Sister Norma 
Pimentel, known to so many as just ``Sister Norma''--where migrants 
were welcomed, where migrants were cared for, and where migrants were 
treated with compassion.
  I believe the White House's policies take the opposite approach--that 
of not welcoming migrants but of pushing them away. I believe several 
of those policies make it bad not only for the migrants or immigrants 
but also for the DHS personnel who have to do the work every day. It is 
also bad for the security of our Nation.
  I know, last Friday, that our delegation met a number of dedicated 
personnel who work hard and who care about the families, but I cannot 
say that about all of those who work there. So, when there is 
mistreatment or when there is abuse, we need to make sure there is full 
accountability. At the same time, there are folks who work in our 
government who may not agree with the White House's policy on 
immigration or asylum or on its migration policy in general but who 
have difficult work to do. To those who are doing good work and showing 
compassion and respect, I commend them for that.
  Instead of closing the door on asylum seekers who flee terrible 
violence and persecution, we should adopt policies that are more humane 
and that will help alleviate instead of exacerbate the humanitarian 
crisis. We should utilize effective alternatives to detention, like the 
Family Case Management Program--a pilot program that began in the last 
administration and pretty much ended in this administration. It had a 
99-percent attendance rate--or success rate--at immigration court 
proceedings. The Family Case Management Program also had 99-percent 
compliance with ICE's monitoring requirements.
  We should ensure that migrant children are cared for by child welfare 
workers and have their medical needs fully met. We should also work to 
address the violence, poverty, and persecution that are causing so many 
to flee. I am a cosponsor of the Central American Reform and 
Enhancement Act, which is legislation that would address the root 
causes of migration by increasing aid to the Northern Triangle, 
creating new options for refugees to apply for entry from Mexico and 
Central America, and, of course, increasing the number of immigration 
judges to reduce court backlogs and creating new criminal penalties for 
the smuggling and defrauding of immigrants.
  We know that some of the dollars recently appropriated will help on 
some of these priorities, but we have to make sure the dollars are 
spent wisely and appropriately and in full compliance with the law.
  We are indeed a nation of laws, and we are also a nation of 
immigrants. These two principles are intertwined in our values, and 
they are not--they are not--competing values.
  We should be trying over and over again--both parties, both Chambers, 
and the administration--to pass something comparable to the 
comprehensive immigration reform bill that this body passed in 2013 
that did not get a vote in the House.
  Let me conclude this part of my remarks with this: The problem is not 
that we must choose between principles like being a rule-of-law country 
and being a nation of immigrants; the problem is that our immigration 
system is badly broken. If there are suggestions to be made to improve 
the asylum process, we should be open to that, but pushing immigrants 
away and ending or short-circuiting or undermining the asylum process 
is not in the interest of the country.
  It is entirely possible to have an immigration system that both 
respects the rule of law and treats all individuals with human dignity. 
I will continue to press the administration and the House and the 
Senate to work on bipartisan solutions so our immigration system again 
reflects those American values.


                             Mueller Report

  Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks by raising the third topic, 
and it is timely for today. I want to do two things with regard to the 
service and the work of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller but also 
talk about the report he issued.
  There is a reference in a narrative about Robert Mueller's service in 
Vietnam that I won't add to the Record because it is very long, but I 
will quote from it for just a couple of minutes. This is an account by 
the publication Wired. It is a long account, but I will just briefly 
read the beginning of it about his service.
  Just imagine this: someone who grew up with probably not too many 
concerns about economic security; someone who had the benefit of a 
great education and then volunteered to serve in Vietnam.
  This particular vignette says:

       After [serving] nine months at war, he was finally due--

  ``He'' meaning Robert Mueller--

     --for a few short days of R&R outside the battle zone. 
     Mueller had seen intense combat since he last said goodbye to 
     his wife. He'd received the Bronze Star with a distinction 
     for valor for his actions in one battle, and he'd been 
     airlifted out of the jungle during another firefight after 
     being shot in the thigh. [Robert Mueller] and [his wife] Ann 
     had spoken only twice since he had left for South Vietnam.

  Then it goes on to say why he wanted to keep serving in the Marine 
Corps:

       I didn't relish the US Marine Corps absent combat.

