Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge on Thursday July 14, the Chair lay before the Senate the House message accompanying S. 2943, and Senator McConnell be recognized to make a compound motion to go to conference on S. 2943; further, that after cloture is filed on the compound motion, the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and that at 11:30 a.m. the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the compound motion to go to conference; further, that if cloture is invoked, the Senate agree to the compound motion to go to conference and there be two motions to instruct in order made by Senator Shaheen and Senator Sullivan; further, that Senator Shaheen be recognized to offer a motion to instruct the conferees and that there be up to 4 minutes of debate equally divided on the motion and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the Shaheen motion; that following the disposition of the Shaheen motion, Senator Sullivan be recognized to offer a motion to instruct the conferees and that there be up to 4 minutes of debate equally divided on the motion and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the Sullivan motion without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar Nos. 659 through 678 and all nominations on the Secretary's desk; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Blunt amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1555 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3207, introduced earlier today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 14; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be 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, that following the prayer and pledge, the majority leader be recognized as under the previous order.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senators should expect four rollcall votes at 11:30 tomorrow morning as well as one additional vote after lunch.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order under the provisions of S. Res. 534 as a further mark of respect to William L. Armstrong, former United States Senator from Colorado.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we all want safety, security, health and well-being for all of our fellow Americans. But it sometimes seems impossible for us to agree on how best to achieve them. So when Congress comes together to find solutions to an urgent crisis facing the country, we should pause briefly, mark that achievement, and consider how we got there. That is what I hope will happen this week when the Senate votes on the conference report for S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. CARA addresses the opioid crisis in a comprehensive way, by authorizing almost $900 million over 5 years for prevention, education, treatment, recovery, and law enforcement efforts. Last week, the House of Representatives passed the report by an astounding margin of 407 to 5. We have all heard the statistics about the epidemic of addiction to heroin and prescription opioids that is gripping our country. I won't belabor them today. When 129 Americans a day die from drug overdoses, we don't need statistics on a page to tell us about this catastrophe. We only need to listen to our constituents. I hear from Iowans all the time about real-life examples of how this epidemic is hitting home. A few years ago, I heard the story of Kim Brown, a nurse from Davenport. In 2011, she lost her son Andy Lamp to an accidental heroin overdose. He was only 33. She now speaks out around my State about the need for expanded treatment options for those with substance abuse disorders. She also advocates for increased access to naloxone, an anti-overdose drug that can save lives. I heard Kim Brown's plea--and the conference report helps fill these and other critical gaps. I urge the entire Senate to demonstrate that it has heard her, and thousands like her, by passing the conference report, and sending it to the President for his signature before we return home. The Senate's vote this week will be the culmination of a process marked by hard work, bipartisanship, and a commitment to addressing this crisis in an all-encompassing way. I convened a hearing on attacking the opioid epidemic in the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. The Committee heard from Federal and State officials in the law enforcement and public health communities. We also heard from a courageous young woman who lost her daughter to a heroin overdose and subsequently started a support group to assist those in recovery. The hearing continued for well over 3 three hours. Senators who aren't even members of the Committee stopped in to listen, and learn. By that time, a bipartisan group of four Senators had already introduced CARA. Soon after the hearing, I sat down with Senators Whitehouse, Portman, Klobuchar, and Ayotte--two Democrats and two Republicans--to build on their outstanding work. The leadership of those four Senators on this issue has been indispensable. We agreed on some changes to CARA that facilitated its movement through the Judiciary Committee. In particular, I worked to include my accountability provisions, which help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of grant funds, and ensure that resources go to those who need them most. I also helped make sure that a fixed portion of the funds for first responder access to naloxone is set aside for rural areas, like much of Iowa, where access to emergency healthcare can be limited. And finally, because methamphetamine remains such a problem in Iowa, I made sure that the community-based coalition enhancement grants created by the bill would also be available for communities suffering from high rates of meth abuse, in addition to opioid abuse. In fact, these enhancement grants are intended to supplement grants made to community coalitions under the Drug Free Communities Act of 1997. I am proud to have been the lead sponsor of that legislation in the Senate. The CARA Grassley substitute, with these changes, passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously by voice vote in February. I then managed the bill on the Senate floor, where it was approved 94 to-1 in March. Tackling important problems in a bipartisan way is important to me. That is why, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have moved eight bills through the Committee, CARA among them, for which the lead sponsor was a member of the Democratic minority. By way of comparison, last Congress the Committee didn't report a single bill for which the lead sponsor was a Republican in the minority. And every one of the 27 bills I have moved through the Committee this Congress has had bipartisan support. That isn't just talking the talk on bipartisanship, it is walking the walk. After the Senate acted on CARA, the House of Representatives passed its own package of bills by a vote of 400 to 5 in May. And so the task fell to a bicameral, bipartisan committee to develop a conference report that would blend the best of the two approaches together. I led the Senate delegation that negotiated the report, along with Senator Alexander, Chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. We concluded weeks of hard work and negotiations with a conference committee meeting on July 6. I voted for a number of improvements to the report during the meeting, offered by both Republicans and Democrats. In particular, I was proud to support Senator Murray's amendment that will create an Office of Patient Advocacy at the Department of Veterans Affairs to help ensure our veterans receive the care they deserve. I am also pleased that the CARA conference report includes a bill that I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, the Kingpin Designation Improvement Act. This bill strengthens the ability of the Federal Government to freeze the assets of foreign drug kingpins, who traffic opioids, methamphetamine and other illegal narcotics into the United States. There are other parts of CARA that I feel passionately about as well. Many people who abuse prescription drugs get them from friends or relatives. CARA authorizes an expansion of the Federal initiative that allows patients to safely dispose of old or unused medications, so that these drugs don't fall into the hands of young people, potentially leading to addiction. I am proud to have helped start these ``take back'' programs by working with Senators Klobuchar and Cornyn in 2010 to pass the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act. It has been a highly successful effort. Since 2010, over 2,700 tons of drugs have been collected from medicine cabinets and disposed of safely. Iowa also has a similar ``take back'' program that is expanding rapidly. Anything we can to do to encourage these programs is worthwhile. CARA also authorizes funds for other valuable programs: those that encourage the use of medication assisted treatment, provide community- based support for those in recovery, and address the unique needs of pregnant and post-partum women who are addicted to opioids. It is no wonder that the CARA conference report has been met with such widespread praise and support. The Addiction Policy Forum called it a ``monumental step forward.'' Almost 250 advocacy organizations have written to Congress in support of the report, concluding that ``this bill is the critical response we need.'' These organizations include many influential national ones, such as the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the National Criminal Justice Association, and the National District Attorneys Association. Iowa community organizations are well-represented in that group as well, including the Partnership for a Drug Free Iowa, Kossuth Connections, Siouxland Cares, the Iowa Alliance for Drug Endangered Children, Community Resources United to Stop Heroin of Eastern Iowa-- Dubuque Chapter, Quad Cities Harm Reduction, which Kim Brown leads, and many more. The National Fraternal Order of Police wrote in support of the conference report as well. The FOP explained that: Law enforcement officers are almost always the first on the scene--even before the paramedics arrive. In these life and death situations, our officers are not looking to make an arrest, but to save a life. Many States and jurisdictions have successfully equipped their officers with [naloxone], trained them to recognize the symptoms of an overdose, and administer it on the scene. We believe that the final conference report on S. 524 will help expand the use of naloxone and give us one more tool to reduce the deaths from this epidemic. It isn't every day we can say that legislation we pass could help save lives. But this is one of those times. I want to thank the Republican leader for moving this legislation on the floor, and providing the Senate the opportunity to pass it this week. Indeed, heroin deaths spiked dramatically from 2010 through 2014, more than tripling, from 3,036 to 10,574. But sadly, during this entire time, the Democratic leader didn't make it a priority to move comprehensive, bipartisan legislation on the floor to address this epidemic. Now, some of my colleagues have expressed concern that the conference report, an authorization bill, doesn't also appropriate money for this epidemic as well. But thankfully, under Republican leadership, the appropriations committees have been doing just that. The current Senate appropriations bills increase funding for this epidemic by 57 percent over fiscal year 2016 enacted levels, and by 115 percent over fiscal year 2015 enacted levels. So funding for this crisis is poised to more than double since Republicans took control of the Senate. As this funding continues to increase, the CARA conference report will be the blueprint for where this money is most effectively spent. This bill is just the latest example of the productive, bipartisan work we have been doing on the Judiciary Committee this Congress. I want to thank all of the Members for their hard work and for our achievements together. So I urge my colleagues to vote to send CARA to the President this week. And when we come back in September, let's roll up our sleeves and continue to build on this bipartisan success. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to send a message to Secretary of Defense Carter. I wish to alert him to a problem that needs high-level attention. It is standing in the way of one of the top priority goals of the Congress--auditing the books of the Defense Department. The need for annual financial audits was originally established by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. By March of 1992, each agency of the Federal Government was supposed to present a financial statement to an inspector general for audit in accordance with the prescribed standards. To date, all departments have earned unqualified or clean opinions. But there is one glaring exception; that is, the Defense Department. It has a dubious distinction, under both Republican and Democrat administrations, of earning an unblemished string of failing opinions known as ``disclaimers.'' In the face of endless slipping and stumbling, Congress finally cracked down--except it looks as though the crackdown hasn't done any good. At that time, there was a new line drawn in the sand. It was placed in section 1003 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2009. In 2009, the Department was given a charitable 7-year reprieve from the requirement to have their books auditable, and it was given until September 30, 2017. Those 7 bonus years did not buy us in the Congress much. All the slipping and sliding and stumbling have continued undiminished. The 25-year push to audit the books is stuck at a roadblock. Billions of dollars have been spent trying to solve the root cause of the problem, but the fix is nowhere in sight. And until it is, auditing the books will remain an elusive goal for the Department of Defense but a goal that has been met by every other agency of the Federal Government. What I am talking about is the Department's broken accounting system. This problem has been a festering sore for many years. It adversely affected every facet of the audit effort. The broken accounting system is driving the audit freight train. How could the mighty Defense Department be buffaloed for so long by something so simple? The Pentagon develops and produces the most advanced weapons the world has ever known and does it with relative ease. Yet the Defense Department can't seem to acquire the tools it needs to keep track of the money it spends. With little or no fiscal accountability, Congress cannot exercise effective oversight of defense spending. If Congress can't do that, then adding money to the defense budget, and borrowing at the same time to do it, is foolish, in my book. That is precisely why I opposed a recent amendment to add $18 billion to the Defense bill. I want to take a moment to put my spotlight on the issue. My hope is to stimulate creative problem-solving and innovative solutions that seem to not be getting their proper attention at the Department of Defense. A recent press report pinpointed the cause for all the stumbling that is going on at the Defense Department. It drew on testimony by the government's preeminent authority on accounting, Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. His testimony before the Senate Committee on the Budget had a razor-sharp edge. It zeroed right in on the old stumbling block-- underlying accounting problems. While the Pentagon is spending in excess of $10 billion a year to modernize its vast accounting system, the GAO director said these investments ``have not yielded positive results.'' And since DOD officials ``continue to make system investments that don't produce better systems,'' he said, those responsible ``need to be held accountable.'' They are wasting money, in other words. As a clear, unambiguous indicator of the continuing accounting mess, he cited in excess of $1 billion in Antideficiency Act violations incurred by DOD. The Antideficiency Act violations, according to the Comptroller General, means the Department is ``spending money that it should not be spending.'' I agree with the Comptroller General. That is what I call unlawful spending. A good accounting system, one with effective internal controls, should be able to detect and should be able to stop illegal spending and particularly fraud and theft. What is in place today doesn't accomplish that goal. Unauthorized spending is usually discovered, instead, by chance and long after the fact. When asked how much of DOD's $600 billion in yearly expenditures is actually accounted for, the Comptroller General stated bluntly--his words--``very little.'' The Comptroller General's assessment is a very bruising indictment of how the taxpayers' precious money is mishandled in the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense has a fiduciary responsibility under the Constitution and under the law to account for every penny spent. None has honored that responsibility. One Secretary of State, however, made a good-faith effort. Leon Panetta formally launched the audit readiness initiative in October of 2011. While giving it a big boost with visibility, this effort sputtered to a standstill, like all the others, over the past decades. During Secretary Carter's nomination hearing, Senator Manchin of West Virginia questioned him about the faltering efforts to audit the Defense Department. The Secretary replied: ``I am committed on the audit front.'' In response to a followup question, he stated: I will hold the Chief Financial Officer ``responsible and accountable for making auditability one of my top business reform priorities.'' During a meeting in my office, he provided me similar assurances. These solemn vows don't give me a whole lot of confidence. His predecessors spoke the same words, but all we see is a trail of broken promises. To win this war on making the books auditable, it will take perseverance and guts. It will take top-notch, hands-on leadership skills and a chief financial officer who grasps the root cause problem and is committed to solving it. In watchdogging the audit process for years, I have come to know the underlying problem all too well. I have been down in the trenches and have seen it up close with my own eyes. I was introduced to the problem when it just popped up right in the face. It came in the form of unusual notations in audit reports published by the inspector general. They read: ``No audit trail found.'' That red flag prompted me to dig deeper. So I asked: How do you perform financial audits with no money trail to follow? The answer: You don't, except with great difficulty, risk, and expense. One question led to another and eventually to my first indepth audit oversight report. It was published in September 2010. It zeroed right in on the root cause problem. I call it the audit-accounting mismatch. My observations were derived mainly from reviewing Corps of Engineers audits for fiscal years 2008 to 2010. These were some of the Department's earliest attempts to comply with the Chief Financial Officers Act, requiring all agencies of the government to have auditability of their books. The results of my study were mixed. This work provided a startling introduction to a problem. During extensive interviews, senior managers readily admitted that auditors had to do manual workarounds that are prone to errors. They could not connect the dots between contracts and payments and accounting records and make the necessary match-ups. Transactions were not properly posted to accounts and supporting documentation had gone missing. In fact, financial records were so bad it took hundreds of highly paid certified public accountants doing manual labor, characterized as ``audit trail reconstruction work'' or ``pick-and-shovel work'' to finish the job. Such labor-intensive accounting procedures are very costly--$50 million for the Corps of Engineers alone--and leave gaping holes in audit evidence even after it is spent. Such unorthodox procedures place outcomes on very shaky ground. True, these observations were made 5 years ago, but I keep running into the same old problems. For example, I am seeing it again today in my ongoing inquiry into the Department's Task Force for Business and Stability Operations in Afghanistan. I see it everywhere I go. The recently concluded Marine Corps audit is a perfect example of the same old problem. The broken accounting system is still driving the audit freight train. The Marine Corps, which is the smallest of the military services, had been claiming for several years that it was audit ready. However, when the time came, the Marine Corps flunked the test. Oversight audits by the inspector general and the Government Accountability Office concluded there was not sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to support a clean opinion. The transaction data was largely incomplete, unreliable, unverifiable, and unsupportable. In the opinion of the experts, the final call ``was not even close.'' When I spoke about the results of the Marine Corps audit on the floor last August 4, 2015, I underscored the need for reliable transaction data. Transactions are the lifeblood of financial statements, and the lack of those transaction statements doomed the Marine Corps audit from the get-go. I ask Secretary Carter to pause and reflect on why the Marine Corps audit was unsuccessful. I urge him to explore the questions with Chief Financial Officer Mike McCord. He might be surprised at what he hears. Maybe Mr. McCord does not understand the problem. If he did, why would he continue throwing money at solutions that don't produce what is needed most; that is, reliable transaction data. Why doesn't he know the same old garbage is still coming out the other end of the sausage machine? How is it Comptroller General Dodaro knows it? Why do I see it plain as day? It is written all over that Marine Corps audit that failed--and a whole bunch of other audits--in big bold print. So why can't Mr. McCord see it? He does not seem to have a handle on the core problem--the so-called feeder systems. Though ridiculed recently on Federal News Radio as being ``museum ready,'' they remain the heart and soul--the foundation--of any accounting system. In most business operations, transactions are transmitted instantaneously from the cash register or other points of origin to finance and accounting. At the Pentagon, they take a roundabout route. From their points of origin, transactions must first pass through a series of gates--literally thousands of feeder and other business systems. The trip through the bureaucratic maze is neither smooth nor certain. Somewhere along the way, vital linkages are broken. When ledgers and account balances are no longer hooked up to transactions, forget about auditing the books. It is nothing more than a pipedream. In a nutshell, this is the root cause of the problem that still has the very mighty Pentagon buffaloed, and it is lying in wait for the next go-around. According to Comptroller General Dodaro, Mr. McCord is making the wrong choices, wasting billions of dollars on systems that don't work. CFO McCord wants us to believe that staying the course offers the best chance for success. I disagree. More of the same will not cut it. He needs to refocus on doable solutions. Maybe it is time for some new ideas, a whole new approach. The audit strategy needs to be rebalanced. It is out of whack. The roadblocks need to be bypassed. Other agencies seem to be taking care of business by pooling accounting resources to save money. So why not draw on those skills and capabilities from other government agencies that meet the requirements of the law and use them to leverage a potential solution--maybe where we know things have worked successfully. Why not allow a service provider--let's say, at the Department of Defense as an example, take any Department--to handle a slice of the Defense Department's bookkeeping pie, like civilian pay? Run a test and see if it works. If it works, build on it. For the next go-around, tear off a bigger chunk, farm it out, and see what happens. Try alternative solutions. Keep experimenting until the answer is found. After all these decades, nothing seems to be right for this agency, compared to all the other agencies of government that meet the requirement of the financial records law. CFO McCord needs some direction. Secretary Carter needs to challenge him to do the impossible. As difficult as it may be in the Pentagon bureaucracy, the Secretary needs to encourage him to think outside the box. Maybe Comptroller General Dodaro and CFO McCord could put their heads together. Maybe if they would team up, they could figure out how to simplify the whole system and make it play like a symphony orchestra. Mr. McCord seems to be having trouble shaking mistaken notions, and here is a new one. He thinks the whole Department is poised for a major breakthrough; that the looming congressionally mandated September 2017 deadline is within reach. The Marine Corps audit proves that isn't possible. The military services--the Army, Navy, and Air Force--echo his assessment. They claim to be ``on track to be ready for audit'' by the deadline. I suspect they are about as ready as the Marine Corps was. The experts think the other services are in far worse shape than the Marine Corps. If true, the probability of earning a departmentwide clean opinion is slim to none. Now, suddenly, to my amazement, Mr. McCord appears to be backing away from his prediction about meeting the deadline. On June 15, he told the House Armed Services Committee that the Department is, in his words, ``many years'' away from a clean opinion. How can the Department be audit ready and meet the deadline if it is still years away from a clean opinion? His messages are downright confusing and maybe contradictory. If he knows DOD is years away from a clean opinion, then he must also know it is not audit ready or even close to it. Mr. McCord needs to explain his apparent inconsistency. Clearly, the impending deadline remains an elusive goal. However, of one thing I am certain, the next round is being touted as ``the largest audit ever undertaken.'' If Mr. McCord fails to come up with some workable solution that gets a firm handle on transactions, there will not be enough auditors in the universe to tackle this job. This job is just too big for the pick-and-shovel routine, and the cost could be astronomical. I want Secretary Carter to succeed. I am counting on him to get the faltering audit readiness initiative back on track and moving in the right direction. The taxpayers deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, almost 1 year ago to the day, a young woman was walking arm in arm with her father along a pier in San Francisco. She had hopes and dreams and a bright future ahead, but her life was cut short when she was tragically shot, dying in her father's arms. Her name was Kate Steinle. The suspected killer, who was illegally in the country and deported five times prior to that day, was released into the community by a sanctuary jurisdiction that did not honor a detainer issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The suspect in Kate's death admitted that he chose to be in San Francisco because of its sanctuary policies. Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the last year. Sanctuary cities, including San Francisco, continue to harbor people in the country illegally. Since Kate was killed, there has been a long list of tragedies, tragedies that could have been avoided--some that could have been avoided if sanctuary policies were not in place, some that could have been avoided if we had a more secure border and beefed-up penalties for those who enter the country illegally time and again. Allow me to mention a few of the cases I have been following. In July, Marilyn Pharis was brutally raped, tortured, and murdered in her home in Santa Maria, CA, by an illegal immigrant who was released from custody because the county sheriff does not honor ICE detainers. In July, Margaret Kostelnik was killed by an illegal immigrant who also allegedly attempted to rape a 14-year-old girl and shoot a woman in a nearby park. The suspect was released because ICE refused to issue a detainer and take custody of the suspect. In July, a 2-year-old girl was brutally beaten by an illegal immigrant in San Luis Obispo County, CA. He was released from local custody despite an immigration detainer and extensive criminal history and is still at large. In September, 17-year-old Danny Centeno-Miranda from Loudoun County, VA, was allegedly murdered by his peers--people in the country illegally who also had ties to the MS-13 gang--while walking near his school bus stop. In November, Frederick County Deputy Sheriff Greg Morton was attacked by an MS-13 gang member who was in the country illegally. In January, my constituent, Sarah Root, was rear-ended and killed by a man in the country illegally who was street-racing and had a blood- alcohol level four times the legal limit. Sarah had graduated from college with perfect grades that very day. ICE refused to issue a detainer, and the suspect was released. He is still at large. In February, Chelsea Hogue and Meghan Lake were hit by a drunk driver, leaving one injured and the other in a coma. The driver was in the country illegally and had previously been removed from the country five times. In February, Stacey Aguilar was allegedly shot by a man who was in the country illegally. The suspect had also been previously convicted of a DUI. Last month, five people were trapped by a fire and killed in a Los Angeles apartment building. The man who allegedly started the fire was in the country illegally and had been previously arrested for domestic violence and several drug charges. The man was known to immigration authorities, but he wasn't a priority for removal and was allowed to walk free. The fire killed Jerry Dean Clemons, Mary Ann Davis, Joseph William Proenneke, and Tierra Sue-Meschelle Stansberry--all my constituents from Ottumwa, IA. When will this end? We can do something today by voting to proceed to S. 3100 and S. 2193. Sanctuary policies and practices have allowed thousands of dangerous criminals to be released back into the community, and the effects have been disastrous. Even the Secretary of Homeland Security acknowledges that sanctuary cities are ``counterproductive to public safety.'' He has said these policies were ``unacceptable.'' Just last week, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Secretary said he wanted to see more cooperation from various counties and cities in working with immigration enforcement authorities. He said he has not been successful with Philadelphia and Cook County, IL. And we know that nothing has changed in San Francisco where Kate Steinle was killed. The Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, authored by Senator Toomey, addresses the problem of sanctuary jurisdictions in a common sense and balanced way. There seems to be consensus that sanctuary jurisdictions should be held accountable, so we do that with the power of the purse. This bill limits the availability of certain Federal dollars to cities and States that have sanctuary policies or practices. The Toomey bill also provides protection for law enforcement officers who do want to cooperate and comply with detainer requests. It would address the liability issue created by recent court decisions by providing liability protection to local law enforcement who honor ICE detainers. Major law enforcement groups support this measure because it reduces the liability of officers who want to do their job and comply with immigration detainers. Today, we will also vote on Kate's law, a bill honoring Kate Steinle and many others who have been killed or injured by people who have repeatedly flouted our immigration laws. Kate's law addresses criminals attempting to reenter the United States, many times after we have expended the resources to remove them. The bill creates a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for any alien who has been deported and illegally reenters the United States who is also an aggravated felon or has been twice convicted of illegal reentry. This is necessary to take certain individuals off our streets who are dangerous to our communities and have no respect for our laws. This bill has broad support by law enforcement groups. It also has the support of groups that want enforcement of our immigration laws. And it has the support of the Remembrance Project, a group devoted to honoring and remembering Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens. I would also mention that we could have the opportunity to vote on Sarah's law if we get on either one of these bills today. Sarah's law, which was introduced by Senators Ernst, Sasse, Fischer, and myself last week, is a measure that would honor Sarah Root of Iowa. Sarah Root was a bright, talented, energetic young woman whose life was taken far too early by someone in the country illegally. ICE refused to issue a detainer on the drunk driver, and he was released from custody. Sarah Root's family is left wondering if they will ever have justice for their daughter's death. Sarah's Law would amend the mandatory detention provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Federal Government to take custody of anyone who entered the country illegally, violated the terms of their immigration status, or had their visa revoked and is thereafter charged with a crime resulting in the death or serious bodily injury of another person. The legislation also requires ICE to make reasonable efforts to identify and provide relevant information to the crime victims or their families. It is important that Americans have access to information about those who have killed or seriously harmed their loved ones. Sarah's opportunity to make a mark on the world was cut short in part because of the reckless enforcement priorities of the Obama administration. By refusing to take custody of illegal criminal immigrants who pose a clear threat to safety, the Obama administration is putting Iowans at risk. It is time for this administration to rethink its policies and start enforcing the law. Today we have the opportunity to vote to proceed to two bills to help protect Americans from criminal immigrants. For too long, we have sat by while sanctuary jurisdictions release dangerous criminals into the community to harm our citizens. It is time we work toward protecting our communities, rather than continuing to put them in danger. And, it is time that we institute real consequences for people who illegally enter the United States time and again.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to share my concerns about the Puerto Rico legislation we're considering. I've been involved with this issue for quite a while now. This past December I chaired a hearing in the Judiciary Committee to examine the root cause of Puerto Rico's fiscal problems. At the hearing we learned that even when Puerto Rico's economy took a downturn, government spending did not. Instead of making difficult decisions to cut spending and balance its budget, the government kept borrowing to finance its operations, using tax-exempt bonds to roll over debt. As a result, Puerto Rico now has one of the largest government deficits in the United States, and debt we're told isn't payable and must be restructured. As many of you know, a wide array of investors own Puerto Rican bonds, which are issued by roughly 17 different entities. According to Bloomberg, Puerto Ricans themselves hold $20 billion of the debt. Nearly 60 percent of Puerto Rico's debt is held largely in the individual retirement accounts and 401(k)'s of regular folks throughout the U.S. In fact, over 17,000 Iowans are invested in mutual funds containing at least one type of Puerto Rican bonds. These folks aren't vultures. They are middle-class taxpayers who invested their hard-earned money into one of the many tax-exempt municipal bond funds containing Puerto Rico's bonds. Why should they be forced by Congress to bailout Puerto Rico's government and pension obligations? The answer is they shouldn't, but unfortunately, there is no guarantee that these hardworking folks' investments, whether in Iowa or elsewhere, won't be haircut in order to fund pension obligations or Christmas bonuses for public workers in Puerto Rico. This didn't have to be the case. At our December hearing I stated two principles that have guided me as this issue has progressed. First principle, any inclusion of debt restructuring or bankruptcy should occur only at the end of the line, as a tool of last resort. Otherwise the control board will face too great of a temptation to use bankruptcy to balance the budget, as opposed to implementing all available means to increase and collect revenues, while reducing expenses within government. Second principle, it would be a bad idea for Congress to permit Puerto Rico to walk away from its constitutional debt obligations through what some call an unprecedented super chapter 9 bankruptcy. In fact, I received a letter from Governor Branstad of Iowa stating that granting Puerto Rico such authority ``would set a dangerous precedent and likely raise the borrowing costs for States and municipalities across the nation, which would reduce our ability to invest in vital services and erode investor confidence in the whole notion of `full faith and credit' debt.'' Unfortunately, the House bill fails to meet the two principles I have outlined above. First, the bill operates under the presumption that the only way to balance the budget is to restructure debt. This means that the oversight board will have more flexibility to avoid making difficult fiscal reforms to balance the budget, because the debt can simply be restructured. In fact, one of the oversight board's first responsibilities is to create a fiscal plan that ``provides adequate funding for public pension systems'' and includes a ``debt sustainability analysis.'' Neither of these terms are defined. The oversight board may very well read these terms as permitting full funding of pensions, while only funding ``sustainable levels of debt service.'' Not surprisingly, this is exactly what the Obama administration seeks to accomplish: protecting pensions at the expense of other retirees. The effect this bill has for retirees in Iowa and elsewhere is that they must place their trust in an oversight board to act courageously and make hard decisions, lest they find themselves bailing out Puerto Rico's government. Second, no matter what