Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to stand once again with Senator Gillibrand in support of the Military Justice Improvement Act. Two years ago, Congress enacted a number of commonsense reforms as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. These changes were mostly good, commonsense measures, and I supported them; however, they were not sufficient. As I said at that time a year ago, we are past the point of tinkering with the current system and hoping that does the trick. I urged the Senate at that time to support bold actions that would make sexual assault in the military a thing of the past. Unfortunately, those of us arguing for the Military Justice Improvement Act did not prevail. We were told to wait and see if the reforms that were included would work, while leaving in place the current military justice system. Well, we have had time to see if things have really changed. They have not. The rate of sexual assault in the military is unchanged. Forty-two percent of servicemember survivors who reported retaliation were actually encouraged to drop the issue by their supervisor or someone else in the chain of command. That means a crime was committed, and you shouldn't bother to report the crime. A majority of servicemember survivors indicated that they were not satisfied with the official actions taken against the alleged perpetrator. Three out of four survivors lacked sufficient confidence in the military justice system to report the crime. Isn't that awful. If we didn't have confidence in the local police to report a crime, we know just how high the crime rate would go. I suppose somebody is going to tell me that can't apply to the military, but it does. In fact, there has been a decrease in the percentage of survivors willing to make an unrestricted report of sexual assault. Two years ago, when military leaders were arguing against the reforms Senator Gillibrand and I and others were advocating, Congress was provided with data from military sexual assault cases that we now know was very misleading. But those statistics and data, quite frankly, carried great weight with a lot of our colleagues here in the Senate. We were told at that time that military commanders were taking cases that were ``declined'' by civilian prosecutors. The implication was very clear, as we were told that things will be all right; the military system results in prosecutions that civilian prosecutors turn down. An independent report by Protect Our Defenders and reported by the Associated Press shows that there was no evidence that the military was taking cases that civilian prosecutors would not take. When Senator Gillibrand and I wrote to the President asking for an independent investigation of how this misleading information was allowed to be presented to Congress, guess what. We received a response from Secretary Carter, and that response said it was all a misunderstanding. The Secretary's response went into a semantic discussion of the meaning of certain terms. Apparently, in the military justice system, when a civilian prosecutor agrees to defer to the jurisdiction of the military to prosecute a case, it is listed as a ``declination.'' Such a situation is very different--very different--from a civilian prosecutor refusing to prosecute a case. If the military asks the civilian prosecutor to defer to the military's jurisdiction or if it is done by mutual agreement, it is not a case of a civilian prosecutor turning down a prosecution. As I said, a review of the cases used to back up the Department of Defense's claims last year found no evidence that civilian prosecutors had refused those same prosecutions. Nevertheless, that was the clear implication of the statistics supplied to Congress by the Pentagon last year, and we were all sucked into that. The response to our letter to President Obama claimed that the authors of that review just didn't understand the meaning of the term ``declined'' as it is used in the military justice system. The reality is that the information the Pentagon provided to Congress was obviously presented in a very misleading way. So this question: When military leaders claimed that civilian prosecutors had declined to prosecute cases that the military then prosecuted, would it have had the same impact if they added a footnote saying that, in this context, ``declined'' doesn't really mean declined? To summarize, the reforms we were told would reduce military sexual assaults haven't worked. And, folks, a rape is a rape, and a rape is a crime, and it needs to be reported, and it needs to be prosecuted. And, of course, a chief rationale for opposing our reform of the military justice system was based on very misleading data, as I hope I have made very clear. So how many more lives need to be ruined before we are ready to take bold action? If a sexual assault isn't prosecuted, predators will remain in the military, and that results in a perception that sexual assault is actually tolerated in the military culture. That destroys morale, and it also destroys lives. The men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line deserve better. Taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors, who are independent of the chain of command, will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our armed services. That is what Senator Gillibrand's and my amendment is all about. Let's not wait any longer. Let's not be sucked into certain arguments that we have been sucked into in the past. Let's stand up and change the culture of the military so that people are prosecuted when they do wrongdoing. Let's get it done, and get it done on this reauthorization bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one of the issues being discussed this week is the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. In November 2015 and in previous years, President Obama has signed annual defense bills that include a prohibition on the use of Federal funds to close Guantanamo. The National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, for 2017 keeps this crucial prohibition. Today I want to discuss one of the often-overlooked reasons why that prohibition should continue: the troubling immigration implications of transferring dangerous terrorist detainees from Guantanamo to the United States. This is a serious issue with serious consequences, and it is one that hasn't always been considered as prominently as it should be. A March 2016 report by the Center for Immigration Studies highlighted this problem, and I will mention that report again in a moment. About 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo today. In April of this year, nine detainees were released and returned to Saudi Arabia. According to media reports, one of the most dangerous terror suspects at Guantanamo was among those released, and he was still committed to jihad and killing Americans. He and the rest of the nine released terrorists could very well return to the battlefield after their so-called rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia. Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times writes that this is exactly what has happened with about 30 percent of the detainees that were released from Guantanamo: they have resumed or are suspected of restarting, terrorist activity. In fact, Obama administration officials have admitted that these detainees are killing Americans. As the Washington Post reported earlier this week, ``at least 12 detainees released from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have launched attacks against U.S. or allied forces in Afghanistan, killing about a half-dozen Americans.'' These numbers will likely increase as our intelligence agencies continue to obtain information. Clearly, these detainees are a deadly group who should be held in Guantanamo for as long as necessary. Fortunately, right now the NDAA specifically forbids spending taxpayer funds to transfer any of these detainees to the United States. That is why, in a CNN interview earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter stated that transferring Guantanamo prisoners to the United States is against the law. But Secretary Carter also said ``there are people in Gitmo who are so dangerous we cannot transfer them to the custody of another government no matter how much we trust that government . . . we need to find another place and it would have to be the United States.'' But if these individuals are too dangerous for any other country, aren't they too dangerous to bring to the U.S. as well? Why would we bring these jihadist terrorist detainees into the United States when this would pose significant national security risks to the American people? What particularly worries me about Secretary Carter's statement is that any transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States would apply highly ambiguous legal doctrines that could mean these terrorists would eventually be released on the streets in our homeland. Very serious questions arise from this proposition, as the immigration implications of such a potential transfer are far from clear. Some of those questions include: What sort of immigration status would the Guantanamo detainees have? May Guantanamo detainees be detained indefinitely? Could Guantanamo detainees apply for asylum? What immigration benefits would the Guantanamo detainees be eligible for? Perhaps most important, how would U.S. courts rule on these issues, particularly if a future court decides that the war on terror has ceased? We've seen Federal courts in the past grant Guantanamo detainees greater rights than Congress intended. It is my understanding that if these detainees were to be transferred to the United States, it would likely be done by granting them ``parole'' status. Immigration parole does not constitute an admission to the United States, but provides permission to enter the United States. It is supposed to be provided on a case-by-case basis, based on ``urgent humanitarian reasons'' or ``significant public benefit.'' As an initial matter, I don't see how paroling any of these terrorists into the country could be said to be either a humanitarian gesture or one that constituted a ``significant public benefit.'' But in addition to that concern, there is almost no precedent for immigration parole being used as a means of indefinite detention of aliens on U.S. territory. It should be used as a means to an end, such as bringing a criminal to the U.S. to serve as witness in a trial or allowing certain individuals in the U.S. to obtain emergency medical care. Consequently, as the Center for Immigration Studies report I mentioned before recently put it, ``If the Guantanamo detainees are transferred to the United States, we are faced with the very real likelihood of open-ended immigration paroles, which rely on indefinite imprisonment under undefined, little-understood rules and protocols.'' Given these legal uncertainties, the most likely results for detainees brought to the United States who will not be tried for their terrorist activities, or who the administration otherwise intends to hold indefinitely, are writs of habeas corpus and complaints of violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The war on terror has no end in sight, so these legal actions would inevitably arise as a result of the detainees' newly established presence on American soil and the indefinite nature of their detention. I would further expect Federal courts to be particularly willing to entertain such writs or other legal actions if any of the detainees are tried for their crimes but not found guilty. And the risk of finding sympathetic, activist judges surely is heightened in the cases of the 28 detainees already cleared for transfer but who have not yet been released. Even if some detainees are prosecuted and found guilty, they would serve a sentence, be ordered removed from the United States, and, ideally, be removed from our country upon the sentence's completion. But what happens if no other country--particularly their home country-- is willing to take them? This would be very likely, as statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security show there are many countries who will simply not allow the hardcore terrorist Guantanamo detainees back into their country. Countries like Iran, Pakistan, China, Somalia and Liberia, just to mention a few, won't take custody of these enemy combatants. Alternatively, what if their home country, or another country, is willing to take them but that country is also likely to mistreat them to gain information about their terrorist activities? In that case, our obligations under the Convention Against Torture would prohibit us from returning the detainees to those countries. If any of those removable detainees do remain in the United States, we won't be able to keep them detained for very long. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis that the United States may not indefinitely detain removable aliens just because no other country would accept them. In order for the U.S. Government to justify the detention of foreign nationals longer than six months, the basic rule is that the government must show that there is a ``significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.'' The Zadvydas decision has thus set a precedent that dangerous, deportable, convicted criminal aliens who have completed their sentences, but who cannot be deported to other countries, cannot continue to be indefinitely detained and must be released. Equally concerning, if a trial were to take place that resulted in a sentence of anything other than capital punishment or life in prison, then the Zadvydas precedent would most likely require the release of the terrorist within 6 months of the completion of his or her sentence. The danger any such releases could present has unfortunately already been illustrated. The Zadvydas decision has already resulted in extraordinary violence against Americans and threats to public safety. In the last 3 years alone, almost 10,000 criminal aliens have been released from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody because of Zadvydas. Too many of these aliens are released because the U.S. cannot obtain travel documents from home countries. This has real consequences. For example, in Hillsdale, NY, a criminal alien who had been convicted of sexually abusing a 12-year-old girl was released onto American streets when his home country of Bangladesh refused to take him back after he had served his sentence. After his release, he proceeded to go on a rampage of theft and violence culminating in the brutal murder of a 73-year-old woman. Given that the Obama administration already allows the release of convicted, dangerous, criminal aliens into our communities, I am deeply concerned that a similar situation would arise from transferring the terror suspects from Guantanamo to the United States. Bringing these hardcore terrorists to the United States would be tantamount to injecting a disease into our society. As you can see, the potential transfer of these detainees presents a real problem with serious consequences. Many decisions will have to be made and discussions had regarding the viability of transferring these hardcore terrorist detainees to the United States. If the Obama administration decides to transfer these detainees to the continental United States, this illegal action would force serious constitutional issues that could lead to an impasse. The matter of bringing hardcore terrorists into the United States would undoubtedly go before the Supreme Court. Pushing to close Guantanamo and bringing these hardcore terrorists to the United States without exhausting all alternative options is especially risky to the American people as it pertains to national security and public safety. I refer my colleagues to the Center for Immigration Studies Web site and the March 2016 report by Dan Cadman entitled, ``The Immigration Implications of Moving Guantanamo Detainees to the United States.'' Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the DUE PROCESS Act. I am very pleased that Senator Leahy is a cosponsor of the bill. This legislation will make important reforms to the practice of civil asset forfeiture. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings last year on the problems associated with civil asset forfeiture. This is a process by which a person who has been convicted of no crime, and in fact is often not even charged with a crime, can nonetheless lose his property if the property is suspected to be owned as a result of wrongdoing. Civil asset forfeiture has a place in our society, including gaining control over assets used to further terrorism and the drug trade. But there have been excesses, and this bill is designed to address many of them. Working together in a bipartisan and bicameral way, we have had months long discussions about how to draft legislation to improve the fairness of civil asset forfeiture. The bill that I am introducing today has been introduced and passed through the House Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan voice vote. It is the result of these bipartisan and bicameral discussions. The Senate should consider the same bill. The DUE PROCESS Act broadens the timelines for an owner to challenge forfeitures. It extends protections in existing law to judicial forfeitures, not only administrative forfeitures. The government must provide greater notice to owners whose property has been seized, including notice of the rights that they may invoke to regain their property and their right to be represented by counsel in contesting a forfeiture either judicially or administratively. The property owner is given more time to respond to the seizure. Very importantly, an owner who challenges the seizure receives an initial hearing, at which time she is further notified of her rights and will have her property released if the seizure was not made according to law. Under the bill, the government must prove that seizure is warranted by clear and convincing evidence, rather than the current preponderance of the evidence standard. Some of these provisions are in the bill because of media reports, including in my home state of Iowa. For instance, the Des Moines Register has reported that in many instances, innocent motorists surrender the property that law enforcement seizes without always having an understanding of how the seizure can be challenged. The bill will ensure that those whose assets are seized are given notice of the process by which the seizure can be contested and their right to have counsel represent them in the forfeiture proceeding. In a change to criminal forfeiture, which can take place after a defendant is convicted of a crime, the bill overturns the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kaley v. United States. A defendant will have the right to ask for a hearing to modify the seizure so as to demonstrate that assets not associated with the charged criminal activity can be used to hire the attorney of the defendant's choice. The court is directed to consider various factors at the hearing. Additionally, the bill makes it easier for those whose assets have been seized to recover their attorney's fees when they settle their cases. The bill requires the Justice Department's Inspector General to audit a sample of civil forfeitures to make sure they are consistent with the Constitution and the law. And it directs the Attorney General to establish databases on real-time status of forfeitures and on the types of forfeitures sought, the agencies seeking them, and the conduct that leads the property to be forfeited. Further, the bill codifies DOJARS policy to allow civil forfeiture in structuring cases only when the property to be seized is derived from an underlying crime other than structuring, or where it is done to conceal illegal activity. Structuring is a crime by which cash deposits or withdrawals are made with the intent of avoiding government reporting requirements. In Iowa, for instance, prosecutors brought an action against a restauranteur, Carole Hinders, who had deposited cash from her operations without any intention to evade any reporting requirement or to conceal some other illegal activity. After IRS changed its policy, prosecutors dropped the case. The bill will prevent the government from pursuing civil asset forfeiture cases such as these in the future. Finally, the bill expands existing protections for innocent owners of property that is sought to be forfeited. The government will have to prove that there is a substantial connection between the property and an offense and that the owner of the seized property intentionally used the property, knowingly consented to its criminal use, or reasonably should have known that the property might be used in connection with the offense. Many of these provisions strengthen the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. That legislation improved the process and provided greater protection for innocent owners involved in civil asset forfeiture than had previously been the case. But, as we have seen, excesses and injustices still remain. The DUE PROCESS Act is designed to make further progress in this area to protect the rights of people whose property has been seized without any judicial finding of criminal wrongdoing. The problems associated with civil asset forfeiture need to be addressed. In various ways, it would have been preferable to make changes that go even beyond those in this bill. However, we do want to work with law enforcement and address their legitimate interests and concerns. I can assure them that we will continue to talk as this legislation works its way to Senate passage.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the DUE PROCESS Act. I am very pleased that Senator Leahy is a cosponsor of the bill. This legislation will make important reforms to the practice of civil asset forfeiture. The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings last year on the problems associated with civil asset forfeiture. This is a process by which a person who has been convicted of no crime, and in fact is often not even charged with a crime, can nonetheless lose his property if the property is suspected to be owned as a result of wrongdoing. Civil asset forfeiture has a place in our society, including gaining control over assets used to further terrorism and the drug trade. But there have been excesses, and this bill is designed to address many of them. Working together in a bipartisan and bicameral way, we have had months long discussions about how to draft legislation to improve the fairness of civil asset forfeiture. The bill that I am introducing today has been introduced and passed through the House Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan voice vote. It is the result of these bipartisan and bicameral discussions. The Senate should consider the same bill. The DUE PROCESS Act broadens the timelines for an owner to challenge forfeitures. It extends protections in existing law to judicial forfeitures, not only administrative forfeitures. The government must provide greater notice to owners whose property has been seized, including notice of the rights that they may invoke to regain their property and their right to be represented by counsel in contesting a forfeiture either judicially or administratively. The property owner is given more time to respond to the seizure. Very importantly, an owner who challenges the seizure receives an initial hearing, at which time she is further notified of her rights and will have her property released if the seizure was not made according to law. Under the bill, the government must prove that seizure is warranted by clear and convincing evidence, rather than the current preponderance of the evidence standard. Some of these provisions are in the bill because of media reports, including in my home state of Iowa. For instance, the Des Moines Register has reported that in many instances, innocent motorists surrender the property that law enforcement seizes without always having an understanding of how the seizure can be challenged. The bill will ensure that those whose assets are seized are given notice of the process by which the seizure can be contested and their right to have counsel represent them in the forfeiture proceeding. In a change to criminal forfeiture, which can take place after a defendant is convicted of a crime, the bill overturns the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kaley v. United States. A defendant will have the right to ask for a hearing to modify the seizure so as to demonstrate that assets not associated with the charged criminal activity can be used to hire the attorney of the defendant's choice. The court is directed to consider various factors at the hearing. Additionally, the bill makes it easier for those whose assets have been seized to recover their attorney's fees when they settle their cases. The bill requires the Justice Department's Inspector General to audit a sample of civil forfeitures to make sure they are consistent with the Constitution and the law. And it directs the Attorney General to establish databases on real-time status of forfeitures and on the types of forfeitures sought, the agencies seeking them, and the conduct that leads the property to be forfeited. Further, the bill codifies DOJARS policy to allow civil forfeiture in structuring cases only when the property to be seized is derived from an underlying crime other than structuring, or where it is done to conceal illegal activity. Structuring is a crime by which cash deposits or withdrawals are made with the intent of avoiding government reporting requirements. In Iowa, for instance, prosecutors brought an action against a restauranteur, Carole Hinders, who had deposited cash from her operations without any intention to evade any reporting requirement or to conceal some other illegal activity. After IRS changed its policy, prosecutors dropped the case. The bill will prevent the government from pursuing civil asset forfeiture cases such as these in the future. Finally, the bill expands existing protections for innocent owners of property that is sought to be forfeited. The government will have to prove that there is a substantial connection between the property and an offense and that the owner of the seized property intentionally used the property, knowingly consented to its criminal use, or reasonably should have known that the property might be used in connection with the offense. Many of these provisions strengthen the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. That legislation improved the process and provided greater protection for innocent owners involved in civil asset forfeiture than had previously been the case. But, as we have seen, excesses and injustices still remain. The DUE PROCESS Act is designed to make further progress in this area to protect the rights of people whose property has been seized without any judicial finding of criminal wrongdoing. The problems associated with civil asset forfeiture need to be addressed. In various ways, it would have been preferable to make changes that go even beyond those in this bill. However, we do want to work with law enforcement and address their legitimate interests and concerns. I can assure them that we will continue to talk as this legislation works its way to Senate passage.