  Then it goes on to talk about his decision to go to law school after 
being in Vietnam, with the goal of serving his country as a prosecutor. 
He went on to lead the Criminal Division of the Justice Department and 
to prosecute a lot of bad guys--my words, not words from the 
publication--and then ``became director of the FBI one week before 
September 11, 2001, and stayed on to become the bureau's longest-
serving director since J. Edgar Hoover. And yet, throughout his five-
decade career, that year of combat experience with the Marines has 
loomed large in Mueller's mind. `I'm most proud the Marine Corps deemed 
me worthy of leading other Marines,' he [said] in . . . 2009.''
  So that is his background--just some of his background: service to 
his country in Vietnam, service as a Federal prosecutor for many, many 
years, and then called upon to serve his country again. He is the 
embodiment of public service. He gives integrity and meaning

[[Page S5036]]

and value to what President Kennedy called us all to do--to not ask 
what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country. 
Robert Mueller has answered that call over and over again. He is a 
person of integrity and ability.
  For just a few minutes before I yield the floor, I want to talk about 
some of his work.
  One of the points then-Special Counsel Mueller made in a statement I 
guess back in May was--he first of all outlined how the Russian 
Federation interfered with our election and pointed to the serious 
consequences of that, but then he also talked about how--when the 
second volume of the report deals with obstruction, he reminded us in 
that statement--at least I took from it, my impression of the 
statement--of not just the seriousness of what Russia did but the 
seriousness and the gravity of obstructing that kind of an 
investigation.
  So if someone wanted to read just a portion of the report--the almost 
500 pages--if you wanted to just zero in on some key parts of volume II 
about obstruction, you could start on page 77. That is a section titled 
``The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel.'' Then there 
are other instances--several instances of obstruction--alleged 
obstruction there. So if you read between pages 77 and 120 of volume 
II, you are going to learn a lot about obstruction. Let me read a 
couple of the lines that the report sets forth.
  When the special counsel walks through the factual predicate of what 
happened in the first instance where the President calls the White 
House Counsel, Mr. McGahn, and says some things that the special 
counsel concluded were a directive to fire or have fired the special 
counsel, they say in the report on page--this is volume II, page 88:

       Substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that 
     the President went further and in fact directed McGahn to 
     call Rosenstein to have the Special Counsel removed.

  Page 89:

       Substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, 2017, the 
     President knew his conduct was under investigation by a 
     federal prosecutor who could present evidence of federal 
     crimes to a grand jury.

  It goes on from there in the ``Intent'' section, where the special 
counsel has to lay out the evidence to prove intent because if you 
can't prove intent, you can't go much further.

       Substantial evidence indicates that the President's 
     attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the 
     Special Counsel's oversight on investigations that involved 
     the President's conduct and, most immediately, to reports 
     that the President was being investigated for potential 
     obstruction of justice.

  So those are just three vignettes from pages 88 and 89, operative 
words there being ``substantial evidence.'' In other parts of the 
report, evidence is laid out. Sometimes they say there is not enough 
evidence, but I think ``substantial evidence'' is a compelling part of 
what we saw.
  Let me just quickly--because I know I am over time. I will now move 
to page 113. This is a separate section. This section is titled ``The 
President Orders McGahn''--White House Counsel McGahn--``to Deny that 
the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel,'' so referring back to 
the earlier section, and then, when they go through the evidence, they 
again get back to the consideration or the weighing of the evidence.
  I am looking at volume II, page 118--again, those words:

       Substantial evidence supports McGahn's account that the 
     President had directed him to have the Special Counsel 
     removed, including the timing and context of the President's 
     directive; the manner in which McGahn reacted; and the fact 
     that the President had been told conflicts were substantial, 
     were being considered by the Department of Justice, and 
     should be raised with the President's personal counsel rather 
     than brought to McGahn.

  So you get the message I am sending. And the last one is on page 
120--``Substantial evidence indicates'' the following facts.
  So I raise all that because there is a lot of discussion about volume 
II and what the conclusion might have been. The reason I refer to those 
areas of substantial evidence is that in May of this year, there was a 
statement by former Federal prosecutors. We were told that as many as 
1,000 bipartisan prosecutors from both parties signed a letter, and I 
will read just one sentence from the letter: ``Each of us''--meaning 
these Republican and Democratic former prosecutors--``believes that the 
conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert 
Mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by 
the Office of Legal Counsel's policy against indicting a sitting 
President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of 
justice.''
  I think those prosecutors--I believe those prosecutors are resting 
that determination that they each made individually on those areas of 
the report that begin with the words ``substantial evidence 
indicates.''
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The Senator from Iowa.


