comparemela.com

Mr. Rubio mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from florida. Mr. Rubio mr. President , i have a motion at the desk. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk the senator from florida mr. Rubio, moves that the managers on the party on the part of the senate shall insist any conference report shall increase the refundable Child Tax Credit be increased to no more than 2,000 and benefit lowwage parents. Mr. Rubio mr. President , this has to do with the Child Tax Credit. We had a debate about it last week. I want to explain to everybody why its so important that we continue to focus on this. Irrespective of whether we agreed with the final outcome and the numbers were high enough in the senate bill, and i continue to believe that they were not, they are significantly better than the house position on this matter and i want to explain why. The loss of the personal exemption hits middle income families to the tune that has to be made up. Because of the last 15 years, the value of the Child Tax Credit declined by over 300. That leads to the conclusion that the breakeven point for a Child Tax Credit that deals with middleincome family hit and the erosion of the value of the credit due to inflation brings you to 1,900. And as a result if you wanted to actually help families be better off than they are today, which is the goal of tax reform, the 2,000 amount in the senate bill is basically the breakeven point plus 100. And the house unfortunately in their bill only calls for 1,600. The first part of this motion to instruct is to ensure that the increase in the Child Tax Credit be no less. Maybe its more but can be no less than the 2,000 that are in the senate bill. The second part which was the topic of our debate was the impact on lowincome workers, firefighters, teachers, police officers, construction workers. Home health aides. These are working people, the backbone of our country, the people who suffered the most over the last 25 or 30 years as the economy has made some people very profitable but left far too many working americans behind, their anxieties, daily concerns, the challenges they are facing underpin a lot of anxiety in our country both electoral, political and economic. Their primary Tax Liability is the payroll tax. You make 40,000 a year, the biggest chumping of the taxes you pay is the biggest chunk of the taxes you pay is the payroll tax. They pay taxes. They take money out of your paycheck. You pay the tax and its irrelevant whether its a payroll tax or income tax. Those are taxes. When i hear people say that its offensive. Working people across the income scale pay taxes. And unfortunately thats not recognized in a lot of the debates that are going on here about working people. And so the second part of the instruction is asking one of the things the senate bill does do is lowers the threshold upon which the tax credit begins to apply from 3,000 to 2,500. Again not nearly enough but certainly better than the house position. We cant regress on that point. The second part of this instruction is it asks the conferees to ensure that the fiebl bill expands final bill expands benefits so more lowincome, lowwage parents, workers will be able to benefit from the Child Tax Credit. I remain surprised that there is not more consensus to support the reality that we need to do more to help working people in this country, and the Child Tax Credit is one of the best tools to do it. And i sure hope that what comes back from that Conference Committee is as good or better than what we put out from the senate. Because if its worse, theres going to be problems, i imagine. With that, mr. President , i yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from new jersey. A senator i have a motion at the desk. The clerk at the conference of the disagreeing votes on h. R. 1 be instructed to insist that the final conference report does not contain provisions that would increase the number of individuals who do not have Health Insurance or increase Health Insurance premiums. Mr. Booker mr. President , my motion to instruct the Senate Conferees would insist that the final conference report does not increase the number of individuals who do not have Health Insurance and does not increase Health Insurance premiums. It has been stated on the floor by colleagues on this side of the aisle that it is a blow to our deficit, a blow to the budget, and will hurt families, particularly in states like mine, with the elimination of local and state tax ducks deduction. It is a bill that could threaten the lives of americans as well. The Nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said it will increase premium costs by 10 and cost 13 Million People to lose their coverage. Increasing premiums, hurting people, making 13 Million People lose coverage. We know that this that this bill will hurt those who rely on medicaid, including children and seniors in nursing homes, because of the inability for states to access funds for their medicaid programs. Again, the state and local tax deduction. Its also going to possibly trigger cuts to medicare, and because the bill that passed the senate would seek to possibly add 1. 5 trillion to the deficit, it could trigger automatic cuts to government programs, includeling an an including an annual cut to medicare, and that will significantly limit medicare patients from cancer screenings to chemotherapy. I urge my colleagues to support my motion. The Senate Conferees must insist that the final conference report of this harmful bill at the very least does not contain any provision that would increase the number of americans who do not have Health Insurance or increase premiums on already cashstrapped american citizens. Thank you very much, mr. President. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from pennsylvania. Mr. Toomey mr. President , i ask consent to speak for one minute in opposition. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Toomey mr. President , this hark inns back to the harkens back to the moment earlier when during this debate when the senator from oregon, the Ranking Member of the finance committee described the repeal of the individual mandate as driving a stake through the heart of obamacare. Think about what a confession this is by our colleagues on the other side of what a disaster obamacare is, that its dead and done, to not have people purchase a product that does not fit their needs. Why kind of person could justify forcing people to buy their product. This is not only a an egregious affront to personal freedom, but theres Proof Positive it doesnt work. Theres another aspect to this as well, mr. President. And that is it the tax that we impose on people who cant afford the obamacare plans they are forced to buy, that tax is a regressive tax that falls wildly on lower and middleincome folks. In my state of pennsylvania 83 of the families that are hit with this tax live in a household that makes less than 50,000. I urge my colleagues to reject this motion. The presiding officer the senators time has expired. Mr. Booker i yield back my time. The presiding officer all time is yielded back. The question is on the motion by the senator from florida. Although say aye, opposed nay. The motion is agreed to. The motion is on the motion by the senator from new jersey. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote . If not, the yeas are 47. The nays are 51. The motion is not agreed to. Ms. Stabenow mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from michigan. Ms. Stabenow mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Ms. Stabenow thank you very much. Mr. President , im coming to the floor again to focus on the fact that the clock is ticking for families in michigan and across the country. Men and women, children, older people, younger people who use the Community Health centers as well as those who are having their children covered under the childrens Health Insurance program. The funding, federal funding for those programs stopped september 30, 6 days ago. 67 days ago. Weve had votes, weve had bills. Weve had nominations come before us. Theres been divisiveness and controversy. It would be wonderful, mr. President , if we could stop for one day and do something that has bipartisan support. You know, the fact of the matter is that chip covers nine million children and 100,000 of those are in michigan. We passed a bill out of committee in the finance committee in september. I want to laud our chairman, senator hatch, our Ranking Member, senator wyden. It was a bipartisan bill. Only one no vote reported it out. I assumed we want to get this done before september 30 when the funding ran out. But instead here we wait 67 days later. Nine million children at risk because of this inaction. 100,000 children in michigan. You know the truth of the matter is that today, thanks to chip and thanks to a variety of Health Care Efforts across the country, 97 of the children in our country have access to a doctor. In michigan its actually higher. 97 of our children. So if a child has juvenile diabetes, if they have a cancer or asthma or just fall out of a tree and break their arm or have bronchitis or the flu, whatever it is thats happening for children, parents have the peace of mind under the my Child Program to know that they can take their child to a doctor, a doctor that they have a relationship with, that knows their children, instead of going into the emergency room. Now we also know that Emergency Rooms are the most expensive way to provide care. Theyre necessary. Theyre important for emergencies, but not for the daily routines of life when someone could be seeing a doctor. It costs more. Uncompensated care costs more. And when somebody uses the emergency room when they could be seeing a doctor, then everybody else pays for that with their insurance rates going up to pay for it. So my child in michigan, the childrens Health Insurance program across the country works. It saves money. It saves lives. And in fact as soon as january in michigan, families are going to start to get notices that the funding will go away, that the medical care will go away. Not a great way to start the new year. Merry christmas, happy new year, your childs not going to be able to go see their doctor any more. And we dont have to have that happen because we have strong bipartisan support for this. The same thing with Community Health centers. 25 Million People, 25 Million People are able to see a doctor or a nurse get the care they need through a Community Health center in their community. 300,000 veterans are able to see a doctor through a Community Health center. Seven and a half million children as well. In michigan, our Health Centers are all over michigan. We have some 260 different clinics around michigan that serve 681,000 people. Again, almost 13,000 veterans. And starting in january they are going to begin to lose funding. At different times. Some in february, some in march, some in april because of local funding streams. But starting in january in michigan, Health Centers are not going to have the funding they need. The majority of their funding, 70 of their funding comes through the program that expired september 30. And we know that this also doesnt have to happen. My friend, senator roy blunt, and i have put in legislation. We have a letter signed by 70 members. Not seven. 