the House bill calls it, title III's debt restructuring authority, which allows for the restructuring of debt that is issued or guaranteed by Puerto Rico, is super chapter 9. Investors and the municipal bond market have treated Puerto Rico like a State. Granting Puerto Rico the authority to restructure ``state- like'' obligations will be viewed as precedent for giving a State similar authority. Of course, no State is going to ask to be covered by the House bill. Rather, they will say if a territory can receive unprecedented authority from Congress, then why shouldn't a State? Illinois is watching this issue very closely. Moreover, by creating this new authority Congress has invited material litigation risk. Worst case, should the law be found unconstitutional under the Takings Clause, then the Federal government would be liable for money damages--the very definition of a bailout. And increased litigation will cause uncertainty, which is the last thing needed in Puerto Rico, making it impossible for Puerto Rico to access the capital market for years. If that occurs, then mark my words, sooner or later we'll be considering whether to provide direct federal financial assistance to Puerto Rico, despite the claims that this bill doesn't result in a taxpayer bailout. And given that Puerto Rico has failed to provide Congress with accurate financial information regarding their fiscal crisis, this unprecedented and risky authority appears both unnecessary and unjustified. Given the bill's failure to satisfy the two requirements I have laid out, which unduly harm retirees in my State, and more importantly, while also setting bad precedent, I can't support this bill. Perhaps my concerns will be proven wrong and the bill will work perfectly. But it's been my experience that bad facts make for bad law. Unfortunately, I fear we are simply pushing this problem down the road and have failed to address the root cause of Puerto Rico's fiscal crisis at the expense of uncalled for risks and precedent. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I want to highlight several important provisions I am pleased are included in the fiscal year 2017 spending bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies. Several of these provisions are transparency measures that I developed after months of oversight work, to ensure greater accountability in the use of Federal funds. The bill also includes funding for several key programs that benefit at-risk children, as well as survivors of sexual or domestic violence. First, I am pleased the fugitive apprehension activities that are authorized under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act are supported in this bill. The Adam Walsh Act, which is so named to honor the memory of a 9-year-old boy who was murdered in 1981, authorizes the U.S. Marshals Service to apprehend convicted sex offenders who fail to register as fugitives. The Adam Walsh Act also calls for U.S. Marshals to help jurisdictions track down those who fail to register as sex offenders or who later go missing from the registration system. I have introduced legislation, known as the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016, to extend the authorization for these same fugitive apprehension activities in each of the next 2 years. Earlier this year, I led the Senate Judiciary Committee in approving this reauthorization measure, and it passed the full Senate, 89-0, a few weeks ago. Providing $61.3 million in funding for these Adam Walsh Act activities in fiscal year 2017, as our reauthorization bill proposes, will help ensure the safety of America's children. It is vital that the other chamber quickly take up and pass our reauthorization bill before the 35th anniversary of Adam Walsh's disappearance on July 27th. Second, I appreciate the committee's efforts to ensure adequate resources for Federal juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs. Senator Whitehouse and I have filed a bill to update and extend the authorization for these very same programs. Our bill, entitled the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act, would ensure there is greater accountability, on the part of the Justice Department, in the use of the juvenile justice dollars. Our Judiciary Committee cleared this bill by voice vote, and our legislation has the support of hundreds of law enforcement officials and nonprofit organizations around the country. Its prompt enactment is vital to avert mismanagement, waste, and abuse in juvenile justice programs. Third, many of us have stressed the importance of funding programs that benefit survivors of domestic and sexual violence across the Nation. These include the STOP Grants, transitional housing assistance, civil legal assistance, and sexual assault services programs. The bill before us adequately supports these programs. Finally, I would like to highlight additional key provisions of this year's appropriations bill that I championed. One provision, which is based on my oversight work and another bill that I introduced last February, would bar the use of funds to deny or impede an inspector general's timely access to any records, documents, or other materials needed to carry out its oversight work. There is just one exception to this requirement in this bill, and it arises only if Congress passes legislation expressly limiting the inspector general's right of access to these materials. It is also vital that Congress is aware of any effort by DOJ or other Federal departments or agencies to impede the inspector general's work. That is why Senate appropriators incorporated language in this year's spending bill requiring an inspector general to notify both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees within 5 days of any agency's failure to comply with the CJS bill's transparency requirement. Until the minority leader stops obstructing passage of the bipartisan Inspector General Empowerment Act, this spending restriction is the next best thing we can do to prevent the Justice Department from acting as if the law requiring inspector general access to ``all records'' does not really mean ``all records.'' The other provision I championed would increase transparency of the Marshals Service's use of the Assets Forfeiture Fund. I have been reviewing the Marshals Service's expenditures from this fund for more than a year. Although the inspector general recently informed the Judiciary Committee that he couldn't find any laws or regulations that have been broken, he did not speak to the numerous allegations I have received from whistleblowers about the waste of monies in the fund. I continue to have concerns about extensive and cavalier spending of that fund on unnecessary facilities and frivolous furniture, as well as on salaries and activities that aren't directly related to asset forfeiture activities. In closing, I wanted to make sure my colleagues are aware of these important provisions of the CJS spending bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about the changing nature of globalization. Everyone is aware globalization has changed how economies work. Some people have embraced globalization while others are fighting to slow its effects. In America, most people are familiar with the modern, multinational corporation. These corporations are privately owned by shareholders and operate in countries around the world. However, there is a new trend that is becoming increasingly evident in commerce today. We are now seeing entities that are owned by governments competing with private companies in the automotive, food, and airline industries that represent more traditional commerce. Over the last several decades, governments, through entities called state-owned enterprises, have become highly involved in international commerce. We have seen state-owned companies and enterprises buy the assets of private companies, such as Smithfield Foods, and start up completely new companies, such as the new airlines in the Middle East. There is nothing inherently wrong with state-owned enterprises paying a premium on market value to purchase a company. However, the actions of the company and its legal obligations after the transaction is complete are what I intend to focus on today. In a 2014 report, the United Nations estimated there are over 550 state-owned transnational companies with cumulative assets of over $2 trillion. Many would argue the estimate of $2 trillion in assets under management is a conservative number. There are many differences between state-owned companies and companies that are publicly traded. First, state-owned companies are not subject to the same transparency requirements as publicly traded companies. Publicly traded companies must adhere to GAAP accounting standards and file quarterly and annual reports, such as 10-Qs and 10-Ks, with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Second, state-owned enterprises have the implicit backing of the various governments, giving them access to credit oftentimes at cheaper rates than individual private companies could hope to find. The most valuable companies in America, based on market capitalization, are worth between $500 and $600 billion on any given day. While Fortune 100 companies are large, their resources then pale in comparison to government wealth. Finally, state-owned enterprises report their strategies, profits, and losses to governments. They are not accountable to shareholders in the way publicly traded companies are. Therefore, it is prudent we take time to consider how foreign, state-owned enterprises are participating in this American economy. In agriculture, state-owned enterprises have started to buy publicly traded American companies. Smithfield Foods was sold to China's Shuanghui in 2013 for $4.7 billion in cash. ChemChina is currently trying to buy the Swiss-based seed and chemical company Syngenta for $43 billion. About one-third of Syngenta's $12 billion in revenue comes from North America, which is what makes this transaction very concerning for me. While some could argue these investments are similar to foreign direct investment, what these foreign, state-owned enterprises are really buying are our resources and expertise in food production, including the intellectual property that fuels development and growth of the agricultural sector. Even if these transactions function seamlessly for the first 10 or 15 years, there are strategic questions we need to consider before approving the sale of any more of our agricultural assets to another government. For that reason, Senator Stabenow and I asked the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, commonly referred to as CFIUS, to thoroughly review the proposed Sengenta acquisition with the help of the Department of Agriculture. CFIUS is responsible for reviewing the national security implications of transactions that result in foreign control of U.S. businesses and critical infrastructure. There is a shared sentiment among lawmakers, military officials, and everyday Americans that protecting the safety and resiliency of our food system is core to American national security. The food security of our country is not something we can take for granted, and as I have said before, at any given time we are only nine meals away from revolution. As I mentioned, I also have concerns about the legal obligations and accountability of foreign, state-owned companies, particularly as they relate to those companies' interactions with American companies and consumers. Now, I have heard several recent reports noting cases where companies owned by foreign governments have claimed that they are immune to lawsuits by American companies or American consumers in our very own courts. They have made this claim even when a foreign, state-owned company or one of its corporate affiliates has been engaged in normal commerce with American consumers or other American companies. In making this argument, these foreign, state-owned companies would try both to take advantage of our market and to avoid the rules and potential liability that every other market actor must face. Of course, that doesn't seem right to me, and it is not the way our laws are set up to work. It is an age-old rule of international law that one sovereign nation should not subject another country acting in its sovereign capacity to the authority of domestic courts. Our courts recognized this principle long before Congress wrote it into statute. The theory developed at a time when personal sovereigns ruled foreign powers rather than democracies. The sovereign was the same as the State. Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged it in an 1812 Supreme Court opinion when he explained that our courts had no jurisdiction to hear America's claim against France to recover a ship seized by order of Napoleon. But there have long been important exceptions to the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity. One of those is the so-called ``commercial activity'' exception. Just 12 years after his opinion about Napoleon's ship, Chief Justice Marshall explained that ``[w]hen a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it divests itself . . . of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen.'' For that reason, over the last several decades, both the State Department and the Supreme Court have recognized that the original purposes of foreign sovereign immunity--respect for the person and governmental acts of a foreign sovereign--are not served when the doctrine is invoked to protect a sovereign's private acts. This development resulted from the need to ensure stability and predictability in international commerce after state monopolization in industries like transportation and communication. It is based on the notion that when a sovereign nation enters the competitive marketplace, it no longer acts as a sovereign at all, and it must follow the very same rules as every other market participant. So in 1976 we codified those principles in statutory law by enacting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, referred to as FSIA. Under the FSIA, foreign sovereign immunity extends not only to foreign sovereigns but also to political subdivisions and even corporate entities owned by foreign sovereigns. But, importantly, the FSIA also codifies exceptions to the foreign sovereign immunity principle, including--very importantly--the commercial activity exception. As I said, I have seen reports noting cases where companies owned by foreign governments have claimed that they are immune to suits by American companies or American consumers in our very own courts when they are suspected of doing something wrong. Sometimes, their arguments have succeeded, which raises concerns that the exception may not be working as designed. Let me give one example. America bought much of the drywall used to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina from Chinese manufacturers. Thousands of homes built with that drywall turned out to be uninhabitable because residents said the drywall made them sick. So these Americans tried to sue the Chinese manufacturers, including a manufacturer's parent company, China National Building Materials Group, or CNBM. The problem for the consumers is that the Chinese Government is heavily invested in these manufacturers, among many other commercial enterprises. Under the general principle of foreign sovereign immunity, a foreign government selling Americans a product is not acting as a sovereign but as a market competitor. One would assume that the ``commercial activity'' exception to foreign sovereign immunity applies, but the state-owned manufacturer argued otherwise. Here is how it works under statute. Foreign companies are sued in our courts all the time. Commonly, these lawsuits, like the drywall case, involve claims of American consumers or companies that the foreign company engaged in some behavior that harmed them. When a foreign company is sued in one of our courts, it has a chance to show at the beginning of the case that a foreign government owns a majority of its shares. If the foreign company makes that showing, it then enjoys a presumption of immunity under the FSIA, meaning that the plaintiffs' lawsuit will be dismissed. But before that happens, the plaintiffs have one more chance to save their case from early dismissal. This is where the ``commercial activity'' exception comes into play. The plaintiffs can defeat the presumption of immunity by showing that the foreign state-owned company was acting as a market participant--that is, engaging in commercial activity that takes place in or affects the United States--when it caused the harm the plaintiffs complained about. This principle--the ``commercial activity'' exception--saves a case from early dismissal and gives plaintiffs a chance to move forward and try to prove their claims against a foreign, state-owned corporation behaving like a market actor. But as it turns out, that can be a complicated showing for plaintiffs to make at such an early stage in the case. Here is why. Companies owned by foreign states are often governed through very complicated corporate structure. Take, for example, the large Chinese insurance company backed by the Chinese state bank in its recent attempt to purchase an American hotel chain. In describing the attempted takeover, the Wall Street Journal described the Chinese company's ownership structure as ``opaque.'' Yet in implementing the FSIA, courts require plaintiffs to meet the commercial activity exception at every level of corporate organization or they must show that various levels of organization acted only as corporate pass-throughs and, therefore, can be ignored. Here is why I think that may be a problem. Corporate parents can exercise an extraordinary level of control over subsidiaries without concluding that the subsidiary is a mere pass-through. Requiring plaintiffs to show commercial activity at every level of corporate organization--at such an early stage in the lawsuit--runs the risk of ignoring high-level involvement in the conduct that allegedly hurt the plaintiffs. If plaintiffs don't satisfy this showing against a parent company at an early stage in their case, they may lose the chance to establish their claims. Now, what this means, as a practical matter, is that this mechanism puts foreign companies that happen to be owned by sovereign states at a distinct advantage over private foreign companies. A private foreign company has no mechanism for early dismissal of a lawsuit on these grounds. A private foreign company would be required to respond to the plaintiffs' allegations, and it would have to produce evidence during the course of the lawsuit relating both to its control over other parts of the conglomerate and also to its involvement in the activities alleged. As a result of this early dismissal mechanism, the plaintiffs' case in New Orleans could only proceed against one subsidiary, and that happens to be CNBM. The case against CNBM itself was dismissed. Now, it may be that these plaintiffs still wouldn't have been able to establish liability on the part of CNBM in the end, but they didn't even have that opportunity. This is something that I want to consider carefully. If a foreign, state-owned company is able to shield parts of its organization behind the FSIA to avoid having to answer a lawsuit entirely in a way that the FSIA doesn't contemplate, when a privately owned foreign company wouldn't enjoy the same luxury, then a fix may be in order. The point of the commercial activity exception to foreign sovereign immunity is to treat foreign governments like any other market actor when they enter into commerce. Nothing about the principles of foreign sovereign immunity or the FSIA is designed to afford extra early defenses to foreign companies' commercial actions just because the companies happened to be owned by foreign states. But, currently, foreign, state-owned companies will argue that many of their affiliates don't have to answer the claims of American companies and American consumers, even when it is clear that at some level the company engaged in market activity that may have harmed Americans. Sometimes, like in the New Orleans case, the companies are succeeding. So I think that may be a problem. That is why I took the time to speak now on the floor of the Senate, and I intend to look at it very carefully and possibly seek legislative remedy. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to address three topics. First, I want to express my unwavering support for those who were killed and wounded in Orlando and for their families, friends, loved ones, and community members. This terrorist attack represents a great tragedy and an affront to our way of life and very existence as Americans. I look forward to doing what I can as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to support and give the FBI the tools it needs to investigate the circumstances of this attack by a radical Islamic terrorist. All Americans have every reason to be upset and even furious over the deadliest attack since the awful events of September 11. I, too, am angry. I am angry that this individual was interviewed twice, yet evaded detection. I am angry that this radical made his plans known to others and generally raised suspicions of others, yet was still able to carry out his horrific plot. And I am upset that the attack in a sense reflects the failure of our foreign policy. There are more lone wolf attacks because there are more lone wolves. I was asked recently: Why does it make any difference whether President Obama references ``radical Islamic terrorism'' or not? The answer is that growing numbers of jihadists are spewing radical Islamic terrorist ideology over the Internet, radicalizing Americans into lone wolves. President Obama said, after the Orlando attack, that the shooter was not involved in a ``larger plot,'' as if that would provide comfort. By not calling out that the attack developed from radical Islamic terrorism, he failed to recognize the dangerous ideology that derives from radical Islam and its deadly influence on individuals who are not part of any ``larger plot.'' Moving on to my second course of business, I am here to talk about guns and the Second Amendment. Over the course of multiple hours on Wednesday, we heard my colleagues across the aisle take all of their anger and focus it on firearms--not the war on terror, not radical Islam, not our porous borders, but guns. Through the hours of finger wagging, many things were stated as the gospel truth, and if we are truly to have a discussion regarding guns, those misleading or incomplete statements must be corrected. We can have a debate on the merits. My colleagues across the aisle are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to manufacture their own facts. From the first moment the minority leader hit the floor on Wednesday, we heard erroneous statements on the law on gun purchasing by those who would commit terror. He cited comments from a jihadist that would-be terrorists can go to gun shows and buy fully automatic weapons without a background check. Well, they can't. Even the Washington Post Fact Checker gave the minority leader two pinocchios on this claim. No one can buy a fully automatic weapon without a background check. The gun used in Orlando was not a fully automatic weapon. It was a semi-automatic weapon, where each pull of the trigger makes one shot. Those guns are used legitimately for recreational purposes by large numbers of law-abiding Americans for target practice. Surely the minority leader knows the law on this point. The fact that a radical Islamic terrorist would lie about the law is not a reason that the law needs to be changed. The minority leader also invoked what he referred to as the ``terror loophole.'' So did the Senator from Connecticut, whose amendment is before us. What is this terror loophole? To hear the minority talk about it, it means that terrorists are able to lawfully purchase firearms. This is nonsense. Anyone convicted of terrorism can't legally buy a gun. For people we know are going to commit terrorism, I hope that we are not only preventing that individual from buying a gun, but we are either killing, arresting, or detaining that individual, depending on where he or she is found and in what capacity. What the other side means when they say terror loophole is someone who might be on any number of flawed terrorist watch lists. If we actually had a list that contained only actual terrorists, I would gladly support an effort to not only prevent them from acquiring firearms, but also to detain and bring them to justice as quickly as possible. What we really have are these flawed watch lists that contain errors and are at the same time both under- and over-inclusive. Time and again, the other side says they support Second Amendment rights. Don't believe them. The terrorist watch list amendment they now propose achieves the remarkable feat of violating two different provisions of the Bill of Rights at the same time. It violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and it violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Senator from Connecticut has discussed on the floor that the Second Amendment is not absolute. That is a truism. No one says it is absolute. The question for the other side is: What rights do they think the Second Amendment protects? Secretary Clinton has refused to say that she believes that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right. If it doesn't, then what individual rights of gun ownership does it protect? And the terrorist watch list amendment also doesn't treat the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental individual right to own any guns. The amendment violates the Second