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Philip Hines, a detailee on my staff, be granted floor privileges through the end of the 114th Congress. I also ask unanimous consent that Janet Temko-Blinder, another detailee on my staff, be granted floor privileges through the end of the 114th Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the month of May gives us the chance to raise awareness about the challenges of children in the foster care system and to consider ways to improve policies and practices to ensure that children are in safe, loving, and permanent homes. There are nearly 415,000 children living in foster care; more than 255,000 entered the foster care system in 2014 alone. According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, AFCARS, data for fiscal year 2014, the vast majority of foster children reside with a foster parent: 29 percent live in the foster family home of a relative, and 46 percent live in the foster family home of a non-relative. The rest live in institutions, 8 percent; groups homes, 6 percent; pre-adoptive homes, 4 percent; trial home visits, 5 percent; supervised independent living, 1 percent; or are runaways, 1 percent. As co-founder and co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I led a bipartisan and bicameral group of colleagues in introducing legislation recognizing May as National Foster Care Month. The resolution aims to bring foster care issues to the forefront and recognize the essential role that foster parents, social workers, and advocates have in the lives of children in foster care. While there have been vast improvements over the years, there are many challenges still facing our Nation's youth. These children have experienced abuse or neglect, often both. They can be moved from home to home, transferred from one school to the next, and endure trauma and mental health challenges. Older foster youth face difficult challenges as well. They deal with separation from their parents, educational instability, separation disorders, and depression, as well as challenge of transitioning to adulthood on their own. Whereas youth in foster care are much more likely to face educational instability with 65 percent of former foster children experiencing at least seven school changes while in care. The number of youth who age out of foster care has steadily increased for the past decade as well. The resolution encourages Congress to implement policy that further the goals of safety and permanency. The resolution currently has 24 co- sponsors. Because there are so many issues that affect youth in the foster care system, it is important that members of Congress understand the realities beyond the beltway. That is why I helped form the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. Our caucus was created to be a clearinghouse for members in the Senate to discuss policy issues that cross many committee jurisdictions. Our caucus was also created to help generate better ideas and best practices. We want people to learn from both youth and experts. And we want these ideas to be put into practice. Today, 21 Senators are committed members of the Foster Youth Caucus. It is a bipartisan caucus that focuses on understanding the challenges that foster youth face and finding solutions that can improve their lives. Because of the challenges facing older youth, I held a hearing as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to examine the interplay between the foster care system and the juvenile justice system when children are involved with both systems. The hearing focused on what data, or lack thereof, currently exists about children involved in both systems, the risk factors associated with foster children who become exposed to the juvenile justice system, and how to improve on current best practices implemented by the foster care and juvenile justice systems. My goal for holding this hearing was to spark innovative solutions and to forge relationships between two distinct groups--the juvenile justice system and child welfare system. The experts in these fields must come together to help dually involved youth who are in need of services. It was also a renewed call for Congress to pass the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act, which I helped author. If this measure is enacted, States participating in the juvenile justice formula grants program couldn't lock up foster care children merely for running away from a foster home. Some of these runaways are fleeing abusive situations and detention isn't the right place for them. Our bill, which awaits action by the full Senate, also encourages States receiving juvenile justice formula grants to screen children with mental illness or substance abuse issues. Finally, our bill would encourage States to rely on policies and practices that reflect the most recent research on what works best with troubled youth. Also during May, the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth held several forums to allow foster youth to share their experiences and to hear from experts about how policies can be improved for children and families. The caucus hosted a three-part series of panel discussions on the impact of substance abuse and mental health disorders on children and families involved in the child welfare system. We heard directly from youth, learned more about how the opioid epidemic is impacting families, how to prevent foster care by working with families, and how to better achieve positive outcomes through in-home services. We were fortunate to have Iowa's Judge William Owens from the Wapello County Family Drug Court. Judge Owens highlighted how professionals working with child welfare-involved families have changed their practice and policies in his county leading to improved outcomes for families. On the same topic, I co-hosted Dr. Phil who shared his expertise with policymakers in helping families in crisis dealing with substance abuse issues. He focused on the link between the current opioid epidemic and the rising number of children placed in foster care. The caucus also partnered with other child welfare organizations on a briefing about foster parent recruitment and retention. The frontline caregivers for hundreds of thousands of children in foster care are foster parents. They provide physical care, emotional support, education advocacy, and, many times, a permanent home and future for these kids. Sometimes they are relatives; sometimes they are complete strangers. But no matter who they are, they are opening their hearts and homes to children in need. Because more children are coming into care, we need to do all we can to recruit quality foster parents to keep these kids safe, healthy, in school, and thriving in society. At the end of the month, I helped co-sponsor a briefing to discuss effective practices for youth transitioning out of foster care. Because 26,000 young people leave foster care without a forever family and with limited resources and little support, we need to do better to guide and help this population successfully navigate the real world of adulthood. It was an opportunity to learn about intensive, individualized and clinically focused case management and counseling, which has proven results for long-term success. Finally, I participated in a Senate Finance Committee hearing titled, ``Can Evidence Based Practices Improve Outcomes for Vulnerable Individuals and Families?'' As a senior member of the Finance Committee and the author of many child welfare laws that have gone through that committee, I was able to listen and ask questions of experts about how we can move to more evidenced-based programs and learn from programs that are successful. The hope for panel discussions and briefings is to find innovative solutions--whether through legislation or awareness and shifts in practice. This year, I also urged the Department of Education to work with States to implement a provision I helped pass in the Every Student Succeeds Act. This education bill includes new data collection and reporting provisions to shine a light on achievement gaps for students who have long been overlooked in federally funded education, including homeless and foster youth. I have also worked on several bills this year to improve foster care policies. The Modernizing the Interstate Placement of Children in Foster Care Act would reduce the amount of time it takes to place children by incentivizing more States to implement the National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise, or NEICE system. Six pilot States that utilized NEICE, on average, reduced wait times for children by 30 percent and anticipate savings of $1.6 million per year in reduced copying, mailing, and administrative costs. Throughout the country, caseworkers often avoid exploring out-of-state placements because of the long delays in processing the paperwork. Our bill gives incentives to States to join the NEICE system and streamline the paperwork to make foster care placements and eventual adoption happen faster. The more we can do to give children safe, stable homes, the better. The increased displacement of kids due to parental substance abuse, including opioid abuse, makes this cause especially important. The Protecting Families Affected by Substance Abuse Act would reauthorize for 5 years the regional partnership grants that were created in 2006 when I was chairman of the Finance Committee. While the original intent of the 2006 grants was to address methamphetamine abuse, the scope expanded to other substances as new problems emerged. Opioid addiction is a key focus of the new bill, as we have seen the havoc prescription painkillers and heroin continue to have on families and communities around the nation. The grants support regional partnerships for services including early intervention and preventive services; child and family counseling; mental health services; parenting skills training; and replication of successful models for providing family-based, comprehensive long-term substance abuse treatment services. Supporting Foster Youth Who Age Out--this bill would allow States to use these Federal dollars for foster youth services up to age 23 and further help those who age out of care with more opportunities to transition to adulthood. It also would allow greater flexibility for States to use their funds in a manner that best benefits the youth population they serve. The legislation builds on the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, created by then-Senator John Chafee in 1999 to better support youth who age out of the foster care system at the age of 18. The program provides financial support for youth who are transitioning to adulthood with the goal to make them self-sufficient. For years, I have tried to call attention to the issues facing foster care youth, which consists of more than 415,000 children nationwide, more than 6,000 of whom live with one of Iowa's approximately 2,700 foster families. As founder and co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I often have the opportunity to hear firsthand from kids growing up in foster care. Foster youth long to be heard. These children need permanency and a loving family, not to be shuffled around from home to home. They tell me that