70 members of this body. Over twothirds of this body signing a letter supporting the continuation of Community Health centers. And yet, we cant get that brought up either. We thought the original plan was to bring up chip, the childrens Health Insurance program, and include Community Health centers with it and get that done before september 30. The clock is ticking every single day, and it has not been done. Now folks may be trying to hold it hostage politically for some reason or trying to get some deal at the end of the year. In the meantime families are worrying, member men and women are worrying, veterans are worrying about whether or not theyre going to continue to get their health care. Let me go back to where i started. Today is 67 days. Tomorrow will be 68 days since the funding for two Health Care Programs that had broad bipartisan support over the years, broad bipartisan support today, 67 days since that funding has stopped. Id like to close, mr. President , with a story from a gentleman named darrin whose life was changed by one of michigans Community Health centers. He shared with me his story. Darrin was an unemployed truck driver when he moved to jackson, michigan, four years ago. He hadnt seen a doctor for a decade. And in his words, he was a complete mess. He had diabetes, congestive heart failure, and he had no energy. He needed an oxygen tank to walk. He started seeing dr. Roy at the center for family health, which is a Great Health Clinic in jackson. He told her he didnt want to just be stable. He wanted to get better. So they went to work so that he could get back on his feet and get back to work. Darrin got his diabetes under control. He improved his lung function, got rid of the oxygen tanks. He quit his pain pills. Darrin said, i went from being hardly able to move to where i feel like i can do almost anything. Dr. Roy saw me at my lowest, and she has seen me improve so much that she celebrates with me. He added, dr. Roy kicked me in the seat of the pants, and i will always thank her for that. Darrin got his kick in the seat of the pants, and, mr. President , with all due respect, i believe members of this body could use one too. 25 Million People who count on Community Health centers for their care, their childrens care, the care of their moms and dads, nine million children who are covered under the childrens Health Insurance program have been waiting and worrying for long enough. 67 days is long enough. Im hopeful that there will be a sense of urgency from colleagues to get this done. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. Hatch mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from utah. Mr. Hatch is there a quorum call . The presiding officer there is not. Mr. Hatch mr. President , last week the senate came another step closer to providing real tax relief to the middle class and bringing a muchneeded boost to the economy. Im talking about the tax cuts and jobs act. That bill was years in the making. It was my chief legislative focus for many years. Tax reform was not some offthecuff effort. We have been Holding Hearings and working with our friends on the other side of the aisle. And i might say on the other side of the capitol and down the street at the white house for some time now. This bill is going to put another 2,200 in the pockets of the average american family. This bill is going to boost the economy, its going to grow jobs, and finally help end the wage stagnation weve been faced with for years. This bill is going to unleash the american spirit, bringing businesses back home where they started and encouraging other businesses to both come from abroad as well as to grow from within. Once again, america will be open for business. I have not been alone in this process, though, not by a longshot. In fact, tax reform has been a priority for many of my colleagues, including some that are no longer soichg. Im serving. Im talking about people like congressman dave camp and senator baucus. I feel gratified to have been here and worked with my colleagues to get this far. As efforts began in ernest this year, we set out to build on the work of our former colleagues and to give low and middleincome americans some muchneeded relief and to give our country an opportunity to compete in the global economy. Our bill will do that. But, as we all know, these great reforms are not quite yet promised to the American People. There is still work to do as we work to iron out our differences with the house and make sure that every section of this bill is ready to be eased into law or passed into law. That said, i think we deserve to celebrate a little bit and more importantly to thank everyone for their work to get us to this point. So many people, both in and out of congress, have worked hard to get us this far, and i want to express my appreciation for their appreciation for their efforts. I cant thank every one in a single floor speech but i want to thank some who may be in ear short of this chamber. I want to thank secretary mnuchin and secretary cohen, it is finally nice to have an administration that is ready to lead out on tax reform. I p want to thank the majority leader who helped to shepherd it through the senate. I thank chairman brady in the house and speaker ryan over in the house of representatives. They have been great partners and leaders in this endeavor. I also need to thank the staff from the Leaders Office including laura dove, hasen marshall, don steward, and jane lee. Of course i want to thank the members of the Senate Finance committee who put in countless days, weeks, and months in preparing this legislation and helping to get it