                              EB-5 Program

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to advise my 
colleagues about a new rule that the Department of Homeland Security 
published in the Federal Register this very day to finally bring some 
needed reform to the EB-5 green card program.
  As I mentioned in my remarks on this topic last week, this rule was 
first proposed in January 2017. Those of us who want to reform the EB-5 
program have been waiting 2\1/2\ years for this rule to become final, 
and we have been waiting much, much longer than that for some 
meaningful reforms to this fraudulent-laden program that we tried to 
get enacted into law in previous Congresses and couldn't get done 
because of being up against these very powerful, moneyed interests. I 
think the President and his team deserve a lot of credit for pushing 
these reforms across the finish line and getting a big win for rural 
America.
  As I have said on numerous occasions, Congress intended for the EB-5 
program to help spur investment in rural and high-unemployment areas 
when this program was established in 1990. Unfortunately, over the last 
30 years, big-moneyed interests have been able to gerrymander EB-5 
targeted employment areas in a way that redirected investment away from 
our rural and economically deprived communities and towards major 
development projects in Manhattan and other big cities. Therefore, 
instead of providing much needed investment for rural America, as 
originally intended, EB-5 has become a source of cheap foreign capital 
for development projects in already prosperous areas of America.
  For the first time, this rule will bring much needed change so that 
condition cannot continue. Under the rule, States will no longer be 
allowed to game and gerrymander targeted employment areas. Instead, the 
Department of Homeland Security will make targeted employment area 
designations directly based on revised requirements that will help to 
ensure rural and high-unemployment areas get more of the investment 
they have been deprived of for far too long under this program, as it 
has been misdirected.
  Again, this is a major win for rural America and high-unemployment 
areas, and I want to sincerely thank President Trump and the people in 
the administration who worked on this rule for making this happen and 
looking out for the interests of my constituents in Iowa and other 
rural States and for areas of high unemployment.
  This rule also addresses the minimum investment threshold amounts 
that are required for the EB-5 projects around the country.
  This is the very first time the investment thresholds have been 
adjusted since the program was created in 1990. Think of the inflation 
since that time.
  For projects that are outside of targeted employment areas, the 
threshold will be raised from $1 million to $1.8 million. For projects 
in targeted employment areas, the threshold will be raised from 
$500,000 to $900,000. The minimum investment amount will be 
automatically adjusted for inflation every 5 years.
  It is ridiculous that our country's major green card program for 
investors has been operating with investment amounts that haven't been 
adjusted a single time in 30 years. That makes no sense, and I am glad 
the President and his team have taken necessary action to restore a 
little common sense to the EB-5 program.
  There is more work that needs to be done on the EB-5 program, and we 
will

[[Page S5037]]

have to do that by legislation, but the President and his 
administration deserve a lot of credit for finally implementing these 
first reforms that I and several other colleagues have championed for 
years.
  I, more than most, understand the power and influence that big-
moneyed EB-5 interests have historically had in Washington, and how 
they have used that power and influence to consistently thwart any 
attempt to reform this program in such an obvious way that it is 
needed.
  Their unrelenting efforts to stymie EB-5 reform over the years 
absolutely epitomize the swamp culture that so many voters rejected in 
the last Presidential election, and getting rid of that swamp culture 
is exactly what the President campaigned on. This is a perfect example 
of his carrying out a campaign promise.
  They are also representative of a culture in Washington that too 
often disregards the interests of the little guy in rural Iowa in favor 
of the interests of the rich and the powerful. Again, I applaud the 
President and his team for standing up to these rich and powerful 
interests.
  I am happy to say that, with the publication of this rule, the little 
guys in rural America finally got a win in the EB-5 program. I now look 
forward to working with the President and my colleagues to build off of 
this win and bring further reform to the EB-5 program in the future. 
Thank you, President Trump.


