Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, early this month, in my home State of Iowa, a tragedy took place that shocked our entire State. On Wednesday, November 2, 2016, the lives of Des Moines Police Sergeant Anthony Beminio and Urbandale Police Officer Justin Martin were taken at the hands of an assailant. It is almost unimaginable for somebody to attack the people who dedicate their lives to protecting our communities. Unfortunately, it is a threat all too familiar for everybody who has a family member in law enforcement. Just after 1 a.m. on November 2, police responded to a report of shots fired and discovered that Officer Martin was shot and killed in his car while he was on duty. A short while later, Sergeant Anthony Beminio was found shot and killed in his car. He was believed to have been responding to the report of shots fired when he was killed by the lone assailant who moments earlier had allegedly killed Officer Martin. Police do not have a motive for the shootings. Nothing excuses the unforgivable act of attacking a police officer. I praise these heroes who gave their lives carrying out their mission to protect and serve. Sergeant Anthony ``Tony'' Beminio joined the Des Moines police force in 2005, after serving with the Indianola Police Department for 4 years. By all accounts, he was a talented athlete, a great detective, and he will be remembered by his friends as a professional man who was always smiling. He earned a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from Simpson College in 2001 and then a master's of science degree from the University of Cincinnati prior to becoming a police officer. Sergeant Beminio took after his father, Frank Beminio, who served as a member of the Belmond Police Department for 17 years, 8 of which were as chief of police. As a school resource officer at Roosevelt and East high schools, Tony was cherished by students and faculty. It takes a special kind of person to be a school resource officer, and Tony was an outstanding role model who had a good relationship with the students he served. My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Sergeant Beminio in this difficult time. I want to express my deepest condolences to Sergeant Beminio's wife, Zoe; his three children, Cameron, Haley, and Maddoz; and his parents, Patricia and Frank Beminio. These trying times serve as a reminder to show our appreciation to those who watch over our communities and run to danger. We can look to the words of wisdom from an Iowa mother who lost her son, Officer Carlos Puente-Morales, in the line of duty earlier this year. As she said, ``We shouldn't wait for a tragedy to recognize our heroes.'' We should all live by this sentiment and show appreciation to the brave men and women who walk in the footsteps of Sergeant Beminio and Officer Martin to protect and serve our communities across the country.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, early this month, in my home State of Iowa, a tragedy took place that shocked our entire State. On Wednesday, November 2, 2016, the lives of Des Moines Police Sergeant Anthony Beminio and Urbandale Police Officer Justin Martin were taken at the hands of an assailant. It is almost unimaginable for somebody to attack the people who dedicate their lives to protecting our communities. Unfortunately, it is a threat all too familiar for everybody who has a family member in law enforcement. Just after 1 a.m. on November 2, police responded to reports of shots fired and discovered that Officer Martin was shot and killed in his car while he was on duty. A short while later, Sergeant Anthony Beminio was found shot and killed in his car. He was believed to have been responding to the report of shots fired when he was killed by the lone assailant who moments earlier had allegedly killed Officer Martin. At this time, police do not have a motive for the shootings. Nothing excuses the unforgivable act of attacking a police officer. I praise these heroes who gave their lives carrying out their mission to protect and serve. Justin Martin obtained a bachelor's degree in criminal justice from Simpson College, with a lifelong dream of becoming a police officer. As Officer Martin's father said, ``He went into law enforcement for one reason--because he wanted to help people.'' Justin achieved that dream when he joined the Urbandale Police Department in 2015. I want to express my deepest sympathy to Officer Martin's parents, Randy and Jayne Martin; his brother Ryan Martin; his maternal grandmother, Ann Margaret Krommendyk; his paternal grandparents, Gene and Carolyn Martin, as well as his extended family and friends for their loss. Officer Martin was an Eagle Scout. He was active in many extracurricular activities such as football, swimming, and he also played the trombone. Officer Martin, like Sergeant Beminio, was a fine example of a community leader whom our young people should aspire to be like. By all accounts, he was a well-rounded, upstanding citizen. Officer Martin left a lasting impact on the communities he was part of, and we should follow the example that he set for us. These trying times serve as a reminder to show our appreciation to those who watch over our communities and run to danger. We can look to the words of wisdom from an Iowa mother who lost her son, Officer Carlos Puente-Morales, in the line of duty earlier this year. As she said, ``We shouldn't wait for a tragedy to recognize our heroes.'' We should all live by this sentiment and show appreciation to the brave men and women who walk in the footsteps of Officer Martin and Sergeant Beminio to protect and serve our communities across the country.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before the Senate adjourns this afternoon, I want to remind my colleagues that National Domestic Violence Awareness Month begins on Saturday. Throughout the month of October, we are called to increase public awareness and understanding of domestic violence. As noted by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, domestic violence thrives when we remain silent. That is why I recently introduced a resolution to commemorate National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. As stated in our resolution, Congress should continue to raise awareness of domestic violence in the United States. We also should pledge our continued support for programs designed to assist survivors, hold perpetrators accountable, and bring an end to domestic violence. I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy, Ayotte, and Klobuchar, for joining as original cosponsors of the resolution. It passed the Senate unanimously on September 15. Through the enactment of other key measures--such as the Violence Against Women Act, the Family Violence Prevention Act, and the Victims of Crime Act--Congress has made support to survivors a national priority for over three decades. Through the enactment of laws criminalizing domestic violence at the State and local level, we also have sent a strong signal to abusers that domestic violence is not a private matter, but a public issue. We have come a long way, but our work is far from complete. Even now, domestic violence affects more than 12 million people each year in the United States, including women, men, and children of every age and socioeconomic status. Research also suggests that young women between the ages of 18 and 34 are particularly vulnerable to domestic violence. The negative effects of this crime go far beyond the confines of individual households. It impacts our communities