passed. All of our majority members contributed greatly to this process, and i am most grateful. I also want to thank the tax legislative assistants who helped to craft this bill, namely chris allen, sam beaver, joseph bottiker, chez hawk inns, randy herndon, monica mcguire, mike qqil, robert needen, derek thur and mark warren. They all did an outstanding job to help produce the bill. I thank charles kulger, ken f lace, brad grants, kirk kavark and jessica mcbride, landon strucko, steven townsend. In addition to all the senators and staff on the finance committee, i need to thank others. This process has been a joint effort with our friends on the Budget Committee, and i need to thank senator enzi once again for his leadership on that committee to give us the reconciliation instruction that made this all possible. Additionally id like to thank members of his staff including joe brinkle, jim neil, mat jaro, paul vinvich, thomas fuller, and the rest of the Budget Committee team. Closer to home i want to thank the atf of the staff of the finance committee. I need to single owl mark single out mark pratter who has served in the committee for decades and his expertise is recognized by everyone here and pretty much by everyone everywhere else. I thank the Committee Tax staff, tony, christopher, alex, eric bowman, marty pipins, and nick wiatt. I need to thank my staff director who quarter quarterbacked the staff who helped to lay the groundwork. I want to thank the other members of my senior Team Including jeff, julia lawless, jennifer, chris armstrong, and brian hickman. I thank the communication staff, katie, nicole hager and joshua bloom. I need to thank a couple of former staff members, chris campbell, while he is now at treasury, im sure he is celebrating right now, along with us. Id also like to give a thank you to jim lyons who, unfortunately, passed a way a little over a year ago. He contributed greatly to this effort for a number years and his steady presence has been missed. Other bodies deserve our thanks as well, tom barthold, and his team made themselves available during all hours, as did the staff at the legislative Counsel Office and those who worked with Elizabeth Mcdonald in the parliamentarians office. Im so grateful to all of you for your sacrifices and talents that allowed us to craft this impressive package. There are too many people to thank in a single floor speech. Let me express my gratitude to the countless individuals who helped in this endeavor over the years. This would not be possible without you. Before i close, id like to reiterate that were not yet there though. I know i will not rest and that i can count on the rest of you to keep going until we get this over the finish line. We are so close to finally giving the American People the tax code, and in turn, the Economic Growth not only they, but their children and grandchildren deserve. It is my solemn commitment to keep working and get this done for all of us. With that, mr. President , i yield the floor. A senator mr. President. Mr. Grassley i have been doing oversight of the executive branch for a very long time. Ive done it as Ranking Member, ive done it as chairman, ive done it when my party held the white house, and ive 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. Its tough. You have to be willing to work with colleagues in the other party to ask tough questions of your own political allies, and you cant just ask. If you actually want answers, you have to follow through. True bipartisan oversight is impossible unless its a twoway street. If democrats are unwilling to ask hard questions and force answers from their own political allies, then there simply is no way to move Forward Together in good faith. Both sides need to be committed to getting the whole story, not just the half that they think helps their side. Regardless of whether my democratic colleagues join me or not, im interested in that whole story. There are two major controversies plaguing the credibility of the Justice Department and the f. B. I. 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 years campaign. Both cases have been linked to the firing of the f. B. I. Director. I have been trying to explain this to my democratic colleagues for months. The political reality is that half of the country thinks that 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 isnt 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 f. B. I. Agent was removed from the special counsels team and demoted at the f. B. I. Due to what do you think . Political bias. The agent was at the very center of both of these highprofile investigations. Highranking f. B. I. Agent peter struck reportedly used his work phone to send antitrump and proclinton text imleadges to another f. B. I. Agent messages to another f. B. I. Agent with whom he was having an ill illict and immoral relationship. This man was the assistant director for the f. B. I. s counterintelligence decision. He worked on the investigation of former secretary of state hiferl clintons use Hillary Clintons use of a private sector to conduct, what do you think . Official business. According to news reports, and according to documents, it looks like he also helped draft comeys controversial Public Statement ending that case of Hillary Clinton and the emails. Specifically, he apparently edited out language that suggested legal jeopardy for lynn. For clinton. Press reports state that he opened the f. B. I. s investigation of allegations of collusion between the Trump Campaign and the and russia. And its been reported that he was one of the two f. B. I. Agents who interviewed former National Security advisor michael flynn. Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot . What if a highranking f. B. I. Official got caught expressing protrump political bias on his work 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 comeys clinton investigation and his russian 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. And i dont blame the American People. It is interesting that before he was fired, f. B. I. Director comey lectured our Judiciary Committee and lectured the public about how the men and women of the f. B. I. , quote, dont give a relationship about politics, end of quote. I believe that for most of the hardworking rankandfile f. B. I. Agents, that is absolutely true. Their jobs normally dont involve controversial political questions, and their own political views arent relevant. Because they are professionals. But no human is perfect, and no organization is immune from error. It does not good for the leaders of the f. B. I. To pretend that its Senior Management is above all reproach, that they would never show any improper political bias and would never make miss takes. The only way to protect against bias or misconduct is to recognize 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 f. B. I. And the Justice Department. If politics infected the departments 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 trumprussia 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 wont be credible with the other half of the country. Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was going to be president , everyone. And 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 f. B. I. Even called its case, quoteunquote, midyear exam. Director comey testified that the former attorney general refused to even name the f. B. I. s work and investigation. Thats how political it became. It was really the attorney general at that time insisting on calling it not an investigation but, quoteunquote, a matter, matter, 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 dont want to hear that. They only want to talk about trump. There is a double standard here in the way that 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 both a deep dive into the firing of james comey and both of the two controversial political investigations that preceded it. Unfortunately, the democrats are be preventing any truly bipartisan path forward. They appear to be assuming the conclusion at the outset. They complain publicly and they complain privately that im not doing enough to investigate obstruction. But obstruction of justice is is a 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 tried to get the facts and then go where those facts lead. Lets consider examples of where investigations have uncovered facts that point to, quoteunquote, 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 Clintons lawyers used a program called bleach bit 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 dont have all 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 f. B. I. Director in order to improperly halt the investigation of Lieutenant General flynn. Now, im not only willing, but im eager to delve deeply into all the circumstances surrounding director comeys removal. But to claim at the outset that his removal was obstruction of justice puts the cart before the horse. Id like to place an article in the record at this point by the wellknown liberal law professor alan dershowitz, mr. President. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Grassley now, professor dershowitz is not a fan of donald trump, and he and i probably wouldnt agree on very many issues, generally speaking. The title of his article is, quote, senator Dianne Feinstein may be provoking a constitutional conflict, end of quote. Professor dershowitz strongly disagrees with the Ranking Members statements on meet the press this weekend that comey was fired. Quote, directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of russian investigation, thats obstruction of justice, end of quote. This is how professor dershowitz replied, quote, no it isnt. 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 f. B. I. For whatever reason or no reason, end of quote. Thats not to pay that the president can engage in illegal conduct, but the professors point, as i understand it, is that when a president takes an action thats 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 comeys firing and the flynn investigation. Those facts could have may have nothing to do with the obstruction but could still provide important insight about the potential reforms to how the f. B. I. And the Justice Department operate. For example, he explains how President Trump could have halted any investigation on flynn if he really wanted to, and 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 h. W. Bush george h. W. Bush did when he pardoned Caspar Weinberger in order to stop the irancontra investigation. Although special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh complained bitterly that the bush presentation 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, how it is different than a president merely exercising his Constitutional Authority, so i once again quote the professor. Both president s 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 to lie to the f. B. I. , 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 a presentation authority. President trump has not accused been accused of any facts that would independently constitute crimes. The entire case against him is out 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, end of quote. But our constitutional system of checks and balances is too important to throw it aside when it is when it isnt politically convenient. You dont have to be a trump fan to worry about the consequences of taking short cuts and getting after your political opponents. Thats 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 tangle, as they say. Earlier this year, Ranking Member feinstein expressed concerns about reports that former attorney general flynn asked director comey to down play the f. B. I. s investigations as merely a matter instead of using the term investigation during the campaign. Yet since then, the Ranking Member has told me plainly she wont join any investigation of the oversight of the clinton email investigations. Even on trumprussia 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 f. B. I. 