                            Budget Agreement

  On another subject, for the past week there have been ongoing 
discussions between congressional leadership and the administration 
relating to an agreement on budget caps and raising the debt limit. 
Those discussions produced an agreement that was announced Monday 
night.
  While I understand reaching an agreement was important to ensure the 
full faith and credit of the United States, I am disappointed the final 
agreement does not address a subject that has been causing heartache 
for millions of taxpayers for at least the past 6 months. The subject 
is what is known around Capitol Hill and Washington, DC, as tax 
extenders, things that come up every 2 or 3 years that need to be 
reauthorized.
  For decades, Congress has routinely acted on a bipartisan basis to 
extend a number of expired or expiring provisions. Typically, their 
extension would be included as part of a larger spending package or 
budget deal at the end of the year. Unfortunately, this never occurred 
at the end of last year. Now, here we are almost 7 months into the end 
of 2018 and 3 months after the close of the regular tax filing season, 
and taxpayers still have no answers.
  The budget and debt limit agreement announced Monday is yet another 
missed opportunity to provide answers for millions of taxpayers--both 
individuals and businesses--who are waiting on Congress so they can 
finalize their 2018 taxes and, in some cases, it may even mean whether 
or not they can stay in business.
  While Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden and I, working as a 
team, have been ready and willing to address tax extenders since early 
on in this Congress, the new Democratic majority in the House of 
Representatives has been reluctant to act. It seems as though the House 
Democrats are unaware of the historic bipartisan, bicameral nature of 
tax extenders or how those provisions even apply to taxpayers, 
to industries, and maybe helping the entire economy. This is evidenced 
from the characterization of these provisions by some of these Members 
as ``just tax breaks for corporations and businesses.'' So I want to 
tell you how these are not just tax breaks for corporations and 
businesses.

  In fact, the overwhelming majority of the tax extenders either 
benefit individuals and families directly or they benefit our 
communities by giving a boost to local businesses that many people 
directly rely on for jobs and to support their local economies.
  For illustration purposes, I have broken the tax provisions that 
expired in 2017 into four categories: tax relief for individuals, green 
energy incentives, employment and economic incentives for distressed 
areas, and general business incentives.
  If you look at this chart, you will see that these four categories 
are broken down by the relative costs of the extension of the tax 
extender in each category. As you can see, based upon Joint Committee 
on Taxation estimates--these aren't my estimates, but Joint Committee 
on Taxation estimates--of a 2-year extension of these provisions for 
2018 and 2019, the largest cost associated with extending them is for 
what is termed ``green energy incentives.''
  These green energy incentives account for nearly 60 percent of the 
cost of this extension. These incentives include provisions to 
encourage the use and production of clean and renewable fuels, to 
promote electricity generation from certain clean and renewable 
sources, and tax incentives for more energy efficient buildings and 
homes.
  Here I would have thought the new Democratic majority in the House 
would be all about what we call green jobs, and reducing our Nation's 
carbon emissions through alternative energy sources is what we are 
talking about here. Yet the new Democratic majority has been reluctant 
to embrace a bipartisan tax package with nearly 60 percent of the cost 
dedicated to green energy incentives.
  The long delay in addressing these provisions is needlessly putting 
thousands of good-paying green jobs at stake. A couple weeks ago, we 
saw a biodiesel plant in Nebraska close down, costing about 40 
employees their jobs. Just this very day, a renewable energy group 
announced it is closing a Texas plant due to the uncertainty of the 
biodiesel tax credit. Should we fail to extend the biodiesel tax credit 
soon, many more will be closed. That would put the 60,000 jobs 
supported by the biodiesel industry nationwide in jeopardy.
  Going to another one, after this green energy proposal which I just 
discussed, individual provisions represent the second largest component 
of tax extenders, totaling nearly one-third of the cost. These 
provisions include relief for homeowners who obtained debt forgiveness 
on home mortgages, a deduction for mortgage insurance premiums, and a 
provision that allows college students to deduct tuition and related 
expenses. In regard to college students, wouldn't you think the new 
Democratic majority would be interested in helping college students?
  They also include incentives for individual consumers to purchase 
energy-efficient products for their homes, as well as certain types of 
alternative vehicles.
  To highlight just one of these provisions, in 2017, over 1.5 million 
taxpayers took advantage of the college tuition deduction. You can 
think of that as over 1.5 million students who have been left dangling 
for last year and this year as Congress continues to consider whether 
or not to extend this college tuition deduction. For some, this 
deduction of up to $4,000 for education expenses can make the 
difference between continuing their education or waiting another year 
to finish a degree and to move up to a better job.
  The remaining two categories are small in terms of cost in comparison 
to the first two. The provisions relating to employment and economic 
initiatives for distressed areas makes up only 4.1 percent of the 
overall cost and consists of two provisions. One would be the Indian 
employment credit, and the other would be the empowerment zone 
incentives.
  Now, this is really odd. It is really hard to believe the new House 
Democratic majority finds it very objectionable to incentivize 
employers to hire Native Americans or, for the second part of it, to 
provide incentives to encourage businesses to locate and bring jobs to 
low-income areas. I hear the new majority in the other body talking 
that we don't do enough to help low-income people. What is better than 
providing them with jobs and doing it through the empowerment zone 
incentives tax credit so you get capital in there to build jobs up in 
low-income areas?
  If we can't address these two employment and economic incentives, how 
are we going to deal with two much larger ones that expire at the end 
of this year--the work opportunity tax credit and the new markets tax 
credit--all to create jobs?
  I guess it must somehow be the final category, which I have termed 
general business incentives, that the House Democratic majority must 
find objectionable because it falls into the category that we are only 
trying to help