when the victims of domestic violence are forced to choose between continued abuse or financial insecurity and even homelessness. It impacts our economy when the victims of this crime miss work and school. Thankfully, there are many individuals and organizations in Iowa and elsewhere around the country that work around the clock to meet the needs of victims. They include the crisis hotline personnel who provide peer-to-peer support or counseling to victims across the Nation. They include the staff and volunteers at shelters, who provide safe havens for victims fleeing abuse in communities. They include the advocates who champion prevention initiatives and resources for victims at the State and Federal levels. Last, but certainly not least, they include the first responders who compassionately respond to victims of domestic violence in their most vulnerable moments. These men and women put their lives at risk when responding to domestic abuse calls, which can be among the most volatile they will experience. We thank them for their never-ending service. Mr. President, once again, I thank my colleagues for passing this resolution unanimously. It is important that we continue to support the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last Friday, President Obama vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, JASTA. Given the overwhelming, bipartisan support this legislation enjoys in both the Senate and the House, I was surprised and hence very disappointed the President disregarded the will of the People and chose this course of action. He chose to use his veto pen, but today it is my hope and expectation that the Senate will exercise its constitutional authority to override that veto. This legislation has been a truly bipartisan effort since the day it was introduced. I joined Senators Cornyn and Schumer as an original cosponsor last year. Our bill is sponsored by 16 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And if you know anything about the Judiciary Committee, you know that getting 16 members of our committee to agree on any legislation is no small task. We have some very conservative members, as well as some very liberal members. Getting all of those members on board with this important legislation is a testament to just how broad its support really is. I moved this legislation out of our committee unanimously in February, and then the full Senate passed it unanimously in May. The House followed suit and passed it in September. Like the Senate, the House passed the legislation unanimously. That is how this legislation arrived on the President's desk. It was sent to him with unanimous support in both the Senate and House, from Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. But it has run into some opposition. Of course, it is not opposed by the victims of 9/11 and their families. They aren't asking for legislation that tips the scales in their favor. All they want is the opportunity to present their case in a court of law. And that is what this legislation would give them. The legislation has run into opposition because it is opposed by Saudi Arabia, who has been making threats against the United States about what it might do if Congress stands with the American people and 9/11 victims and their families, instead of the Saudis. Now, according to press reports, the Saudis have gone out and hired an army of lobbyists to work furiously in a last-minute attempt to derail it. So on what exactly has the White House and Saudi Arabia based its opposition? They have made a lot of claims, but the one you hear most often is that if the United States stands with the 9/11 victims on this legislation and provides them the opportunity to make their case in court, then other countries could try to haul U.S. soldiers and other personnel into their courts. But what this claim ignores, of course, is that JASTA does not allow lawsuits against individuals, only foreign governments, JASTA expressly prohibits lawsuits arising from ``acts of war.'' So any claim by the President that this is all about protecting U.S. personnel from being hauled into foreign courts just doesn't hold water. The second most common argument some are making is that if Congress stands up to the President, the Saudis and their lobbyists, and this legislation becomes law, then the Saudis will respond by pulling their money out of U.S. securities. Well, let's set aside the fact that this appears to be an empty threat. It is highly unlikely that they would follow through on it. But even if they did, there would be plenty of buyers for those securities. But more importantly, is this really how we should be deciding policy? What kind of message would that send to other foreign governments? The message would be clear: if you want to influence U.S. legislation, make sure to buy up U.S. debt, and then threaten to sell that debt any time the United States Congress does something you don't like. We absolutely cannot be intimidated or bend to that type of threat. That would send a terrible message to the rest of the world. So, it is unfortunate President Obama vetoed this important legislation and that we now need to have this vote. But, it is my hope and expectation that the Senate--and the House-- will stand with the 9/11 victims and their families, and stand up to the President, the Saudis, and their army of lobbyists. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the same reason Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire is here. I rise today to speak on the Survivors' Bill of Rights. This is a noncontroversial and very bipartisan bill. It has already passed the Senate. Amanda Nguyen is a rape victim and a survivor who has been the driving force behind this legislation. She is founder and president of an organization that goes by the acronym RISE, a group which advocates on behalf of survivors of sexual violence. Amanda has worked hand in hand with both political parties on this bill to establish new rights for survivors of sexual violence. That is the way it should be because regardless of political party, all Members of Congress should be empowering survivors of sexual violence. However, while Republicans were ready to move forward on this bill last week, Democratic leadership has been stalling Amanda's diligent efforts. This bill ensures that all survivors of sexual violence have equal access to all available tools in their pursuit of justice. This includes the proper collection and preservation of forensic evidence that is so vital in cases of sexual violence. This bill also guarantees these survivors a new package of rights. As I said, this is a bipartisan bill, very noncontroversial. It has already passed this body 89 to 0. Each day, others like Amanda will fall victim to sexual violence. The Senate should not wait one more day to help these people seek justice, so, after Senator Shaheen speaks, I am here now to request unanimous consent to move this bill. My understanding is that it is now OK with the Democrats to agree to the passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor, hopefully for the purpose of Senator Shaheen stating her views on this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Shaheen for her support and her detailed explanation of what the legislation does and for everything she has done to help move this legislation along. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5578 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the measure.