Amendment because a fundamental constitutional right cannot be infringed without due process of law. The executive branch compiles a secret no-fly list without notice to the individual, any opportunity to be heard, or any judicial finding that there is probable cause to believe that the individual should be on the list. As a result, the list fails to include some who should be on it, and it includes people who shouldn't. We know that our former colleague, Senator Kennedy, was on the list. This Senator helped a former high-ranking army officer be removed from the list. The statement that the other side made that there is no due process problem because all these individuals are dangerous is false for many reasons, including that there is no proof that they are all actually dangerous. Depriving people of constitutional rights based on an inaccurate list and no process at all prior to that denial of rights violates due process. One list is compiled for purposes of allowing flight, which, unlike gun ownership, is not a constitutional right. It was never designed for any other purpose. To apply it to gun purchases is, in the words of an Obama administration official, ``apples and oranges.'' But the amendment treats apples as oranges. The other side just doesn't care that the Feinstein amendment is unconstitutional. We know that because experts have made this indisputable point for 6 months since the amendment was first proposed. But when the amendment is offered again, the same flaws appear. Like the Bourbon kings, the sponsors have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. To be sure, the Bush administration proposed a similar wrong-headed idea. But that was before the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership. And Congress did not pass that proposal. It is important to note that some of the most prominent voices against the terrorist watch list amendment are people who support gun control. For instance, in an editorial featuring a photo of Senators Feinstein and Murphy, the Los Angeles Times asked and answered the question this way: ``Should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? Yes.'' The editorial pointed out correctly that people on the various no-fly list and terrorist watch lists are not convicted of any crime. We don't know that a person is actually dangerous because he or she is on the list. The vast majority of the people on the list are foreigners who are already prohibited from buying guns. And the Los Angeles Times accurately stated that, since the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, the ``reasonable suspicion'' standard in the Feinstein Amendment is too weak a standard for a government agency to abridge that right without judicial supervision. And it also faulted the amendment for only allowing a challenge to a gun sale after it was denied, with no judicial involvement prior to that point. The editorial also noted that the San Bernardino shootings would not have been stopped had an amendment prohibiting people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns been in place. And I will add neither would the killings in Orlando, since this person was not on the list at the time of the gun purchase. Claims made to the contrary on the floor are without merit. My amendment, which I will discuss in a little while, and the Cornyn amendment, would have given law enforcement notice that this individual sought to purchase a gun, for them to take appropriate action. The Los Angeles Times was not the only major newspaper that editorialized against the Feinstein amendment--so did the largest newspaper in my state of Iowa, the Des Moines Register, for many of the same reasons. I know that the minority leader pays close attention to the Register's editorials. But if he blew up their editorial against the Feinstein amendment on a chart behind him on the Senate floor, as he has with various other of their editorials, I must have missed it. Just this past week, the New York Times ran an opinion piece by Adam Winkler, another Californian, and a law professor at UCLA. Professor Winkler noted that the National Rifle Association has raised objections to the Feinstein amendment, in particular, that the Attorney General has too much leeway under that amendment in placing people on the list based only on suspicion. And they object as well to the bill's flawed process of denying the sale based solely on the Justice Department's say so, and allowing a prospective purchaser to sue the Department in court, but only after their right is denied. But unlike many other gun control supporters, Professor Winkler wrote, ``We should take the N.R.A's criticisms seriously. ``Due process of law is a vital constitutional principle and Americans have a right to own firearms for self-protection.'' Professor Winkler also wrote, ``If the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list, she should have to go to court first and offer up evidence. ``Only after concluding that the attorney general has probable cause should the court approve the denial of the suspect's right to own a gun.'' This proposal's violation of the Second Amendment is demonstrated by considering whether the other side would condition the exercise of any other constitutional right in the same way. Lone wolves are susceptible to radical Islamist terrorist propaganda on the internet. But the sponsors of that amendment would never propose curtailing a person's First Amendment right to search the internet because the Attorney General suspected they might be a terrorist. What if inclusion on one of these lists deprived an individual of their right to worship at a church, mosque, or temple? Or their ability to qualify for public assistance, the ability to obtain an abortion, or their right to vote? It is not credible to believe that the Senators who support the amendment from the Senator from California would be so passionate about stripping these other rights and benefits based upon inclusion on a flawed list. Let's talk straight. Taking away a fundamental constitutional right based on a flawed list and the Attorney General's suspicion can't be called closing a terrorist loophole. I am not sure how you tell constituents that you believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms if you vote for that amendment. The terrorist watch list amendment is not only unconstitutional, but is based on faulty premises. Its supporters would have the public believe that a person on that list can go buy a gun without anyone stopping them. This is simply not true. At a Judiciary Committee hearing last December, FBI Director James Comey stated that currently the FBI is notified when an individual in the terrorist database attempts to buy a firearm. More to the point, Mr. Comey stated there are ``a variety of things that we do when we are notified that someone on our known or suspected terrorist database is attempting to buy a firearm. ``The FBI is alerted when that is triggered, and then we do an investigation to understand are there disqualifiers that we are aware of that could stop the transaction. And if the transaction goes through, the agents who are assigned to that case, to that subject, are alerted so they can investigate.'' So let's be clear, the FBI is notified when someone in the database attempts to purchase a firearm, and then they investigate the individual. All of the rhetoric you heard about the FBI not knowing about a particular purchase is not true; they are notified. The reason they were not notified in Orlando is because the terrorist had been removed from the watch list. There have been so many poorly reasoned arguments and misstatements of law and fact on the Senate floor that cry out for a response. One thing this attack should show is the need for increased ability of our intelligence agencies to identify and monitor individuals who are either tied to radical Islamic terrorism or are potential lone wolves. Recently, a Senator spoke of his unwillingness to give the FBI additional surveillance tools in the form of national security letters for fear that the FBI might use that power as it had unfairly investigated the likes of Martin Luther King, Jr. This same Member came to the floor Wednesday, demanding we used a flawed list to deny Second Amendment rights without due process. I don't see how it is possible to simultaneously deny the FBI the tools its needs to fight terrorism, but favor depriving the civil liberties of lawful gun owners based upon a flawed list that could be subject to the same overreach. The Senator from Connecticut has offered an amendment requiring universal background checks. Such an amendment would not reduce crime, according to the Deputy Director of the Obama administration's National Institute of Justice. He wrote that the problems of criminal obtaining guns through straw purchases and theft, the main ways they do get them, ``would likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed.'' And the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut would eliminate private sales. Talk about unintended consequences. In the same memo, the Deputy Director concluded concerning universal background checks that their ``[e]ffectiveness depends on . . . requiring gun registration.'' Criminals already don't comply with background checks. When ``universal'' checks are circumvented, we will be back here debating gun registration. We should not do anything that will further the cause of gun registration. In addition, the Senator from Connecticut and others invoke the so- called ``gun show loop hole.'' That is the leading basis offered for his amendment. Anyone watching the floor Wednesday and today would be left with the impression that people who buy a firearm at a gun show aren't subject to a background check. In fact, all gun show purchases made from commercial gun dealers require a background check. These commercial gun dealers, or Federal firearms licensees as the law refers to them, typically make up the majority of the gun vendors at gun shows. So let's be clear: If someone goes to a gun show and purchases a firearm from a commercial gun dealer, they are subject to a background check, period. So, then, who are these people who aren't subject to a background check? If you are an individual and you want to sell your gun to another individual, you may do so, assuming you don't know or have reasonable cause to believe that such person is prohibited from owning a gun. The government does not dictate where this sale takes place. You can sell your hunting rifle to your neighbor's daughter, and you can make that sale in your home, driveway, or a parking lot. You can also make this sale to another individual at a gun show. This is what is referred to as a peer-to-peer transaction: Two adults engaged in a personal transaction. Just as there is no background check required in your driveway, there generally is no background check required when that private, peer-to- peer sale happens to occur at a gun show. This is not a loophole in the pejorative sense of the word; this is an American lawfully selling their property to another without Federal Government involvement. In this same vein, to hear my colleagues discuss it, you would assume that these gun shows were lawless free-for-alls for felons and terrorists to obtain their newest illegal weapon. In fact, local, State, and Federal law enforcement are often present at gun shows, both in uniform and covertly in plain clothes. They monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales, such as straw purchasing, attempted purchases by prohibited individuals, and the attempted sale of illegal firearms. As the Washington Times reported late last year, law enforcement arrests at gun shows hit new highs last year. I recently attended a gun show in Iowa, and there was a robust law enforcement presence. But we have heard that communities that would otherwise be violence- free due to their strict gun control laws are dangerous because of people who buy guns at gun shows in other States and bring them to those otherwise safe cities, causing large numbers of homicides. This claim has no basis in reality. Federal law enforcement is present at gun shows. They monitor vehicles with out-of-state license plates. They stop cars from such shows that head to cross State lines. Their important efforts to enforce the law and to protect us all should be praised and recognized, not minimized or omitted. In fact, enforcement of any kind has yet to be a topic in this debate. The push is for new gun control measures without any appreciation for what can be done to address the problem of violence with the laws already on the books. President Obama has stated unequivocally that firearms enforcement has been a priority for his administration. This simply is not true. The Obama administration chose to focus its criminal justice resources elsewhere. Federal firearms prosecutions