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 g. P. S. , was uncorporative. In real estate sponse to our bipartisan in response to our bipartisan request, it dutched on the committee 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 g. P. S. Initially indicated he would rely on his fifth amendment right against selfincrimination 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 had july to provide voluntarily, but under our committee rules, i dont have the authority to do that on my own. Now, why would democrats not want to follow up and get the documents from fusion g. P. S. That we already asked for together; in other words, in a by the way . In a bipartisan way . So do they not want to know more about how this company put together its antitrump dossier from russian government sources . Well, in light of recent news, the resistance from democrats to this line of trumprussia inquiry is now a little more understandable. It turns out the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National committee are the ones who paid fusion g. P. S. For the information it gathered from russian government sources. I dont 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 g. P. S. 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. So we have learned that the Democratic National committee paid for an antitrump dossier based on information from russian government sources. Second, we have learned that the Inspector General uncovered evidence of partisan bias by a senior f. B. I. Official at the center of both clinton and the trump russia investigations which led to his dismissal from the mueller team. Before that news broke back in october this year, i wrote to the f. B. I. Official requesting voluntary cooperation and private transcribed interviews with the committee. The Ranking Member did not sign that letter. The committee has received no letter in real estate ply. Were in reply. Were still waiting for documents from the f. B. I. About his and other officials participation in the draft comey statement. The f. B. I. Should comply voluntarily, but if they dont, 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 dont have the authority to do that without support from the Ranking Member. Finally, i have long had concerns that the scope of the f. B. I. Clinton investigation was artificially narrowed. Recent revelations about these Text Messages showing political bias only heighten these concerns. In recent federal court rulings, the f. B. I. Said that the scope of the investigation was limited in two ways. First, it was limited to two issues dealing only with the handling of classified information. Second, the scope of the f. B. I. 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 shouldnt be declared offlimits beforehand in an investigation, and an investigation should go common sense, where the facts take it. In multiple letters to the f. B. I. Last year, i raised concerns about the scope of the f. B. I. Investigation. I asked director comey back in may 2016 whether the Justice Department had improperly narrowed the scope of the investigation to look at mishandling of classified information and ignore other important legal issues. So i want to quote from that letter. If federal records on the private server were hidden or destroyed, then there may have been a violation of 18u. S. C. Paragraph 2071 which prohibits concealing or destroying such federal record. 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 u. S. C. Paragraphs 51505 and 1519, end of quote. All right later in my election i specifically asked whether the Justice Department limited the f. B. I. s investigation in any way. Then director comey eventually responded months later. He claimed the f. B. I. Did investigate whether the unlawful instruction of federal records occurred, but an f. B. I. Agent said under penalty of perjury that the f. B. I. Investigation did not include destructions of federal records. So which is it . Who is taling the truth . Whos telling the truth . The f. B. I. Agent who signed the affidavit, or is mr. Comey right . Did the f. B. I. Really examine whether secretary clinton or her associates uses the server used the server, avoid federal record retention requirements . Or did mr. Comey simply Pay Lip Service to that concern and focus only on classification issues . Understanding what really happened is incredibly important. And let me tell you why. During the course of the f. B. I. s investigation, it recovered thousands of workrelated emails that were not turned over to the state department by secretary clinton. The f. B. I. Also recovered workrelated emails that secretary clinton and her associates apparently deleted. All of this is clear evidence of alien nation of federal alienation of federal records. Indeed, even the f. B. I. Now public investigative files show that the f. B. I. Had knowledge that federal records were deleted. The f. B. I. s interview summary of secretary clinton said that she was asked about a p. R. N. Work