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for such time as I may consume, and I would say it would be in the neighborhood of about 10 or 12, maybe 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I want to again discuss the unnecessary restrictions on unclassified documents from the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton. By way of background, on September 12, I came to the floor and gave a speech about the FBI improperly restricting unclassified documents as if they were actually classified. Since that speech, the FBI Director has continued to talk about transparency, as transparency should be talked about because the public's business ought to be public, and when there is transparency, there is accountability in government. Behind the scenes, the FBI won't provide documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee unless we agree to very strict controls and strict secrecy. The FBI doesn't want the committee or the committee staff talking about what is in these documents to anyone, not even privately with witnesses and their attorneys. Today, I personally spoke with Director Comey about the terms his staff is insisting on as a condition for providing the Clinton investigation documents. I want to be clear with the people of Iowa and the American public about what I told him and what my position is as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is responsible for oversight of the FBI. The committee did not agree to any conditions before the first document delivery last month. In fact, nobody at the FBI, Senate security, or Senate leadership consulted with me as chairman of that committee before accepting the documents addressed to the Judiciary Committee. Still, we honored those limits in good faith anyway while we tried to get the unclassified material separated from the classified material. We honored the limits even though we were not obligated by any legal restriction or agreement. The controls of these documents are overkill for this kind of unclassified material. The access controls make it unnecessarily difficult to use documents and to follow up on the information in those documents. The most objectionable restriction is that we cannot talk about the content of the documents with witnesses and other third parties, such as their counsel, even if we do it in a nonpublic way, and that substantially interferes with the Senate's ability to continue its constitutional oversight of the executive branch. So the majority leader and I each wrote to Director Comey asking for a separate set of unclassified documents. Director Comey did not answer that letter. Then the FBI released, through the Freedom of Information Act, virtually all of the same unclassified material that it was asking the Senate to treat as if it was classified. Releasing as much as possible to the public is the right thing to do, and I very much appreciate that Director Comey is complying with his legal obligation for transparency under the Freedom of Information Act. But these document controls imposed before the public release make it look as if the FBI is trying to muzzle Congress and keep us from working with the information until after the FOIA process is completed. So what is Congress forced to do? Congress has to wait in line behind FOIA requesters before we get access to information in a way that we can actually use it as followup for our investigation. The way this process is working sets a very dangerous precedent that could undermine transparency, and transparency is essential for accountability in government. Frankly, this whole process is an end run around our constitutional oversight responsibility. If an agency wants to slow-walk Freedom of Information requests and give unclassified information to Congress with all kinds of strings attached to prevent us from using it, it could easily thwart oversight and accountability for months or even years. I cannot agree to document controls that prevent the committee from doing its job, and the FBI should not ask me to do that. We actually offered not to publicly disclose the contents of the documents and to treat them as confidential under Senate rules. Why is that not enough for the FBI to provide documents before the Freedom of Information process is complete so that we can use those very same documents in privately questioning witnesses? All 100 Senators need to consider the consequences of allowing the executive branch to unilaterally impose restrictions on unclassified information like this. We must protect the independent powers of the Senate from the executive branch overreach. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the leadership on the other side of the aisle in letting this survivors' bill of rights pass. I do have some comments on the procedures that have held this bill and other bills up for too long a time. I usually don't feel the need to address the Democratic leader's remarks on the floor, but he has decided to put partisan politics above rape survivors for the last week at least, so I cannot stand on the sidelines and let those remarks go unrebutted. The Democratic leader recently said right here on the floor of the Senate that ``Congress is floundering because of Republican inaction.'' This could not be further from the truth. If you want to know what is really going on, it is that the Democratic leader is using political gamesmanship to hold up noncontroversial as well as bipartisan legislation, mostly by Republican Members who are up for reelection this year. Why isn't the so-called objective media reporting on this? One need look no further than earlier today when Senator Johnson offered a noncontroversial bill to fight ALS, a tragic disease, and the Democratic leader blocked it. Look no further than what happened last week to Senator Toomey's bill, a noncontroversial bill to prevent animals from cruelty and torture. The Democratic leader blocked it. Look no further than what happened earlier this week to Senator Thune's bill, the noncontroversial MOBILE NOW Act. The Democratic leader blocked it. Look no further than what happened earlier this summer to another noncontroversial bill backed by Senator Johnson that would improve whistleblower protections. The Democratic leader blocked it. Look no further than what happened a few months ago to Senator Ayotte's bill, a noncontroversial bill to make anthrax vaccines available to first responders. The Democratic leader blocked it. That same day, just a week after five police officers were killed in Dallas, I tried to pass my noncontroversial bill to assist families of fallen police officers. The Democratic leader blocked that bill as well. Each time Republicans tried to pass noncontroversial, bipartisan legislation, the Democratic leader blocked it. He is the common denominator. I wish I could say that I am surprised by the obstruction that is being pushed by the Democratic leader. But how can I be? This is how the Senate operated under his control. Under his tenure, even Members of his own party weren't allowed to offer amendments to his legislation unless he allowed it. In fact, there was at least one Member on the other side who went a full 6-year term without ever being allowed to offer a single amendment on the Senate floor for a vote. The Democratic leader's actions in recent weeks--blocking these other bipartisan and, let me emphasize, noncontroversial bills--is pure, unfiltered partisanship. It is election-year politics at its very worst. It is the same failed strategy American voters rejected in 2014 when they gave Republicans control of the Senate. Perhaps the Las Vegas Tribune had it right a few months ago when they wrote that for the Democratic leader, ``[it's] politics first, last and always.'' Today I had an opportunity to champion for Amanda Nguyen and all survivors of sexual assault across the country. I am delighted the Democratic leader relented on this very important piece of legislation and let this bill pass. I urge the Democratic leader to allow these other bipartisan initiatives to pass as well.