are down at least 25 percent under this President. In addition, he suspended successful programs specifically designed to thwart firearms offenses. Unfortunately, as has so often been the case with the Obama administration, the rhetoric just does not match the action. As I have repeatedly called for, we need greater enforcement of the existing law, which simply has not happened under this administration. In fact, in a remarkably senseless move, the Obama Administration eliminated an earlier restriction on the ability of foreign citizens to purchase guns unless they had lived in a particular State for 90 days. Remember that when considering that asylees or refugees or visitors who have not been screened before entering this country under the visa waiver program can legally buy a gun. Last week, the Senator from Connecticut contended that there is less gun crime and fewer homicides in States that have passed strict gun control laws, like his State. Perhaps gun crime has declined there. But homicide rates are higher in Connecticut than in many States that provide greater protection of gun rights, such as my State of Iowa. And leaving aside the question of causation versus correlation, all one has to do is look at Maryland to refute the claim that imposing tougher gun control reduces crime. Maryland, under its prior Governor, imposed some of the toughest regulations on purchasing guns. What has happened? Murders in Maryland, and particularly in Baltimore, have increased dramatically. Murder is increasing right here in Washington, DC, despite very stringent gun control laws. The other side wants it both ways, heads-I-win, tails-you-lose. Where crime falls and State laws are stringent, they say the State laws work, regardless of laws anywhere else. Where crime rises in States with gun control, they argue it is because other States have lenient laws. You can't apply a situational analysis to the effectiveness of State gun laws. The Washington Post recently reported a study that found no correlation at all, much less causation, between homicides and State gun laws. And that same newspaper's ``Fact Checker'' gave my colleague's claim three pinocchios. Similarly, we hear that if we only reenacted the assault weapons ban, we could stop mass shootings. This is an argument not for a policy that has never been tried, but a policy that has been tried and failed. Nonetheless, for some inexplicable reason, we continue to hear calls for an assault weapons ban. Columbine occurred when the assault weapons ban was in effect. Murder rates continued to fall after the assault weapons ban expired. And even Justice Department-funded research found the effects of the ban on crime to be none to minimal. But even when gun control fails, the calls to enact more never stop. Additional gun control, as William F. Buckley, Jr., stated in a different context, was once ``a fixed rational conviction, then blind faith, and now . . . rank superstition.'' Once again, the Washington Post fact-checked the Democrats' erroneous claim and gave it three pinocchios. The Senator from Connecticut has also statements made about online purchases of guns, as if a would-be terrorist could order one from Amazon and it would show up at their door without a background check. That is not the law, either. Guns can be ordered online. But anyone who orders a gun from out of State or from a licensed dealer online is not allowed to actually take possession of a gun without undergoing a background check. In-state private sales are not subject to that requirement, but that is true of all in-state private sales whether or not advertised on the Internet. The Senator from Connecticut's amendment would create a new Federal felony for not reporting a lost or stolen gun to local police and to the U.S. Attorney General. This new crime would apply only to lawful gun owners and not to criminals. The amendment provides, ``It shall be unlawful for any person who lawfully possesses or owns a firearm . . .'' to fail to report the theft or loss. There is no requirement that a person who unlawfully owns a gun report its threat or loss. This provision poses a major threat to freedom--because in America, we prohibit criminal actions. Although that limits freedom, it does so much less than a law that criminalizes inaction. It is very rare to criminalize inaction. Only a few classes of people have an obligation to act, like police officers and doctors. But for ordinary citizens, this is rare. One very limited exception is to file a tax return, and it took a constitutional amendment to give the government the power to mandate that. We should not impose a prison sentence of up to 5 years on a law- abiding person who fails to act. I have been calling the Second Amendment a fundamental right. What does this mean to you and me as Americans? It means that the right to bear arms falls into the same category as our other most closely held individual rights: the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to due process under the law. It should be emphasized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual, fundamental constitutional right. Let me remind my minority colleagues of this as they are ready to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights. Finally, I now want to talk about my amendment, which will be offered as a side-by-side with the Murphy amendment. The Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2016 has five key components that are designed to fix our current background check system, among other things. First, as we all know from our own life experience, a database is only as good as the data it contains, with accuracy and completeness being paramount. Our National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is the background check database for firearms purchases. This database needs improvement. In that vein, my amendment requires that agencies containing relevant records make their submission to NICS a priority and provides specific guidance that federal courts are to upload their records to NICS forthwith. Yes, we currently have a database that contains inconclusive Federal court records; there is simply no excuse for this. In addition, this amendment incentivizes States to submit relevant mental health records to NICS. And my amendment has real teeth, authorizing $125 million for operating and improving the NICS system. Next, my amendment modernizes the prohibition on those with certain mental illness or involuntary commitments from acquiring or possessing firearms. We not only update the definitions, but provide critical due process protections for individuals like veterans and others prior to an adjudication of mental incompetence. Contrary to what some have said, my amendment does not permit someone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution to legally purchase a gun simply by virtue of their release. A second, additional requirement must be satisfied as well. Either a court or similar body must make an adjudication, or an appropriate official of the institution must find, that the individual poses no danger to himself, herself, or others. Mere release from the institution, for instance because of a need to find space for another individual, will not allow the person to be able to buy a gun under the plain terms of my amendment. Third, my amendment contains multiple provisions that requires agencies to report to Congress on NICS records submissions, firearms prosecutions, declinations, and convictions, as well as Federal ammunition purchasing. There is also a requirement that any Department of Justice component that wishes to use the potentially dangerous tactic of ``gun walking'' obtain direct approval from the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for the criminal division and include an operational plan with built in safeguards to prevent firearms from being transferred to a third party as occurred in the fatally flawed ``Fast and Furious'' investigation. Finally, my amendment includes a provision that would alert the authorities if a firearms or explosives transfer request involves a person who is, or within the previous 5 years was, investigated as a known or suspected terrorist. This notification provision would ensure that law enforcement is alerted when all those who are, or were within the last 5 years, suspected of terrorism, seek to obtain a firearm or explosive. This provision ensures protection of Americans' fundamental Second Amendment rights, but also alerts key law enforcement officials to the possibility of a terrorist plot. The other sides says that no progress is being made on gun crimes. But my amendment would improve the situation, even for people who would favor going further. We can make important improvements, such as through my amendment. Senators who are unwilling to support important progress are putting a higher premium on politics. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right, and any legislative action must start and finish with recognition of this fact. Mr. President, I yield my time to the Senator from Pennsylvania, regardless of how much time it is.

Mr. GRASSLEY. You guys want to take up all the time; is that what you want to do?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 20 minutes, to be followed by Senators Nelson and Murphy for 5 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, would you please tell me when I have used 17 minutes, and then I want to reserve 3 minutes for the Senator from Pennsylvania to follow me with his 3 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have fought for years to protect our Nation's seniors from abuse and exploitation--initially, in my capacity as former chairman of the Senate Aging Committee and more recently as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Last Wednesday was World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, but because the Democrats were unfortunately blocking the business of the American people on the Senate floor, I was unable to give this statement, so I want to take this opportunity today to express my renewed commitment to ending the abuse and exploitation of older Americans. We don't know the full extent and scope of the problem of elder abuse, mainly due to underreporting. Many older Americans don't report instances of elder abuse due to embarrassment, a refusal to acknowledge that they were victimized, or reliance on the perpetrator as their caretaker. But we do know that serious cases of abuse or exploitation of older Americans seem to be increasing and that it can take several forms: financial, physical, and emotional. Financial exploitation is the most widespread form of elder abuse, costing seniors in the U.S. between an estimated $2.9 and $36 billion annually. In fact, it is been called ``the crime of the 21st century.'' In my home State of Iowa, for example, so-called grandparent scams are becoming more prevalent. Fraudsters initiating a grandparent scam will present themselves to a senior citizen as a grandchild in distress, in the hope of convincing the grandparent to immediately send cash or give out a credit card number. Another common scam in Iowa is the sweetheart scam, in which criminals cultivate a romantic relationship with a lonely elder, typically online, and then convince the senior to part with their hard- earned money. Across the United States, con artists reportedly are also using sweepstakes scams to steal money. A senior is called and told they have won some great prize or sum of money, but before they can claim the supposed prize, the victim is required to pay taxes or processing fees. Once the money is paid to cover the taxes and fees, however, no prize ever materializes. Other instances of elder financial exploitation are more personal in nature and have especially devastating effects. Some victims are pressured into signing over a deed, modifying a will, or giving a power of attorney. Americans have lost their farms, homes, and life savings to this form of fraud. In Iowa, we have recently revised our laws to protect against these types of abuse, and I will be doing what I can to raise awareness to help stop this nationwide. Physical abuse is another form of abuse that can have a devastating impact on older Americans. In fact, older Americans who experience physical abuse reportedly have a 300 percent greater chance of dying sooner. Many older Americans may also face emotional abuse. According to the National Center on Elder Abuse, common examples of emotional abuse include treating an elder like an infant, isolating an elderly person from his or her loved ones or regular activities, and giving an older person the ``silent treatment.'' I have also recently become aware of instances of seniors in nursing homes who were unknowingly photographed in embarrassing and compromising situations. These photos or videos wind up on social media outlets, such as Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram, simply so a depraved individual can get a few cheap laughs or attention. I sent a letter to the Attorney General and the Health and Human Services inspector general on this very issue earlier this year because it remains unclear to me what specifically is being done on a Federal level to stop this form of abuse. I have sent letters to Snapchat, Facebook, and Instagram to better understand what efforts they have taken to help prevent this form of abuse of nursing home residents. And I wrote to the American Health Care Association to inquire about the efforts, if any, that nursing homes have taken to prevent this activity. I also recently called upon the Justice Department to detail the steps it is taking to protect seniors from financial exploitation. I have asked the Department what it is doing to combat government imposter scams that are bilking millions of dollars out of the pockets of older Americans. Combating elder abuse and exploitation requires all of us to work together in a bipartisan way. To this end, I will convene a Judiciary Committee hearing later this month on the subject of elder financial exploitation. This hearing will give us a chance to examine whether the Federal Government is doing all it can to prevent older Americans from being victimized and to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable. We also will hear from State officials on how to best educate older Americans about the ever-changing forms of elder abuse and financial exploitation. Local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies are on the front lines in responding to crimes of elder abuse. For this reason, I would like to take a moment to highlight the efforts of the many adult protective service units, local prosecutors, and other practitioners across the country who have helped bring the perpetrators to justice. I would also like to recognize family, friends, and caretakers who report instances of elder abuse and help their communities better understand the nature of this problem. In closing, I invite my colleagues to use World Elder Abuse Awareness Day as an opportunity to highlight the problem of elder abuse and to rededicate efforts to protect our Nation's seniors. These men and women are our fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers, mentors and friends. They are the fabric of our country and communities, our greatest generation, and we owe it to them to protect their dignity in their golden years. Thank you.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I commend Senator Cornyn and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for their work on the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016, which today passed the Senate. I also want to thank the sponsors for agreeing to accept, as part of this reauthorization measure, some transparency language that I developed. This language also passed the Senate today by unanimous consent in the form of a floor amendment to the Justice for All Reauthorization Act. The purpose of the original Justice for All Act, on which many of us worked during congressional consideration of the measure in 2004, is to protect crime victims' rights, authorize resources to reduce backlogs of unanalyzed DNA evidence from crime scenes and convicted offenders, and expand the DNA testing capacity of the Nation's crime laboratories. The statute also authorizes resources for testing DNA evidence to protect the innocent from wrongful convictions. By working together in a bipartisan fashion, our colleagues have produced legislation that will extend these programs for several more years. The purpose of my amendment to this reauthorization measure is to increase the transparency and promote accountability of many DNA- related programs and activities that are administered by the Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs. We have all seen the recent articles in USA Today, ProPublica, and elsewhere that suggest we may need to take additional steps to effectively accomplish the goals of these programs. In particular, these articles have raised questions about the DNA capacity enhancement and backlog reduction program, which is administered by OJP's National Institute of Justice. We don't fully understand, for example, why significant backlogs of DNA evidence from crimes of murder and sexual violence persist, despite the appropriation of more than $1 billion by Congress for the DNA programs that are authorized under the Justice for All Act. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in a 2013 report entitled ``DOJ Could Improve Decision-Making Documentation and Better Assess Results of DNA Backlog Reduction Program Funds,'' suggested that NIJ could better document the rationale for its yearly funding priorities and take additional steps to verify the reliability of grantee performance data. The Justice Department's inspector general also suggested, in a March 2016 audit report of the DNA program, that NIJ's process for identifying grantees with the potential for generating program income needs improvement. My transparency language, which is modeled on accountability language that already applies to grant recipients under the STOP grant program, is designed to elicit more information about how the funds appropriated for Justice for All Act programs are being used in practice. First, it would require the Attorney General to annually report to Congress, for each recipient of DNA grants, the amounts distributed to each grant recipient, the purposes for which these funds were used, and each recipient's progress in achieving those purposes. Second, under this amendment, the Attorney General must summarize the types of DNA samples submitted to crime labs, the average time it took to test these DNA samples, and the proportion of each grant that went to private crime labs. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it would require the Attorney General to evaluate the effectiveness of grant amounts in increasing crime labs' capacity and reducing backlogs of DNA evidence. The amendment I sponsored also includes some language that is designed to ensure we avoid duplication in grant programs, as well as a provision that is intended to enhance crime victims' access to restitution. I thank Senator Lankford, who cosponsored the amendment, for suggesting the inclusion of the antiduplication language, which is modeled on language that I led the Judiciary Committee in approving as part of several other measures before our committee. Senator Feinstein, who also cosponsored this amendment, also deserves credit for suggesting the addition of restitution language. In closing, I want to again extend my appreciation to Senators Cornyn and Leahy for their hard work on this measure, which our Judiciary Committee reported last month and congratulate them on Senate passage of the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for much of this Congress, I have been working on a bipartisan basis to correct a little understood provision in the Affordable Care Act, ACA, that punishes small businesses for attempting to help their employees purchase individual insurance. That is right, this provision actually punishes businesses that want to do the right thing and help their employees obtain health insurance coverage. This is a result of so-called market reforms in the ACA, which based on IRS guidance generally prohibit employers from reimbursing their employees for the cost of health insurance the employee purchases on the individual market. An employer who does do this faces a $100 a day per employee penalty. This fails to meet the common sense test, particularly when it comes to farmers, ranchers, and small business owners who frequently do not have the resources to offer a traditional group health plan to their employees. These businesses have no obligation under the ACA to offer any form of insurance. However, they would like to do what they can to help their employees obtain coverage. This is a practice that should be commended, not penalized. This is why last June 1 introduced the Small Business Health Care Relief Act with Senator Heitkamp. Under our bill, small businesses would once again be able to do something many have done for years. Namely, reimburse their employees on a pre-tax basis for the purchase of health insurance on the individual market. Since introduction, Senator Heitkamp and I have been working, along with Congressman Boustany and Thompson in the House, with the Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury to get feedback on our bill to ensure it works as intended. I am pleased today to see that this hard work is starting to bear fruit. The Ways and Means Committee marked up and favorably reported to the full House a slightly revised version of our bill with bipartisan support. In hopes of continuing this momentum, Senator Heitkamp and I are reintroducing this revised version of the Small Business Health Care Relief Act in the Senate today. This new version mainly makes improvements to the bill to ensure the bill will work as intended. Further, in order to address cost concerns, the bill imposes a generous limit on the amount an employer may provide to their employee to purchase individual insurance. This limit is set at $5,130 for individuals and $10,260 for a family. These amounts are indexed for inflation going forward. I am pleased that our bill continues to have strong support from the small business community, including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, the American Farm Bureau, and many more. This legislation should be a no brainer for anyone who supports small business. I hope with today's action in the Ways and Means Committee, it is only a matter of time before this legislation becomes law. I urge all my colleagues to work with Senator Heitkamp and me to see to it that this becomes a reality.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for much of this Congress, I have been working on a bipartisan basis to correct a little understood provision in the Affordable Care Act, ACA, that punishes small businesses for attempting to help their employees purchase individual insurance. That is right, this provision actually punishes businesses that want to do the right thing and help their employees obtain health insurance coverage. This is a result of so-called market reforms in the ACA, which based on IRS guidance generally prohibit employers from reimbursing their employees for the cost of health insurance the employee purchases on the individual market. An employer who does do this faces a $100 a day per employee penalty. This fails to meet the common sense test, particularly when it comes to farmers, ranchers, and small business owners who frequently do not have the resources to offer a traditional group health plan to their employees. These businesses have no obligation under the ACA to offer any form of insurance. However, they would like to do what they can to help their employees obtain coverage. This is a practice that should be commended, not penalized. This is why last June 1 introduced the Small Business Health Care Relief Act with Senator Heitkamp. Under our bill, small businesses would once again be able to do something many have done for years. Namely, reimburse their employees on a pre-tax basis for the purchase of health insurance on the individual market. Since introduction, Senator Heitkamp and I have been working, along with Congressman Boustany and Thompson in the House, with the Joint Committee on Taxation and Treasury to get feedback on our bill to ensure it works as intended. I am pleased today to see that this hard work is starting to bear fruit. The Ways and Means Committee marked up and favorably reported to the full House a slightly revised version of our bill with bipartisan support. In hopes of continuing this momentum, Senator Heitkamp and I are reintroducing this revised version of the Small Business Health Care Relief Act in the Senate today. This new version mainly makes improvements to the bill to ensure the bill will work as intended. Further, in order to address cost concerns, the bill imposes a generous limit on the amount an employer may provide to their employee to purchase individual insurance. This limit is set at $5,130 for individuals and $10,260 for a family. These amounts are indexed for inflation going forward. I am pleased that our bill continues to have strong support from the small business community, including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, the American Farm Bureau, and many more. This legislation should be a no brainer for anyone who supports small business. I hope with today's action in the Ways and Means Committee, it is only a matter of time before this legislation becomes law. I urge all my colleagues to work with Senator Heitkamp and me to see to it that this becomes a reality.