[[Page S5038]]

big business or big corporations. That is their accusation.
  These provisions make a whopping 4.5 percent of the total cost of 
extending provisions that expired at the end of 2017. Most of these 
provisions have very minimal cost as they only accelerate when a 
business may deduct certain deductions and not whether the costs are 
deductible in the first place.
  However, the most costly of what I term general business incentives 
is also likely the most popular. I am going to show you in just a 
minute. It is the most popular because it has such an overwhelming 
number of cosponsors in both bodies. That is the short line tax credit. 
This provision offers a tax credit to short line railroads for 
qualified maintenance expenditures. This credit isn't available to the 
largest railroads, which we call the class 1 railroads. This credit 
benefits smaller railroads that are critically important for farmers 
and many manufacturers to get their products to the global markets. For 
example, in my State of Iowa, according to recent data from the 
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, there are nine 
short line and regional railroads.

  This credit isn't just supported by and important to the railroads 
themselves; it is also supported by the users of short line railroads 
who depend on these railroads to get their products to market around 
the world. For example, Midwest soybean farmers selling to the Asian 
market typically must ship their crop by rail to the Port of Seattle, 
and the short line railroads are part of that railroad system and are 
critical to that transportation network.
  The fact is, this provision is far more than some sort of giveaway to 
business. It is a provision that is important to whole communities. 
This is probably a big reason why legislation making this short line 
tax credit permanent currently has 50 cosponsors in this body of the 
Senate and 228 cosponsors in the House of Representatives.
  I hope I have been able to clear up some of the misunderstanding 
regarding tax extenders for the new Democratic majority in the House, 
not only on the substance of these tax extenders but also on the fact 
that extending these tax credits has been both bicameral and bipartisan 
for at least a couple of decades. Extenders are not just about 
businesses or corporations. This overwhelmingly benefits individuals--
individuals. It benefits green energy and promotes job creation in 
urban and rural communities alike.
  In order to provide certainty--and you need certainty in tax law. If 
you want to provide certainty to the people who relied on these 
provisions in 2018 and potentially this year, we should extend them at 
least through 2019 as quickly as possible. This could have been done as 
part of the bipartisan agreement on budget and debt limits announced 
Monday. Unfortunately, I fear a misunderstanding of what extenders 
really are by the new Members in the House of Representatives and whom 
they benefit on the part of the same Democratic House majority 
contributed to these extenders being left out of the deal announced 
Monday.
  I know there are those who question the need to extend these 
provisions in perpetuity. It happens that I agree with those points of 
view. That is why the Finance Committee, which I chair, created a 
series of task forces to examine these policies for the long term.
  The task forces were charged with examining each of these provisions 
to determine if we can reach a consensus on a long-term resolution so 
that we don't have to have an extended debate every 2 years about 
extending extenders or tax credits.
  I look forward to receiving the summations of the task forces that I 
have appointed later this week. Hopefully, these submissions will 
provide a basis for the Finance Committee to put together an extenders 
package before the end of the year that includes longer term solutions 
for as many of these temporary provisions as possible.
  This is important so that we can stop the annual exercise of kicking 
the can down the road. However, in the meantime, I remain committed to 
acting as soon as possible so that taxpayers who have relied on these 
provisions in 2018 don't end up feeling like Charlie Brown after Lucy 
pulls the football away.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________