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about an overwhelmingly bipartisan piece of legislation. I had hoped to be on the floor today to celebrate the passage of the Survivors' Bill of Rights; however, as is the case far too often here in Washington, political gamesmanship is taking precedence over sound policy. The Democratic leadership is holding up this bill for purely political reasons. The Democratic leadership is delaying passage of this noncontroversial bill despite the fact that it enjoys broad bipartisan support. They are holding up this bill despite the fact that it is critical to help victims of sexual violence. They are holding up this bill despite the fact that the same language passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously. They are holding up this bill despite the fact that it passed the Senate 89 to 0 and the House of Representatives 399 to 0. The Survivors' Bill of Rights has been championed by a courageous rape survivor named Amanda Nguyen. Amanda is the founder and president of an organization that goes by the acronym RISE, a group that worked closely with me on the development of this survivors' rights package to establish new rights for survivors of sexual assault. Amanda was the victim of sexual assault as a college student. Her struggle with the criminal justice system in the aftermath of this event transformed her into a tireless young advocate for survivors of sexual violence. Sexual violence, as you know, impacts millions of American women and men in our country every year. Victims of such crimes should not face an uphill battle in their pursuit of justice, as Ms. Nguyen did, and that is why I included this language in the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act. That bill, which makes grants available to help States track convicted sex offenders, unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate just a few months ago. I am very proud to have shepherded this bill through the Judiciary Committee. It is a commonsense piece of legislation. For months, I urged the House Judiciary Committee to pass this very bill. Thankfully, that committee and the full House passed this bill just a few weeks ago. Now the Senate must act, of course, so we can send it to the President. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has chosen partisan politics over helping victims of sexual violence. Since the House passed this legislation, Amanda has been checking in with my office nearly daily on the status of when the Senate will pass this bill. While Republicans are poised to move forward on this bill, Democratic leadership has continued to stall Ms. Nguyen's efforts. Among other things, this bill ensures that each and every survivor of sexual assault should have equal access to all available tools in their pursuit of justice. This includes proper collection and preservation of forensic evidence. The Survivors' Bill of Rights also secures a package of new rights for sexual assault survivors. Amanda Nguyen has been working with both political parties to help fellow survivors. It has been an honor to work alongside Ms. Nguyen on this critical piece of legislation. I will fight for Amanda and every survivor of sexual assault until this bill passes. I call on the Democratic leadership to stop delaying this bill immediately. We have an important bipartisan opportunity to improve the criminal justice system for survivors of sexual assault. Today I ask the Democratic leadership to simply put the victims of sexual violence on the highest of priorities. Put these courageous individuals above partisan politics. We have done this before, and we should do it again, particularly in this environment of today's speeches from the other side of the aisle, decrying the fact that there might be too much partisanship in this body. This is a chance to demonstrate not only bipartisanship but also unanimity in the U.S. Senate that has already been demonstrated on this piece of legislation and get it to the President so we can help these courageous people who are fighting to help victims of sexual assault. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, natural disasters happen. Eight years ago, Senator Harkin and I had to deal with flooding in Eastern Iowa. Today Senator Ernst and I are called upon to observe--as we did this past weekend--a great amount of flooding in Eastern Iowa. Earlier this year, we also heard the Senators from West Virginia and the Senators from Louisiana speak about the natural disasters in their State. It was only 8 years ago that I was on the floor talking about the record devastation caused by severe storms and floods. Many of the same places are currently experiencing similar flooding as rivers are cresting at record or near-record levels. On Saturday, I toured several cities with the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, and Members of the Iowa congressional delegation, including Senator Ernst. We saw debris and damage left by receding floodwaters, many homes underwater, and great flood fight preparations. Many businesses and individual volunteers have been working tirelessly to help prevent damage to both public and private property and to help clean up. Today I had a discussion with the mayor of Greene, IA, about the numbers of high schools that are closed in that area, but the kids are coming in to help clean up in the city of Greene, IA. This is the Iowa way. I thank those who have helped and will provide assistance in the future. Since the floods of 2008, many lessons have been learned. Plans and training to protect Iowa communities are in place. I am pleased to report that the mitigation through Federal, State, and local resources that has taken place throughout Iowa since the floods of 2008 has been beneficial. This has already proven effective and will lessen the impact of this year's floods. It is estimated that more than $50 million of reduced impact will be experienced because of previous mitigation efforts. However, as we learned this weekend, so much remains to be done. Iowa's second largest city, Cedar Rapids, experienced massive devastation, with more than 1,300 city blocks covered in water and over $32 billion worth of damages from the floods of 2008. Today, as a result of massive amounts of rain upstream over the last few days, the city of Cedar Rapids is fighting to prepare for the high crest on the Cedar River, second only to 2008. Cedar Rapids is doing everything it can to protect its citizens by using HESCO barriers, earthen levees, and berms. However, a permanent solution through permanent flood control structures is still very much needed. Even prior to the 2008 floods, the protection of the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids was identified as needing evaluation. In 2006, Congress authorized a flood risk management feasibility study with the feasibility cost share arrangement being signed on May 30, 2008. Since then, the feasibility study was completed and alternatives were chosen, although this Federal project protects only a portion of Cedar Rapids. I worked to get the construction of the project authorized