important improvements have recently been made, but there are still gaps in services that could be solved with a combination of policy changes and citizen involvement. While this population of youth deserves year-round attention, we honor them this month. This is an especially important time to have discussions about how we can improve their lives and strengthen their families. It is important, too, that we remember all of the other individuals involved in helping children who are in the foster care system--including caseworkers, social workers, guardians, child welfare advocates, and foster families. Our work on this issue will continue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the State Department inspector general has released findings regarding the State Department's email practices for the last five Secretaries of State. This report makes clear that Secretary Clinton has not told the truth to the American people about her nongovernment server and email arrangement. As I have noted many times before, Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server arrangement prevented the State Department from complying with the Freedom of Information Act. She used the private server to avoid the law that requires archiving Federal records. It was designed to wall her email off from the normal treatment of a government official's email communications. The inspector general found that Secretary Clinton failed to surrender all official emails to the Department prior to leaving government service. The inspector general found that Secretary Clinton's email practices ``did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.'' In other words, she violated the law. The inspector general has made clear that Secretary Clinton neither sought nor received any permission to maintain her nongovernment server arrangement. Moreover, the report says that if she had, that permission would have been denied. These findings directly conflict with her many misleading public statements. Secretary Clinton said on July 7, 2015, ``Everything I did was permitted. There was no law. There was no regulation. There was nothing that did not give me the full authority to decide how I was going to communicate.'' That statement is false. Her staff also failed to comply with Department policy and records laws. They routinely conducted State Department business on personal email accounts. After the controversy broke, they eventually turned over 72,000 pages of work related emails from those private accounts. These emails were not preserved in Department recordkeeping systems as required by Department policies and Federal records laws. In other words, her staff also violated the law. Documents in those 72,000 pages were systematically withheld from Freedom of Information Act requestors and congressional oversight committees, including the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair. Based on the inspector general report, it appears that the Department failed to produce key documents to Congress from these personal email accounts. For example, according to emails cited by the inspector general, we learned that Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server was attacked by hackers. One email the Department failed to turn over said that ``we were attacked again so I shut the server down for a few minutes.'' It is disturbing that the State Department knew it had emails like this and turned them over to the inspector general but not to Congress. In another email the Department failed to turn over, the director of Secretary Clinton's IT unit warned her that ``you should be aware that any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches.'' Clearly, Secretary Clinton wanted to avoid the Freedom of Information Act at all costs. That IT director who warned her about the transparency laws for State Department emails is named John Bentel. He has since retired from the State Department, and thus, the inspector general could not require him to testify. He refused to speak with the inspector general. In fact, Former Secretary Clinton and several of her aides also refused to speak to the inspector general. Mr. Bentel also refused to speak with the Judiciary Committee. According to his attorney, Randall Turk, Mr. Bentel knew nothing about the server at the time. In refusing to participate in a voluntary witness interview with the committee, Mr. Bentel's attorney claimed that his client only learned of the controversial email arrangement after it was reported in the press. He said another congressional committee ``spent its entire interview . . . focusing on what the Committees' letter says you want to ask him about.'' In a January 14, 2016, email to my staff, Mr. Turk noted that Mr. Bentel had ``no memory or knowledge of the matters he was questioned about.'' The inspector general report says otherwise. According to the report, two of Mr. Bentel's subordinates separately raised concerns back in 2010 about Secretary Clinton's private email usage, including concerns that it was interfering with Federal recordkeeping laws. That is 5 years before the news broke publicly. Both of these State Department staff independently told the inspector general about similar conversations they had with Mr. Bentel about their concerns. According to these new witnesses, Mr. Bentel told them never to speak of Secretary Clinton's personal email system again. It seems unlikely that two witnesses who told such similar stories independent of one another would be making it up. Plus, they knew they were under a legal obligation to tell the truth to the inspector general. Without having spoken to these witnesses directly, the circumstances make their statement seem credible. And although Mr. Bentel has been given the opportunity to provide his side of the story, he has refused to cooperate. But if what these two witnesses said is true, it is an outrage, and it raises lots of serious questions. Good and honest employees just trying to do their job were told to shut up and sit down. Concerns about the Secretary's email system being out of compliance with Federal recordkeeping laws were swept under the rug. If those State Department employees had not been muzzled 5 years earlier, perhaps Secretary Clinton could have avoided this entire controversy. Are these statements evidence of an intent to cover up Federal Records Act violations? Were the representations to the committee by Mr. Bentel's attorney that he didn't know about the private server false? It seems from the inspector general report that Mr. Bentel in fact did have knowledge of Secretary Clinton's email arrangement, contrary to his attorney's assertions. Not only that, he also was reportedly warned that it raised legal concerns about compliance with Federal records laws. Secretary Clinton and her associates have refused to cooperate with the inquiries into this controversy. But it is becoming more apparent why she is not. The inspector general report makes clear that Secretary Clinton and a number of other former Department officials have not been truthful with the American people. And in pursuit of constitutional oversight on these very important issues, the Department of State is continuing to fail to provide relevant documents to Congress. I will follow up to get to the bottom of these discrepancies because misrepresenting the facts to Congress is unacceptable. Simply said, the American people deserve better. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to address an important investigation that has produced significant results for low-income people and that the Republican majority in the Senate helped bring about. In late December 2014, news reports indicated that a nonprofit hospital chain in Missouri and Kansas, Mosaic Life Care, had been aggressively suing low-income patients. These news reports further indicated that many of these patients qualified for financial assistance and were wrongly placed in collection. Let me be clear. Nonprofit hospitals should not be in the business of aggressively suing their patients. As recipients of a tax-exempt status, these hospitals have a heightened duty to assist patients in qualifying for financial assistance. That means these hospitals must implement a financial-assistance policy where low-income persons receive free- or reduced-cost care. Further, these types of hospitals must assist low-income persons in ensuring that the proper paperwork for government assistance or private insurance is properly filed. In essence, because of the favorable tax treatment these hospitals receive, they have a duty to help our Nation's most vulnerable. For these reasons, I began my investigation into Mosaic to determine what, if anything, went wrong. On January 16 of last year, I sent a letter to Mosaic to begin my inquiry. Over the past year, my staff has met with Mosaic representatives, exchanged numerous emails, and had many phone calls to get a better idea of the process at issue. It became clear that Mosaic was lacking the right number of personnel to manage financial assistance intake. Common sense tells me that when anyone visits a hospital, it is often a scary event under any condition. When we go to hospitals, it is generally because something has gone wrong. In that moment of need, we put our lives in the hands of professionals to help us get healthy. In those moments of pain and fear, we put our trust in medical professionals to give us the right care. In other words, we place our trust in the hospital to have hired the right people. And, as normally happens, after treatment is provided, here comes the bill. Again, common sense tells me nothing in life is free. Someone, not always the patient, will always have to pay the bill. It is common sense; there is no free lunch. But when it involves low-income persons and a nonprofit charity hospital has provided the treatment, that hospital should provide some type of financial assistance or help to get financial assistance if it is available. That obligation exists simply because of the tax-exempt status. If you want that status of tax exemption, you are supposed to help those who are less fortunate. So when that bill comes, the hospital must ensure that it has people in place to assist the patient in filing for financial assistance if it is available. If the patient doesn't have any coverage, but his or her income is so low that they qualify for free- or reduced-cost care, the hospital should ensure that patients know help is available. It is common sense. Employees should explain the process and patients' rights. Tax-exempt hospitals cannot be in business to profit from poor people who may not know what form to file. That is not what Congress intended to happen when we created the tax exemption. During the course of my investigation into Mosaic, I made clear that they must have adequate personnel. In response to my overtures, Mosaic has hired seven resource advocates to assist with Medicaid, supplemental assistance, and Social Security disability applications. Two additional financial counselors were reassigned to focus solely on assisting patients navigate the financial assistance process. Importantly, Mosaic will hire an additional financial counselor dedicated to its outpatient clinic. Finally, five patient financial service representatives have been assigned with the duty of ensuring the timely processing of financial assistance applications. These are very important as well as productive steps to take. It just makes sense for a charitable health care institution to help its low- income patients rather than sending debt collectors after them and suing them. It is common sense. You cannot get blood out of a turnip. Further, during the course of my investigation, I made clear that charging interest on accounts prior to final judgment would further burden the poor. Nonprofits need to take steps to reduce debt burdens, not increase that debt. In response, Mosaic will no longer charge interest on accounts until a final court judgment. Further, to provide even more opportunity for patients to receive financial assistance, Mosaic has extended its four- statement bill cycle to six. That will allow more opportunities for patients to receive notice of their ability to receive financial assistance. These steps will help patients in the long run. Again, common sense tells me it is important, and it is important to note that there is a certain amount of self-responsibility to be accepted when someone incurs a bill for services rendered. But that doesn't mean hospitals shouldn't lend a helping hand. Just look at any Medicare and/or health insurance bill that you get. You know then how intimidating that document can be. The changes I just mentioned are not the end of this, however. I wish to note a much more profound result. I repeatedly urged Mosaic to look at low-income patients already in the collection system or the court system. Over