ticket which referenced a Conference Call about p. R. N. , kendall and mills, on march 31, 2015678 2015. I am going to say quote again and repeat that. She was asked about, quorum calls a p. R. N. She wassed about asked about, quote, a p. R. N. Work ticket which reference add Conference Call about p. R. N. , kendall and mills, on march 31, 2015. End of quote. P. R. N. Stands for platte river network, the company that administered secretary cline continues nongovernment servers. Kendall is david kendall, her lawyer. And mills is sheryl mills, her former chief of staff at the state department. Paul cornbata, the administrator of her servers, was also on a Conference Call and was interviewed multiple times by the f. B. I. He admitted that he lied to the f. B. I. In his initial interviews and got immunity from the f. B. I. In exchange for agreeing to tell them the truth. According to the sum riff that interview according to the summary of that interview, mr. Mr. Combata deleted secretary clintons email archives on march 31, 2015. So you have a Conference Call with secretary clintons attorneys on march 31, 2015. And on that very same day, her emails are deleted by someone who was at the on that Conference Call using special bleach software. The emails were state Department Records under subpoena by congress. What did the f. B. I. Do to investigate this apparent obstruction . According to affidavits filed in federal court, absolutely nothing. The f. B. I. Focused only on the handling of classified information. Maybe now we know why. Recently released f. B. I. Records show that by may 2, 2016, mr. Comey sent around a draft of his statement exonerating secretary clinton. The f. B. I. Interview with mr. Combata hadnt 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 f. B. I. Look at obstruction in the clinton case . Mr. Comey said the f. B. I. Looked very hard at obstruction. But that is hard to believe. Director comey began drafting an exoneration statement in april, early may of 2016. Thats months before he publicly announced that he would not recommend charges on july the 5th, 2016. According to testimony of senior f. B. I. Officials, comey began drafting his statement early because the f. B. I. Knew where the investigation was headed. Thats according to testimony of senior f. B. I. Officials. But at that point the f. B. I. Had not yet interviewed 17 witness witnesses. So that ought to be understood. They hadnt yet interviewed 17 witnesses, and one of those witnesses can you believe it . Was secretary clinton. Others included her closest a. I. D. Aides and a others included her closest aides and aassociates. How can you possibly then 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. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Grassley mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from iowa. Mr. Grassley i ask the calling of the quorum being lifted. The presiding officer without objection. The senator from iowa. Mr. Grassley i ask unanimous consent that the committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 2146 and the bill be referred to the committee on finance. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley i understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading. The presiding officer the clerk will read the title for the second time. The clerk s. 2192, a bill to strengthen border security, increase resources for enforcement of immigration laws and for other purposes. Mr. Grassley i ask that reading of the bill in order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. The presiding officer objection having been heard, the bill will be placed upon the calendar. Mr. Grassley i understand that there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. The presiding officer the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. The clerk s. 2199, a bill to authorize appropriations for border infrastructure and so forth and for other purposes. Mr. Grassley i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the built on the calendar under provisions of rule 14, i abto my i object to my own request. The presiding officer objection is heard. Mr. Grassley as if in the presiding officer the bill will be read fo for the sed time on the next legislative day. Mr. Grassley as if in executive session, i ask that consent that hat a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader, the senate proceed to executive session for consideration of calendar number 167, the nomination of susan bodine to be assistant administrator of e. P. A. I further ask that there be 30 minutes of debate on nominations equally divided in the usual form and that following the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote on confirmation with no intervening action or debate and if confirmed the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president be immediately notified of the senates action. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley i ask unanimous consent that when the senate complete its Business Today it adjourn until 10 00 a. M. Thursday, december 7. Further following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. Further, following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each until 11 00 a. M. I further ask that at 11 00 a. M. Senator strange be recognized for up to 30 minutes. Finally, that at 1 1 45 a. M. The senate proceed to executive session to consider the balash nomination as under the previous order. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that the senate stand adjourned under the previous order. The presiding officer the senate is adjourned until

© 2025 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.