in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. That happened to be the first WRDA bill since 2007. However, funding has been difficult to obtain since the benefit-cost ratio is just over one from the point of view of the Corps of Engineers' scoring. I am pleased the Senate instructed the Army Corps of Engineers to expedite this and three other flood damage reduction and flood risk management projects in the recently passed Water Resources Development Act. Also in this year's act, the Senate passed an amendment to the bill that I was pleased to cosponsor with my colleague, Senator Ernst, requiring the Government Accountability Office to study the Army Corps of Engineers' methodology and performance metrics used to calculate benefit-cost ratios when evaluating construction projects. I have heard from Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, and several other places in Iowa regarding their concerns about how the Corps calculates the benefit of structures and that mitigation and future savings is not a strong factor in determining flood risk management. Let me say that as I talk to people in Iowa--but particularly in Cedar Rapids, IA--about the cost-benefit ratio, mitigation, and future savings not being taken so much into consideration, it is something that they just do not understand. I recognize that this is a complex issue and that the Corps rarely gets enough funding to maintain and operate what it owns, let alone start numerous construction projects. I also recognize the need to have a rationale on how to prioritize projects when there are scarce resources, and I have been supportive of these efforts. However, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work when dealing with flood protection. This is the most difficult thing to explain to people in Cedar Rapids, IA. It is a necessity to more accurately quantify future benefits and the protection of citizens when making benefit-cost ratios. We also need to find a way to expedite these flood projects so it doesn't take 20 to 40 years to study, design, and build--and it seems as if it takes forever to get completed. Again, Iowans--especially the people of Cedar Rapids--when they are faced with severe, repeated flooding, don't understand why the Federal Government does not prioritize flood risk management and mitigation instead of spending emergency money to fight, recover, and then put them back in the same position as they were before. That money was spent in 2008--maybe not as much money, but still a great deal of money was spent this year--and still they are in the same position. That is what is not seemed to be understood. This money would be better spent actually mitigating the problem and protecting citizens and their property. I have heard of similar concerns all across the United States, not just in Iowa. My staff has surveyed articles from Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, and Idaho, all stating similar concerns. I am sure that if we continued to look, we would find others as well. I call on the Army Corps of Engineers to carefully evaluate how they can improve their areas of flood control policy. Reforms have taken place to expedite the study, planning, and report process, but reforms are needed to how they make these determinations. I also call on the Office of Management and Budget and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to change the way the Army Corps of Engineers receives its funding. Every part of the Corps' budget could be considered an earmark under Senate rules. Therefore, it is very hard to advocate for the needs of the Corps' districts and projects within Congress without violating the earmark ban. As a result, the primary decision about what is included in the Corps' budget rests with the President's budget each year. I am not advocating to bring back earmarks for specific projects but to fund the Corps in a programmatic way or by district to allow Congress to exercise its oversight over funding decisions. All branches need to be held accountable for spending decisions, including the Federal bureaucracy. Congress should have the power of the purse for funding decisions of such importance to the people we represent, not just some bureaucrat. Retired MG Tom Sands, who was a commanding General of the Army Corps of Engineers' Lower Mississippi Valley Division and president of the Mississippi River Commission, in a blog for The Hill newspaper on September 7 of this year, wrote: No doubt the rationale for the current uniform approach [at the Corps] is to foster ``fairness.'' But federal water policy would be better focused on how to quantify and achieve superior outcomes. This new approach needs to focus more on common sense than on bureaucratic decisions. As I have based my work as a public servant on Iowa's common sense, not bureaucratic nonsense, I couldn't have said it better than General Sands, so I associate myself with his remarks. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to fully support everything Senator Leahy has said. I have my own remarks on the same subject. When Senator Leahy and I are done--and I may be the end of that--if Senator Leahy wants to speak, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 60 seconds on another item.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1990, Congress created the EB-5 visa, which was intended to create new employment for U.S. workers and to infuse new capital into the country. Two years later, Congress revised the EB-5 category by establishing a pilot program allowing investors to use regional centers to pool their investments. This pilot program still exists, nearly 25 years later, but it is deeply flawed, lacks adequate oversight, and has veered far away from congressional intent. The Regional Center Program expires on September 30 of this year. In my view, it is in need of a major overhaul if it is going to be reauthorized. I have said that repeatedly on the Senate floor, in hearings, and in letters to Senate leadership. Despite the need for reform, the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus appropriations bill included a straight and clean extension of the program. This was a disappointment given the alarm bells and the whistleblower allegations. It was a missed opportunity. It is my hope that both House and Senate leaders will find a way to include reforms in a continuing resolution or simply leave it off the table for a later date. The Senate Judiciary Committee held two hearings this year on the program. We discussed the flaws and corruption. We noted the many vulnerabilities. We had stakeholders weigh in. We heard from local leaders, associations representing workers and regional centers. We listened to academics and government officials. We received feedback from all types of industries, as well as immigration and securities attorneys. We talked to other Senate offices and committees. We have outlined the problems. Allow me to mention a few of them. Under the EB-5 Regional Center Program: Investments can be spent before business plans are approved. Regional center operators can charge excessive fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments. Jobs created are not ``direct'' or verifiable jobs but rather are ``indirect'' and based on estimates and economic modeling. All jobs created by a project are counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested. Investment funds are not adequately vetted. Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals. The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years. There is no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects. Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval. Regional centers don't have to certify they comply with securities laws. There is no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers. There is no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors. There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center. Regional centers draw targeted employment area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in those areas, and the projects aren't actually in those areas. Every targeted employment area designation is rubberstamped by the agency. Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected. Visas are not properly scrutinized. They have been approved despite national security warnings. Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance. The agency does not do site visits for each and every project. There is no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in. Then there are the national security problems. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story. The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. There was an interagency working group that reviewed fraud and other national security vulnerabilities in 2010. Members of the working group made recommendations to reform the program, including the recommendation to sunset the regional center model due to crippling fraud and national security vulnerabilities. Not all of these recommendations were communicated to Congress. This week, Chairman Chaffetz, Mr. Cummings, and I sent a letter to the Director of the agency in charge and asked for documents relating to this working group. I also sent a letter to Secretary Johnson, calling on him to investigate the policies and guidance that permit foreign ownership of an EB-5 regional center. It is obvious that foreign corporations and foreign governments are increasingly taking advantage of the Regional Center Program to establish ownership in U.S.-based real estate projects. I am concerned that this may allow foreign corporations and foreign governments to profit from marketing U.S. green cards to their citizens in return for investment and ownership in EB-5 real estate projects. I asked for a top-to-bottom review to ensure that U.S. interests are protected in the EB-5 program. The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought over a dozen suits against regional centers and operators. U.S. investors and foreign nationals are being duped and left high and dry. Just this week another individual was indicted for devising a scheme to defraud and obtain money and property from investors. This person was able to take in millions of dollars from foreign investors and use the money for his personal gain. I have seen it time and again. But, under current law, such individuals are not banned from the program in the future. Aside from the vulnerabilities, the benefits of the program are questionable. Even the Government Accountability Office says it is hard to ascertain the economic benefits. Most of the visas are going to urban and affluent areas at a discounted rate when Congress specifically intended to steer some visas to rural and high unemployment areas. Census tracts are stitched together to incorporate remote public housing developments so that highrises, hotels, casinos and resorts can attract investors for less than the statutory $1 million requirement. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this specific issue. Though Congress intended for most EB-5 investments to be made at the $1 million level, nearly all are made at the $500,000 level because of gerrymandering. That is just not right. Gerrymandering allows very affluent areas to benefit from the lower investment threshold, resulting in little incentive to invest EB-5 funds in distressed or rural areas, as was envisioned by Senators when it was created. The senior Senator from New York says we don't know how cities work. He doesn't think projects should or could be built in the Bronx. He says they will commute and work on 5th Avenue where luxury condos are being built. Those in New York jump over rivers and go through Central Park just to connect to low-income neighborhoods. As a result, smaller and economically depressed cities are forced to compete with Beverly Hills, Miami, and Manhattan. Foreign investors-- who ultimately want a green card--want to put their money in glitzy hotels and luxurious condo projects where there is a higher return. Targeted employment areas are at the heart of the controversy about EB-5 and are the principal reason we were unable to pass commonsense reforms last year. Yet we proposed a lot of good reforms. For example, the Grassley-Leahy-Conyers-Goodlatte proposal, for the first time, incentivized EB-5 investment in manufacturing and infrastructure projects. Manufacturing employers create direct, long-term, quality jobs in their communities. As for infrastructure, we have lots of needs in the Midwest, including rail and river transportation, wastewater treatment plants, and bridges. More EB-5 capital in infrastructure projects would reduce the burden on taxpayers, especially when local governments are up against Federal mandates. We also proposed reallocating the visas--carving out enough for rural and high unemployment areas but leaving more than half of the visas for projects that come in at the higher investment level. We even offered to give affluent areas their own carve-out. Yet one proposal suggested to us was to make the visas cheaper. They want to reduce the amount an investor has to pay for a green card. They also want more visas. The demand for visas is through the roof, yet they want to reduce the price. My colleagues and I have been willing to engage with other Members on this issue. We have made so many concessions. I am not sure how much more we can give, especially when there are increasing calls to end the program. The status quo is not acceptable. It is time for things to change. I encourage my colleagues to join the ranking member and me in our request for reforms. I hope this body will think twice before allowing the program to continue as is.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now, Mr. President, I would like to use that additional 60 seconds. Another issue I want to raise with Senate leadership is transparency and our responsibility of government oversight. Last week, I spoke about the danger of allowing agencies to improperly use the Office of Senate Security to keep information secret even when it is unclassified. I said that if we let the FBI get away with hiding the Clinton investigation documents from the public, then other agencies would abuse the system to undermine transparency and oversight. That is exactly what is happening. The State, Treasury, and Justice Departments are trying the same trick to hide documents about the Obama administration's transfer of billions of dollars to Iran for hostages. These unclassified documents requested by the Judiciary Committee are being locked away in the basement of the Capitol. They are being treated as if they are classified, but they are not. The Committee was not consulted and did not agree to these burdensome and unnecessary document controls. With the Clinton investigation documents, the FBI improperly mixed classified and unclassified documents together in order to keep the unclassified documents secret. But, this time every paragraph and every page of the Iran hostage payment documents is 100 percent unclassified. So why send it to Senate Security? Why keep it locked away from the public and congressional oversight? Why would the Senate participate in this scheme to undermine transparency? If the Senate, as an institution, wants to take its oversight responsibility seriously, we should not be helping the executive branch hide embarrassing information from the American people.