the course of several months, I urged them to consider forgiving their debt when it was obvious that people didn't have the income to pay. In response, Mosaic instituted a 3-month debt-forgiveness period running from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015. Importantly, during this forgiveness period, Mosaic lowered the threshold by which a patient could qualify for financial assistance. When a patient was already in collection or already subject to a court judgment, they could apply for debt forgiveness. Mosaic recently informed me of the results of their change of policy. The debt forgiveness program resulted in 5,542 financial assistance applications, of which 5,070 were approved. A total of $16.9 million in debt, interest, and legal fees were forgiven. Over 5,000 people no longer have to worry about their debt burden; 5,000 people are free from the vice grip of almost $17 million. Medical debt is vicious. It is a mental and emotional drain that can bring the strongest among us to our knees. For some patients, they will never be able to pay off their debt. Mosaic eventually did the right thing. It deserves credit for that. Considering where I started in this investigation, it probably shocks Mosaic that I would compliment them. But I speak from the heart that when they make these changes, they ought to be complimented. Now, thousands of people have a new lease on life, thanks to Mosaic's meeting nonprofit tax-exempt responsibilities. That is where we are coming from. If it hadn't been for the tax exemption and accepting the responsibilities of tax exemption, there would be no way we could complain about Mosaic. I wish to point out a lesson to all 535 Members of Congress. That is why oversight is so important. That is why I take my responsibilities as chairman of the Judiciary Committee so seriously. Results matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time spent in quorum calls be charged equally to both sides during debate in relation to H.J. Res. 88.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today we will vote on the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2016. Passage of this bipartisan bill will send a strong and clear message to the American people about Congress's steadfast commitment to keeping our children safe from sexual predators and other violent criminals. Many of us supported the original Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which is so named for a 6-year-old boy who was abducted and tragically murdered nearly 35 years ago. Adam Walsh was abducted on July 27, 1981, from a mall in Hollywood, FL. In what is every parent's nightmare, Adam's remains were found 2 weeks later, more than 100 miles from his home. This year marks the 35th anniversary of his disappearance. In the intervening years, his parents, John and Reve Walsh, have dedicated their lives to protecting children from harm and bringing child predators to justice. John Walsh collaborated on the development of the original Adam Walsh Act, and he has continued to provide invaluable insight regarding the reauthorization bill that is before us today. This bill is yet another bipartisan measure that the Senate Judiciary Committee reported unanimously in the 114th Congress. Senators Hatch, Schumer, and Feinstein, who all cosponsored an early Senate version of the 2006 Adam Walsh Act, have once again joined as original cosponsors of this legislation. I want to also thank our committee's ranking member, Senator Leahy, as well as Senator Ayotte and other Members of this Chamber who have joined as cosponsors or contributed in some way to the bill's success. As a reminder, the Adam Walsh Act originally was enacted in response to notorious cases involving children who had been targeted by adult criminals, many of them repeat sex offenders. The names Johnny Gosch, Eugene Martin, and Jetseta Gage, for example, still bring heartbreak to all Iowans. Johnny Gosch was a 12-year-old paperboy delivering newspapers in West Des Moines, IA, when he disappeared in 1982. Two years later, 13-year-old Eugene Martin disappeared in Des Moines, IA-- also while delivering newspapers. And 10-year-old Jetseta Gage was kidnapped, raped, and murdered by a convicted sex offender in rural Johnson County, IA in 2005. The original Adam Walsh Act was enacted in response to these and many other cases involving missing children. The 2006 law established numerous programs, but their authorization expired some years ago. Several of these programs, for which Congress continues to provide funding in the annual appropriations process, are the centerpiece of the Adam Walsh Act and are key to its successful implementation. This bill would extend the authorization for these pivotal programs. First, this bill would reauthorize the sex offender management assistance program. It is estimated that there are more than 700,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. This program helps States to meet national notification and registration standards for these sex offenders. It also helps State and local law enforcement agencies improve their sex offender registry systems and information sharing capabilities. Second, this bill would extend the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program. Who can forget Jessica Lunsford, for whom this program is named? This 9-year-old Florida girl was abducted and murdered by a registered sex offender who lived nearby. Her story is not unlike that of 10-year-old Jetseta Gage. The Jessica Lunsford program authorizes grants to State and local governments to help fund programs that verify the residences of registered sex offenders. Having accurate information on where sex offenders live is crucial to ensuring that law enforcement can adequately protect the safety of children and keep the public informed. Third, this bill authorizes continued funding for the U.S. Marshals Service to support local efforts to track down sex offenders who fail to register as such or who later disappear from the system. These fugitive apprehension activities, authorized under the original Adam Walsh Act, continue to be funded by appropriators, but they need to be reauthorized. Extending the authorization signals Congress's continued commitment to ensuring that these activities continue. Fourth, during the committee markup of this bill, I offered a substitute amendment that incorporates a package of new rights for sexual assault survivors. It was accepted with the unanimous support of our committee members. Several members worked with me on its development, and I appreciate their contributions. I want to especially thank Ms. Amanda Nguyen, a young woman who has bravely spoken out about her experience of sexual assault. Amanda, who founded a nonprofit known as RISE, originated the idea for a survivors' rights package and urged me to incorporate such language in this bill. The package we adopted in the Judiciary Committee includes new rights, under our Federal Criminal Code, for victims of sexual assault offenses. These rights are in addition to those already available to all victims of crime under the Federal Criminal Code. They include the right not to be prevented from or charged for receiving a medical forensic exam. They include the right to have a sexual assault evidence collection kit preserved without charge for the statutory limitations period or 20 years. They include the right to be informed of the results of that kit's analysis, as well as policies governing the kit's collection and preservation. They include the right to notice when the government intends to dispose of a sexual assault evidence collection kit. RISE endorsed these provisions last July. The bill reported by our committee also clarifies that the Justice Department can make discretionary grants available, under the crime victims fund, to States that agree to notify sexual assault survivors of any applicable rights under state law. The bill calls for the establishment of a Federal working group to disseminate best practices for the care and treatment of sexual assault survivors and for the preservation of forensic evidence. The bill also would extend the statutory deadline by which child victims of certain human trafficking and child abuse offenses can file suit against their perpetrators. We also added language to the bill, at the suggestion of the Judicial Conference of the United States, to clarify that courts can supervise sexual offenders after their release from civil confinement. Courts already do this in practice, just as they do with criminal offenders after their release, but this legislation clarifies judges' authority to do so. Before concluding, I should mention that the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act not only has the bipartisan support of members of this chamber, but also has the support of groups that advocate for child protection and safety, such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It has been endorsed by two leading antihuman trafficking organizations, Polaris and Shared Hope International. And as already mentioned, the current version has the support of John Walsh and RISE. Finally, I want to reiterate that the 35th anniversary of the abduction of and murder of young Adam Walsh will take place in July. It is my hope that we can send this legislation to the President's desk before that date passes. As a father and as a grandfather, I cannot stress enough the importance of making this bill's passage a priority for the 114th Congress. We cannot bring back Adam Walsh, Jetseta Gage, Jessica Lunsford, or the other innocent children we have lost under such terrible circumstances. But we can do our best to honor their memory and to protect America's present and future children by extending these key programs that were authorized under the original Adam Walsh Act. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to revisit my discussion with Senator Durbin yesterday regarding my amendment No. 3925 to the Department of Veterans Affairs funding bill. As I made clear yesterday, this is a commonsense amendment protecting constitutional rights. It is designed to make every effort to ensure that the Second Amendment rights of veterans are protected under the law. Yet the Democrats have objected. Because of that, our veterans will continue to not be protected by their Second Amendment constitutional rights. Let me make myself very clear. Senator Durbin said my amendment ``doesn't solve the problem.'' ``Doesn't solve the problem'' are his words. Well, the Department of Veterans Affairs is reporting names to the Department of Justice which are then placed on the national gun ban list, and the VA is doing so merely when a veteran is appointed a fiduciary--which does not mean he or she is dangerous. That is the problem. As I explained yesterday, my amendment requires the VA to first determine that a veteran is a danger to self or others before reporting names. That simply solves the problem. Senator Durbin also said that under my amendment, ``mental health determinations would no longer count as prohibiting gun possession.'' As I stated yesterday, I do not want people who are known to be dangerous to own and possess firearms. My amendment makes that very clear. Further, given that plain language, it is obvious that under my amendment, mental health determinations do count because some mental health problems equate to a very dangerous condition. Again, my amendment is centered on forcing the Federal Government to determine whether a veteran is a danger to self or others before revoking his or her constitutional rights to own a firearm. Senator Durbin said that ``tens of thousands of names currently in the NICS system''--the gun ban list--``would likely need to be purged, meaning these people could go out and buy guns.'' Now, that is not so. If anything, my amendment would require the Federal Government to look over the VA records sent to the gun ban list and verify that those persons on it are dangerous to themselves or others. That doesn't have to be purging. Rather, the Federal Government would now have the burden of proving a veteran should not be able to exercise his or her fundamental Second Amendment rights. Since there is no purging, but rather dangerous persons will be identified via a constitutional process, it is not accurate to say that ``these people could go out and buy guns.'' Therefore, Senator Durbin has not studied my amendment and its outcome. Really, the government should always provide constitutional due process before infringing on a fundamental constitutional right. Senator Durbin mentioned 174,000 names were supplied by the VA to the gun ban list and about 15,000 of them had serious mental illnesses. Actually, as of December 2015, the VA has supplied 260,381 names out of the 263,492 in the mental defective category. That happens to be 98.8 percent of the total number of people on the mental