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time from 2 p.m. until 2:25 p.m. be under the control of Senator Manchin; further, that the time from 2:25 p.m. until 2:45 p.m. today be reserved as follows: Senator Enzi for 10 minutes and Senators Inhofe and Boxer for 5 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been to the floor several times to call attention to foreign state-owned companies' growing investments in American companies and commercial markets. I come to the Senate floor to discuss this further with my colleagues. It is becoming increasingly clear that foreign state-owned companies are highly involved in international commerce and competing with companies that are privately owned by shareholders with nothing to do with any government. This trend is part and parcel of globalization. While there are some obvious benefits to globalization, we also need to be aware of the challenges it may bring with it, and I think this is one of them. To give an example, I have seen this trend at work in the agricultural sector of our economy. ChemChina, a Chinese state-owned company, is currently working on a deal to buy the Swiss-based seed company Syngenta. About one-third of Syngenta's revenue comes from North America--meaning the company is heavily involved with American farmers, including Iowans--and that is why I am interested in this transaction. I have already been considering the approval aspect of this proposed merger. Senator Stabenow and I asked the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review thoroughly the proposed Syngenta acquisition with the Department of Agriculture's help. We have raised the issue because, as I have said before, protecting the safety and integrity of our food system is a national security imperative as well as an economic issue. There is another aspect of this issue I would like to focus on. I would like to consider the flip side of the approval question. As their involvement in international commerce grows, how can we ensure that foreign state-owned companies are held to the same standards and the same requirements as their non-state-owned counterparts or companies that are in the private sector? First, consider two age-old principles of international law. One is that American courts don't exercise jurisdiction over foreign governments as a matter of comity and respect for equally independent countries. Each is sovereign. This is called the foreign sovereign immunity. The second is that when foreign governments do in fact enter into commerce and then behave like market participants--conducting a state-owned business, for example--they are not entitled to foreign sovereign immunity because they are no longer acting as a sovereign but rather acting like any business. In that case, they should be treated just like any other market participant. This is called the commercial activity exception to the principle of foreign sovereign immunity. Congress codified both of these age-old principles in the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976. All of these principles are well and good, but I am concerned that in some cases they may not have their intended effects in today's global marketplace. Some foreign state-owned companies have recently used the defense of foreign sovereign immunity--the principle that a foreign government can't be sued in American courts--as a litigation tactic to avoid claims by American consumers and companies that non-state-owned foreign companies would have to answer. In some cases, foreign state-owned corporate parent companies have succeeded in escaping Americans' claims. They have done this by arguing that the entity conducted commercial activities only through a particular subsidiary, not a parent company often closer to the foreign sovereign. Unless a plaintiff, which may be an American company or consumer, is able to show complete control of the subsidiary by the parent company, the parent company is able to get out of court before the plaintiffs even have a chance to make their case. This results in two problems. First, there is an unequal playing field, where state-owned companies benefit from a defense not available to a non-state-owned company. Second, there is an uphill battle for American companies and consumers seeking to sue state- owned entities as opposed to non-state-owned entities. When a foreign state-owned entity raises the defense of foreign sovereign immunity, American companies as well as American consumers don't even get a chance to prove their cases. Consider the example I talked about a few months ago. American plaintiffs brought claims against Chinese manufacturers for much of the drywall used to rebuild the gulf coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The drywall in question was manufactured by two Chinese companies, one owned by a German parent and one owned by a Chinese state-owned parent company. The court considering these plaintiffs' claims had this to say: ``In stark contrast to the straightforwardness with which the litigation proceeded against the [German] defendants, the litigation against the Chinese entities has taken a different course.'' The German non-state- owned parent company appeared in court and participated in a bellwether trial, where plaintiffs were allowed to try to make their cases. The manufacturer of the Chinese state-owned parent ``failed timely to answer or otherwise enter an appearance'' in court and didn't do so for a long period of time of at least 2 years. In fact, it waited until the court had already entered a judgment against it. Only then did the Chinese state-owned company finally appear in court. When that company did appear, it argued it was immune from suit in the United States because it was a state-owned company. After approximately 6 years of litigation, it ultimately succeeded in its request for dismissal. In contrast to the German parent company, the plaintiffs didn't have a chance to try to prove their case against the Chinese parent company merely because it happened to be owned by a foreign government. That is a great big problem. To address these issues, I am proposing a very modest fix to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This change would extend the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts to state-owned corporate affiliates of foreign state-owned companies insofar as their commercial activities are concerned and only as far as their commercial activities are concerned. It wouldn't create any additional substantive causes of action against these foreign state-owned companies. Instead it would mean only that a foreign state-owned company would have to respond to the claims brought by both American companies and American consumers, just like any other foreign company that isn't owned by a government. This fix has two main results correcting the problems I just mentioned. First, it levels the playing field between foreign state- owned and foreign private companies by making both subject to suit in the United States on the same footing, as the commercial activity exception originally contemplated. Second, it brings clarity to the sometimes opaque structures of foreign state-owned enterprises and provides American companies and American consumers the chance to prove their case against these companies just as they would have that opportunity against any private company. In an age when sovereign-owned entities, with increasingly complex corporate structures, are interacting with American companies and interacting with American consumers more than ever, it is appropriate to reexamine the commercial activity exception and to update that commercial activity exception. We have to make sure it is working as it was designed and as it was historically understood. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have mentioned before that I have been paying attention to foreign state-owned companies' growing investments in American companies and commercial markets. I would like to spend a few minutes discussing that issue today. It is becoming increasingly clear that foreign state-owned companies are highly involved in international commerce and competing with companies that are privately owned by shareholders, not governments. This trend is part and parcel of globalization. While there are some obvious benefits to globalization, we also need to be aware of the challenges it may bring with it, and I think this is one of those. To give one example, I have seen this trend at work in the agricultural sector. ChemChina, a Chinese state-owned company, is currently working on a deal to buy the Swiss-based seed company, Syngenta. About a third of Syngenta's revenue comes from North America--meaning the company is heavily involved with American farmers, including Iowans--and that's why I'm interested in the transaction. I have already been considering the approval aspect of this proposed merger. Senator Stabenow and I asked the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review thoroughly the proposed Syngenta acquisition with the Department of Agriculture's help. We raised the issue because, as I have said before, protecting the safety and integrity of our food system is a national security imperative. Now there is another aspect of this issue I would like to focus on today. Consider this the flip-side of the approval question. As their involvement in international commerce grows, how can we ensure that foreign state-owned companies are held to the same standards and requirements as their non-state-owned counterparts. First consider two age-old principles of international law. One is that American courts don't exercise jurisdiction over foreign governments as a matter of comity and respect for equally independent sovereigns. This is called ``foreign sovereign immunity.'' The second is that when foreign governments do in fact enter into commerce and behave like market participants--conducting a state-owned business, for example--they are not entitled to foreign sovereign immunity because they are no longer acting as a sovereign, but rather as a business. In that case they should be treated just like any other market participant. This is called the ``commercial activity exception'' to the principle of foreign sovereign immunity. Congress codified both of these age-old principles in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. These principles are well and good, but I am concerned that, in some cases, they may not have their intended effects in today's global marketplace. Some foreign state-owned companies have recently used the defense of foreign sovereign immunity--the principle that a foreign government can't be sued in American courts--as a litigation tactic to avoid claims by American consumers and companies that non-state-owned foreign companies would have to answer. In some cases, foreign state-owned corporate parent companies have succeeded in escaping Americans' claims. They have done this by arguing that the entity conducted commercial activities only through a particular subsidiary--not a parent company often closer to the foreign sovereign. Unless a plaintiff--which may be an American company or consumer--is able to show complete control of the subsidiary by the parent company, the parent company is able to get out of court before the plaintiffs can even try to make their case. This results in two problems. First, there's an unequal playing field where state-owned foreign companies benefit from a defense not available to non-state-owned companies. Second, there is an uphill battle for American companies and consumers seeking to sue state-owned entities as opposed to non-state-owned entities. When a foreign state- owned entity raises the defense of foreign sovereign immunity, American companies and consumers don't even get the chance to prove their case. Consider the example I talked about a few months ago. American plaintiffs brought claims against Chinese manufacturers of much of the drywall used to rebuild the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The drywall in question was manufactured by two Chinese companies--one owned by a German parent and one owned by a Chinese state-owned parent company. The court considering these plaintiffs' claims had this to say: ``In stark contrast to the straight forwardness with which the . . . litigation proceeded against the [German] defendants, the litigation against the Chinese entities has taken a different course.'' The German, non-state-owned parent company appeared in court and participated in a bellwether trial where plaintiffs were allowed to try to make out their cases. The manufacturer with a Chinese state-owned parent ``failed timely to answer or otherwise enter an appearance'' in court--and didn't do so for nearly two years. In fact, it waited until the court had already entered a judgment against it. Only then did the Chinese state-owned company finally appear in court. When it did, it argued, that it was immune from suit in the United States because it was a state-owned company. After approximately 6 years of litigation, it ultimately succeeded in its request for dismissal. In contrast to the German parent company, the plaintiffs didn't have a chance to try to prove up their case against the Chinese parent company merely because it happened to be owned by a foreign government. I think that is a problem. To address these issues I am proposing a modest fix to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This change would extend the jurisdiction of United States courts to state-owned corporate affiliates of foreign state-owned companies insofar as their commercial activities are concerned. It wouldn't create any additional substantive causes of action against these foreign state-owned companies. Instead, it would mean only that a foreign state-owned company would have to respond to the claims brought by American companies and consumers, just like any other foreign company that isn't owned by a government. The fix has two main results--correcting the problems I just mentioned. First, it levels the playing field between foreign state- owned and foreign private companies by making both subject to suit in the United States on the same footing, as the ``commercial activity exception'' originally contemplated. Second, it brings clarity to the sometimes opaque structure of foreign state-owned enterprises and provides American companies and consumers the chance to prove their case against these companies just as against private companies. In an age when sovereign owned entities, with increasingly complex structures, are interacting with American companies and consumers more than ever it is appropriate to re-examine the ``commercial activity'' exception and to update it. We have to make sure it is working as it was designed and historically understood.