defective list that are there because of the VA and not because it has been determined their constitutional rights should be taken away. Assuming Senator Durbin is correct about the 15,000 who had a serious mental illness, that leaves about 245,000 who did not. Those are 245,000 people whose constitutional rights are being restricted without due process for no good reason. Not a single individual was determined to be dangerous before the VA submitted their name to this list so their constitutional rights could be violated. My amendment, and my remarks last night, make clear that if a person is dangerous, they will not be able to possess a firearm. Therefore, Senator Durbin's concern that my amendment will allow dangerous people to buy firearms is simply inaccurate. Importantly, Senator Durbin even admitted that not all the names reported to the VA are dangerous. Senator Durbin said: ``I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do.'' Then, Senator Durbin said: ``Let me just concede at the outset that reporting 174,000 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far.'' I am glad that Senator Durbin acknowledged that many of the names on the gun ban list supplied by the VA do not pose a danger and should be removed. But again, my amendment is not about purging names from the list. I would be happy to take him up on his offer to work with him on that problem. Surely, we can agree that, going forward, the VA should start affording due process to veterans before they are stripped of their Second Amendment rights. If you really want a solution to this problem, stop objecting to this amendment. As I stated yesterday, my amendment does three things. First, it makes the ``danger to self or others'' standard applicable to the VA. We all agree that dangerous persons must not own or possess firearms. Second, it shifts the burden of proof from the veteran and back to the Government where it belongs. Third, it fixes the constitutional due process issues by removing the hearing from the VA to the judicial system. The last thing I will note is something on which I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Durbin. Yesterday, he said: ``We need to find a reasonable way to identify those suffering from serious mental illness who would be a danger to themselves, their families or others, and to sort out those that don't fit in that category.'' As I have made clear, my amendment does exactly that. Why, then, are the Democrats refusing to fix this problem if they admit the problem exists? This is an outrage. We all know that veterans are being treated unfairly. My amendment fixes the problem, yet Democrats object. What is dangerous is that Democrats are allowing veterans to be subjected to a process that casts their Second Amendment rights aside. All of this smells of hypocrisy. For months, the Democrats and their allies have been attacking me and the Republicans for not voting on the Supreme Court nominee. But the Democrats will not even allow a simple vote on protecting veterans' constitutional rights. Can you imagine the chaos that would reign over this Chamber again if the Democrats were to take control over the Senate? I will continue to stand firm in defense of our veteran population. I will continue to fight to protect their constitutional rights from offensive and oppressive government outreach. Our veterans are a special group. They give life and limb for our safety so that we can sleep in peace at night. The iron fist of government must submit to the constitutional rights of veterans, and those constitutional rights have been taken away by the VA willy-nilly just because somebody needs a fiduciary--nothing to do with the competence of that veteran to not be able to buy a gun. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commend the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee for accepting transparency language that I requested be included in the fiscal year 2017 spending bill for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The good governance provision, which I championed after years of oversight work, will ensure greater accountability in public housing authorities' use of the Federal money that they receive in this annual appropriations bill. For the last 6 years, I have raised concern about HUD's failure to conduct proper oversight of how local housing authorities use those Federal dollars. Specifically, my concerns relate to HUD's practice of allowing local housing authorities to spend hundreds of millions of Federal dollars each year with virtually no Housing and Urban Development oversight and no transparency to the public. We all have reason to be concerned about this lack of transparency because some local housing authorities rely on the Federal Government for up to 90 percent of their funding. That is why I thank Senator Collins, Senator Kirk, and other members of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee for recognizing that Congress must insist on HUD's paying closer attention to the use of taxpayer dollars by housing authorities. The good governance provision that the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee included in this year's appropriations report ensures that in the future the housing money we appropriate for low-income families will retain its Federal designation even after it is transferred to the housing authorities. I want to stress that this designation is no small matter. In other words, Federal money is going to be considered Federal money when it gets to the local housing authority, and no games can be played with it as are being played with it now. U.S. taxpayers spend about $4.5 billion every year to help low-income Americans put a roof over their heads. We can be proud that we do so much for people in need. We should not let any of that money specifically for people of need be wasted or spent to feather the nests of local public housing authority bureaucrats. I wish to take a few minutes to explain why the appropriations language that I championed and is in this legislation is so sorely needed. Some local housing authorities have devoted these limited funds, which are meant to help low-income people find affordable housing, to high salaries and even for perks for the people who run housing authorities around the country. I will just use three examples, but there are dozens of examples that can be given. At the Atlanta Housing Authority, at least 22 employees earned between $150,000 and $303,000 per year. The former executive director of the Raleigh Housing Authority in North Carolina received about $280,000 in salary and benefits plus 30 vacation days. The executive director of the Tampa Housing Authority is paid over $214,000 per year, and the housing authority spends over $100,000 per year on travel and conferences. After I called attention to these wasteful practices a few years ago, HUD limited the executive salary paid by local housing authorities. That is good news, right? Well, it didn't work out that way, even after the salaries were capped at level IV of the Executive Schedule pay scale, which today amounts to about $160,000 a year. As I say, it didn't turn out to be good news. Unfortunately, as it did turn out, this compensation cap had little impact in limiting housing authority salaries. I will explain how this works. HUD provides over $350 million in operating fees annually to local housing authorities. Right now, these fees are considered income earned by the housing authorities for managing programs instead of considering them as what they are--grants given by the Federal Government. That is where the Federal money gets mixed up with local money and the Federal money isn't followed by HUD. That is why they get away with the waste of taxpayers' money. Despite their source, when these fees reach housing authorities, they are no longer considered Federal funds. I say that a second time for emphasis. Once these funds lose Federal designation, housing authorities then can use the tax dollars as they see fit--and they do. Then, when they use it as they see fit, HUD is not required to conduct oversight of how the money is spent. Believe me; HUD hasn't done much oversight. This means that many employees of housing authorities can continue to earn annual salaries well in excess of the $160,000 without technically violating the Federal salary cap. You can see the games that are being played to let these local housing people get these massive high salaries and fringe benefits and waste taxpayers' money that should be spent helping low-income people get safe housing. Sadly, these salaries exceed limits that were imposed by the Federal Government to ensure the money we appropriate goes to low-income families in the greatest need of our assistance. After I began publicly voicing my complaints about this practice, the Office of Management and Budget in December 2013 issued a government- wide guidance that should have--should have--put a stop to it, but it didn't. But let me tell you what the guidance called for. So-called fees for service would then be designated as program income so the Federal funding would retain its Federal designation after it is transferred into housing authority business accounts. Making sure it kept its Federal designation meant it had to be subject to HUD oversight. HUD initially agreed to fully implement the OMB guidance, but they did not. Later, the Department quietly--very quietly--requested a waiver that, if that waiver was granted, would have allowed housing authorities to sidestep the new OMB rule and then continue to avoid commonsense oversight because, with that waiver, the Federal dollars would not have Federal designation. They would be considered local money and could be spent any way people wanted to spend it. I might never have learned of this HUD effort to get around this OMB rule but for the very good work of the HUD inspector general. After I learned from the inspector general's staff that HUD was requesting a waiver of the OMB guidance, I sent a letter to OMB expressing my concerns. But as so often happens with bureaucrats in this town, I didn't hear from OMB until I attempted to include amendment language addressing the fee designation in the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill before Thanksgiving of last year, when the issue was on the floor of the Senate. As we all know, that bill was pulled from the floor. But neither the inspector general nor I were ready to give up, and that is why we are here today. Just recently, I received good news that reinforces my belief that congressional oversight works. HUD has finally agreed to implement its inspector general's recommendations requiring that funding provided by the taxpayers to public housing authorities will keep its Federal designation. In other words, HUD will be responsible for making sure that Federal funding is used as intended, and that is very clear. It is why we have public housing--to provide safe, affordable housing for those in need and, consequently, then, not to use that Federal money to pay exorbitant executive salaries. My concern now is the timeframe for implementation and ensuring that HUD does not request another waiver. HUD expects the final rule to be completed by December 2017, more than 1\1/2\ years from now. That is a very long time to finalize regulations. I hope HUD isn't delaying the process in the hope that either the inspector general or this Senator will give up. I can assure you that will not happen. We need to ensure that this reform is implemented by including language in this appropriations bill to not just keep salaries in check but also to ensure that HUD exercises oversight authority over how these funds are used and that more money is actually used for the poor. I hope HUD uses that oversight authority to combat waste, such as in the following three examples: The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles misused over $3.9 million in operating funds for salary, travel, bonuses, and legal settlements. The Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority in Canton, OH, misused $4 million in operating and capital funds to build a commercial development, and an additional $2 million was misused for salaries and benefits. The Hickory, NC, housing authority paid over $500,000 in operating funds to a maintenance company owned by the brother of a board member--a clear conflict of interest. It is also vital that Congress be aware of any effort by HUD to once again avoid implementing this rule the way they tried to get around the OMB rule I just talked about. For that reason, the report language I requested requires HUD to notify both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees quarterly during fiscal year 2017 if they request any waiver from implementing these provisions. I encourage my colleagues to support this effort to ensure that HUD implements these much needed changes and does its part to provide better oversight of our scarce Federal funding. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for working together on this very important issue to get justice for some of our police officers and their families who have been burdened by too much redtape. She and I have worked together on so many things, and I appreciate this one as well. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating this week as National Police Week. As part of that tradition, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers have gathered in our Nation's Capital to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to the service of this Nation. I rise to join these officers in thanking the men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities. We must never take their sacrifice for granted, and we need to appreciate that their surviving families have suffered real loss. In recognition of this truth, Congress passed the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act in 1976. The goal of the law was to provide death benefits to survivors of officers who die in the line of duty. Over the years, the law has been amended to provide disability and education benefits and to expand the pool of officers who are eligible for these benefits. Looking at the 40-year history of this law, the overall intent of Congress is very clear: Families of fallen officers deserve a fair and timely consideration of their application for these benefits, and the word ``timely'' is what isn't being carried out right now. If we were in these officers' shoes, we would like to see an answer-- either yes or no--not years of limbo and lingering uncertainty. Unfortunately, that is precisely what too many families have had to endure since at least 2003, all because bureaucrats in the Justice Department failed to do their job and do it on time. Three weeks ago, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing to examine this problem on the lack of timeliness. What we found was troubling. The Justice Department has a goal of processing these claims within 1 year of filing. However, according to the most recent data, the Justice Department is failing to meet its own 1-year deadline in 61 percent of the 693 pending death benefit claims. Those are 423 families who have been waiting for more than 1 year. That rate is unacceptable for a program designed to support families of fallen officers. Somehow, the delays have gone from bad to worse. The failure rate was 27 percent for claims that were filed between 2008 and 2013. So it is very difficult to understand how that could happen. For 13 years and counting, since 2003, the delays have persisted despite a 2004 Attorney General memorandum, despite a 2007 Judiciary Committee hearing, and despite three independent audits recommending corrective action. Not surprisingly, there have been periodic improvements in timeliness whenever Congress or watchdogs shine light into these delays. However, these improvements have been very short-lived. For example, in 2007, the Justice Department more than doubled its monthly rate of processing claims in the first 2 months following a Judiciary Committee hearing. However, in the ensuing 5 years, the inspector general found not only significant delays but also a serious lack of documentation and data. I began looking into this program last January after constituents informed me that families in Iowa waited more than 3 years to get a decision, but the Justice Department's response to my oversight letters confirmed that these delays persist on a nationwide scale. For instance, there are currently 175 pending death and disability claims that were filed on behalf of officers who lost their lives as a result of their September 11 response efforts. That is why I have written six letters to the Justice Department in the last 1\1/2\ years asking for status updates on all pending claims. Initially, after I sent my first letters, the number of pending claims went down at a steady pace. However, more recently the Justice Department has simply failed to respond to my letters. At last month's Judiciary Committee hearing, a claimant from my State of Iowa testified about having waited 3\1/2\ years without an answer from the Justice Department, but just 2 days after that hearing, that claimant got a phone call from the Department saying the claim had been approved. What was the Justice Department doing for the past 3\1/2\ years on that claim? And what about the 692 other families who are waiting for a decision? Families of fallen officers and advocacy groups agree, transparency leads to accountability, and the Justice Department should be held accountable for its handling of these claims. So based on this 13-year record, I have concluded that the best way to ensure timeliness in these claims is to permanently increase the level of transparency surrounding this program. Today the Senator from New York, just speaking, and I are introducing a bill that would do just that. It is called the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act. This bill would require the Justice Department to post on its Web site weekly status updates for all pending claims. This way the public can evaluate how well the Department is performing under its goal of processing claims within the 1-year filing deadline they have. The Justice Department is already posting weekly statistics with respect to the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund, which is a similar program. So the Department should be able to do the same with respect to pending public safety officers' benefits claims by posting weekly statistics. In addition, our bill would require the Justice Department to report to Congress other aggregate statistics regarding these claims at least twice a year, and the bill would make it easier for the Justice Department to process these claims in other ways; for example, by allowing the Department to rely on other Federal regulatory standards and to give substantial weight to findings of fact of State, local, and other Federal agencies. In short, this is a simple bipartisan bill with narrowly tailored provisions. Each provision is targeted to specific problems that have been identified over the past 13 years by independent audits, by committee hearings, by advocacy groups, and, of course, as we would expect, by families of fallen officers who wonder what is going on at the Department of Justice. So I thank Senator Gillibrand for working with me to develop this commonsense legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand with us in support of these officers and their families and help us get this bill done as our way of saying thank you to these men and women, particularly as we honor them in this particular season we call National Police Week.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for working together on this very important issue to get justice for some of our police officers and their families who have been burdened by too much redtape. She and I have worked together on so many things, and I appreciate this one as well. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating this week as National Police Week. As part of that tradition, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers have gathered in our Nation's Capital to honor those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to the service of this Nation. I rise to join these officers in thanking the men and women who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities. We must never take their sacrifice for granted, and we need to appreciate that their surviving families have suffered real loss. In recognition of this truth, Congress passed the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act in 1976. The goal of the law was to provide death benefits to survivors of officers who die in the line of duty. Over the years, the law has been amended to provide disability and education benefits and to expand the pool of officers who are eligible for these benefits. Looking at the 40-year history of this law, the overall intent of Congress is very clear: Families of fallen officers deserve a fair and timely consideration of their application for these benefits, and the word ``timely'' is what isn't being carried out right now. If we were in these officers' shoes, we would like to see an answer-- either yes or no--not years of limbo and lingering uncertainty. Unfortunately, that is precisely what too many families have had to endure since at least 2003, all because bureaucrats in the Justice Department failed to do their job and do it on time. Three weeks ago, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing to examine this problem on the lack of timeliness. What we found was troubling. The Justice Department has a goal of processing these claims within 1 year of filing. However, according to the most recent data, the Justice Department is failing to meet its own 1-year deadline in 61 percent of the 693 pending death benefit claims. Those are 423 families who have been waiting for more than 1 year. That rate is unacceptable for a program designed to support families of fallen officers. Somehow, the delays have gone from bad to worse. The failure rate was 27 percent for claims that were filed between 2008 and 2013. So it is very difficult to understand how that could happen. For 13 years and counting, since 2003, the delays have persisted despite a 2004 Attorney General memorandum, despite a 2007 Judiciary Committee hearing, and despite three independent audits recommending corrective action. Not surprisingly, there have been periodic improvements in timeliness whenever Congress or watchdogs shine light into these delays. However, these improvements have been very short-lived. For example, in 2007, the Justice Department more than doubled its monthly rate of processing claims in the first 2 months following a Judiciary Committee hearing. However, in the ensuing 5 years, the inspector general found not only significant delays but also a serious lack of documentation and data. I began looking into this program last January after constituents informed me that families in Iowa waited more than 3 years to get a decision, but the Justice Department's response to my oversight letters confirmed that these delays persist on a nationwide scale. For instance, there are currently 175 pending death and disability claims that were filed on behalf of officers who lost their lives as a result of their September 11 response efforts. That is why I have written six letters to the Justice Department in the last 1\1/2\ years asking for status updates on all pending claims. Initially, after I sent my first letters, the number of pending claims went down at a steady pace. However, more recently the Justice Department has simply failed to respond to my letters. At last month's Judiciary Committee hearing, a claimant from my State of Iowa testified about having waited 3\1/2\ years without an answer from the Justice Department, but just 2 days after that hearing, that claimant got a phone call from the Department saying the claim had been approved. What was the Justice Department doing for the past 3\1/2\ years on that claim? And what about the 692 other families who are waiting for a decision? Families of fallen officers and advocacy groups agree, transparency leads to accountability, and the Justice Department should be held accountable for its handling of these claims. So based on this 13-year record, I have concluded that the best way to ensure timeliness in these claims is to permanently increase the level of transparency surrounding this program. Today the Senator from New York, just speaking, and I are introducing a bill that would do just that. It is called the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act. This bill would require the Justice Department to post on its Web site weekly status updates for all pending claims. This way the public can evaluate how well the Department is performing under its goal of processing claims within the 1-year filing deadline they have. The Justice Department is already posting weekly statistics with respect to the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund, which is a similar program. So the Department should be able to do the same with respect to pending public safety officers' benefits claims by posting weekly statistics. In addition, our bill would require the Justice Department to report to Congress other aggregate statistics regarding these claims at least twice a year, and the bill would make it easier for the Justice Department to process these claims in other ways; for example, by allowing the Department to rely on other Federal regulatory standards and to give substantial weight to findings of fact of State, local, and other Federal agencies. In short, this is a simple bipartisan bill with narrowly tailored provisions. Each provision is targeted to specific problems that have been identified over the past 13 years by independent audits, by committee hearings, by advocacy groups, and, of course, as we would expect, by families of fallen officers who wonder what is going on at the Department of Justice. So I thank Senator Gillibrand for working with me to develop this commonsense legislation. I urge my colleagues to stand with us in support of these officers and their families and help us get this bill done as our way of saying thank you to these men and women, particularly as we honor them in this particular season we call National Police Week.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, we are not talking about convicted felons here, like the first thing the Senator from Illinois started to say. What we are trying to do is protect the constitutional rights of veterans, Second Amendment rights, and we are preventing the government from spending money to violate the constitutional rights. As I just made clear, the main purpose of the VA regulation is to appoint a fiduciary, not to regulate firearms, but it has the effect of regulating firearms. This standard has been in place since the 1970s. It has nothing to do with regulating firearms. Don't you think that since the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right in 2010, there ought to be an update of this system? Indeed, Federal law made clear that the regulations prescribed by the VA Secretary are limited to ``the nature and extent of proof and evidence and the method of taking and furnishing them in order to establish the right to benefits under such laws,'' 38 USC 501. Again, that provides no authority to regulate firearms, but it has that impact. Just like the Senator from Illinois, I don't want dangerous persons to have firearms, but the government must first prove a person is a danger before taking away their constitutional rights. I am somewhat disappointed that Members on the other side of the aisle would object to even considering an amendment that simply protects veterans from having a fundamental, constitutional right taken away and doing it without due process. When we were in the minority, we were accused of being obstructionist because we wouldn't go along with the then-majority leader's efforts to block Senators of both parties from offering amendments. Now that we are in a majority, Senator McConnell has tried to restore the tradition of having amendments considered from both sides of the aisle. Yet we have these old tricks--still refusing to vote on amendments that show the American people whose side they are on. I think this is an opportunity to show you are on the side of the veterans--veterans who probably handled guns in Iraq and Afghanistan not being able to do that here. I don't understand what is so tough about voting on whether veterans' constitutional rights should be protected. It should be clear to anyone paying attention who is obstructing. They tried to destroy the Senate as a deliberative body when they were in the majority. Now they are obstructing a vote on protecting the fundamental constitutional rights of those who have put their lives on the line for our country. Shame on you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak about an amendment that I am going to propose right away. It is about fidelity to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--specifically, fidelity to the Second Amendment as it involves the Department of Veterans Affairs. There appears to be a troubling trend within the VA. As of December 2015, almost 99 percent of the names listed on the ``mental defective'' category for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, otherwise known as the national gun-ban list, are from the Veterans Administration. Once a person's name is on that list, they are banned from owning or possessing a firearm. Their Second Amendment rights are completely null and void. Now, why is this happening? Once the VA determines that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments, the VA reports that veteran to the gun-ban list, resulting in a total denial of a veteran's right to possess and own firearms. In other words, their Second Amendment rights are being denied. The VA has attempted to justify its actions by relying on regulations that grant limited authority to determine incompetence only in the context of financial affairs. So I quote: ``Rating agencies have sole authority to make official determinations of competency and incompetency for the purpose of insurance and disbursement of benefits.'' It is clear, therefore, that the VA's core regulatory authority applies to matters of competency for financial purposes. Importantly, this financial fiduciary standard has been employed since way back in the 1970s. It has nothing to do with regulating firearms. Yet that is exactly what is happening. Firearms are being regulated. Federal law requires that before a person is reported to a gun-ban list, they be determined a ``mental defective.'' The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives created a regulation to define what ``mental defective'' means. It includes, among other requirements, that a person is a danger to self or others. Granted, the VA regulation at issue and the ATF regulation do share some of the same language. But the intent and the purpose are totally different. On the one hand, the VA regulation is designed to appoint a fiduciary. On the other hand, the ATF regulation is designed to regulate firearms. Now, this is a huge distinction. The level of mental impairment that justifies taking away the right to possess and own firearms must rest at a severe and substantial level--a level where the mere possession of a firearm constitutes a danger to self or others. That decision is never made by the VA, or the Veterans Administration, before submitting names to the gun-ban list. As such, imposing a gun ban is a harsh result that could sweep up veterans that are fully capable of appropriately operating a firearm for self-defense purposes. So how does this work, then, in practice? The Daily Caller interviewed a veteran who had been a victim of this VA process for an April 21, 2015, article. The veteran reportedly told a VA counselor, who asked about how he handles his finances, that on the mere suggestion of his wife, he now uses auto debit for bills so he doesn't have to go to the post office. The VA doctor put down that he doesn't pay his own bills, and his wife handles his finances. The next thing he knew was that his wife was appointed as his fiduciary and his name was placed on the gun-ban list. Whether or not he handles his own finances, what does that have to do with talking away a veteran's right to self-defense? After all, this is the core purpose of the Second Amendment--self-defense. Self-defense is a natural right of all individuals. It is a God-given right. It is a right that existed before the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were ever drafted. It is a sacred right. The Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right. So, when the Federal Government erases that right for any given individual, it better then have compelling justification to do so. Assigning a fiduciary is not a compelling justification. That is especially so when the VA does not even determine whether veterans are a danger to themselves or others before reporting the names to that gun-ban list. Further, the VA fails to offer adequate constitutional due process protections. The standard of review--clear and convincing evidence--is particularly low in light of the fact that a constitutional right is involved. Hearsay is allowed in the hearing process, and the burden of proof is on the veteran to show that they are competent to manage their finances. In essence, it is the veteran who has the burden of proof of showing that they should maintain their Second Amendment rights, although, again, that is not even the purpose of the hearing. That cannot stand. When constitutional issues are at stake, the burden ought to be on the government. Finally, the hearing that does take place is before VA employees, not a neutral arbiter. With these significant flaws, it is clear that the VA regulatory scheme is inherently suspect. Importantly, these VA regulations have been in place since the 1970s, well before even the existence of a gun-ban list. The Supreme Court held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right in 2010. Associate Justice Alito, who wrote the opinion of the Court, stated: ``It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.'' It cannot be said that the VA's regulatory scheme adequately protects the liberty interests of the veteran--quite the contrary. The VA regulatory scheme is an example of the Federal Government once again going too far. As government expands, liberty contracts. There are just too many flaws in the VA's regulatory scheme that result in a failure at ensuring constitutional demands are met. There has been no update to the VA's protocols since the Supreme Court's decision in 2010. During the course of my oversight of this issue, not even the Department of Justice can adequately explain why there has been no substantive update to the gun-reporting system. That is why I have introduced this amendment. My amendment is simple. It is straightforward. It makes perfect constitutional sense. It simply requires that before the VA reports names to the Department of Justice for eventual placement on the gun- ban list, the Veterans Administration must first find that a veteran is a danger to himself, herself, or others, and that finding must be done via judicial order. These requirements do three important things: First, it makes the ``danger to self or others'' standard applicable to the VA. We all agree, don't we, that dangerous persons must not own or possess firearms. Second, it shifts the burden of proof from the veteran and onto the government, where it ought to be. Third, it fixes the conditional due process issues by moving the hearing from the VA to the judicial system. Like I said, these are commonsense constitutional fixes, but, more importantly, it is what our Nation's veterans deserve. Our veteran population is sacred. They deserve the thanks of a grateful Nation, not the iron fist of an out-of-control Federal Government. Most importantly, the government must not unfairly target our veteran population simply because some may have challenges after returning home from war, like maybe having someone handle their finances. The fact that almost 99 percent of the names in the gun-ban list of the category that we call ``mental defective'' are from the VA raises suspicion that our government is unfairly targeting veterans. That is why the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars have expressed strong support for my amendment. There is nothing more offensive to the principles of liberty than when the government takes away a person's constitutional rights when it has no right to take away those constitutional rights. Moreover, I have heard from Iowa veterans that some veterans are even reluctant to seek care from the VA for fear of losing their Second Amendment rights. It is outrageous, then, that veterans are afraid to seek the care they have actually earned by being in service to their country because the VA might deprive them of a constitutionally protected right without due process. This must stop. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Support it on constitutional grounds, support it on fairness grounds, and support it for the sake of veterans who may be wrongly targeted. To all of our Nation's veterans, I say: God bless you, and thank you for your service to our great country. You deserve better than to have your rights violated by the very agency that is supposed to fulfill our Nation's commitment to you. I urge my colleagues to join me in making this very bad situation right--constitutionally right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a May 16, 2016, letter from the VFW supporting this approach. I repeat for my colleagues that the American Legion supports it, but they couldn't get a letter to us.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3925.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would just say a simple thing. I have already said we don't want dangerous people to have guns. But the point is that the VA is not identifying the people who might be a danger to themselves or a danger to society. As the Senator from Illinois says, they are simply doing it because ``You can't handle your own finances.'' That is where their constitutional rights are being denied. Their constitutional rights are being denied by a VA employee--maybe somebody who doesn't know anything about mental health--and that is wrong. That is what we are trying to prevent. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.