Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Today the Senate will vote on the nomination of Paula Xinis to be a judge for the District of Maryland. I will support that nomination. Mr. President, I come to the floor at this time to also talk about judges generally. I have been hearing the usual complaints from Members of the minority party regarding the pace of judicial nominations. I would urge my colleagues to step back and look at the bigger picture. The relevant number to consider is the number of confirmations during an entire Presidency. At this point in his Presidency, President George W. Bush had 303 judicial nominees confirmed. After tonight's vote, so far in his Presidency, President Obama will have 325 confirmed. Those are 22 more nominees than Bush had. So as we continue to hear complaints about how many judges are being confirmed, we should put these complaints in context. The simple fact is, President Obama has had quite a few more nominees confirmed than President Bush did. Further, I would note that as chairman, after this Wednesday, I will have held hearings for the same number of nominees this Congress has had as the last chairman of the committee did to this point during the last 2 years of President Bush's Presidency. At this point in the 2008 Congress--that would be the 110th Congress--the former chairman held hearings on 43 nominees. At the end of May of this year, we will have held hearings on 43 nominees thus far in the 114th Congress. I yield back all remaining time.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a newspaper article at the conclusion of my remarks. Income inequality has been a hot topic this campaign season. It has become the rallying cry of the left to support their economic agenda. Whether it is taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, combating global warming, or any other number of policies. If you listen to Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders on the campaign trail, you would get the impression that income inequality is the fault of Republicans. They contend that their preferred policies will close the gap between the rich and the poor. However, the inconvenient fact is that inequality rose considerably more under President Clinton than it did under President Reagan. Further, it has increased more under President Obama than it did under President Bush. For any of my colleagues wondering how this could be the case, I would encourage them to read Lawrence Lindsey's op-ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal in March. Mr. Lindsey's article title ``How Progressives Drive Income Inequality'' details how liberal policies have not only failed to reduce income inequality, but may in fact be contributing to it. For instance, my colleagues on the left all too frequently look to ever richer and more expansive transfer payment programs as the solution. However, too often our existing transfer programs meant to help the less fortunate act as an anchor preventing Americans from climbing up the income ladder. This risks creating a permanent underclass of citizens that are dependent on the state for their basic needs. That may be the dream of European- style Social Democrats, but it is most certainly not the American Dream. The Congressional Budget Office looks at this effect in terms of marginal effective tax rates on low and moderate income workers. This refers to how much extra tax or reduction in government benefits is imposed on an--American worker when he or she earns an additional dollar of income. CBO estimates that in 2016 those under 450% of the federal poverty level will face an average effective tax rate of about 41%. Keep in mind that this is just the average. CBO demonstrates how a substantial number of workers could experience marginal effective rates exceeding 50, 60, or even 80%, which is far higher than the top statutory rate of 39.6% paid by the wealthiest Americans. The end result is a worker facing these rates may just decide it doesn't make much sense to take on extra hours or put in the effort to learn extra skills to increase their earnings potential. Historically, this has impacted married women in the workforce most of all as they are more likely than men to drop out of the workforce completely as a result. Discouraging individuals from entering the labor force, taking on more work hours, gaining extra experience, or learning new skills, is a recipe for stagnate incomes and increased income disparity. But, far from seeking to address these work disincentive effects, President Obama has made it worse for millions of workers. Take the premium tax credit enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act for instance. CBO estimates it will raise marginal tax rates by an estimated 12 percentage points for recipients. Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders also have provided no indication they would reverse this trend. In fact, they appear to only be interested in exacerbating this problem through richer transfer programs, increased costs on employers, and increased payroll taxes. The scapegoat of the income inequality debate on the left has, of course, been the much-hyped top 1 percent. Here we are told that if we just tax the rich, we can solve all of our problems and address income inequality in one fell swoop. But, if increased taxes on the wealthy is a solution to income inequality, why--as I pointed out at the start of this speech--did income inequality grow faster under President Clinton than under President Reagan? And why has income inequality grown faster under President Obama than under President Bush? The fact of the matter is that taxing the wealthy to reduce income inequality at best is a fool's errand and at worst could be a blow to our economy--potentially harming individuals at all income levels. A recent research paper by the liberal Brookings Institution looked directly into the question of whether substantially increasing taxes on the wealthy would reduce income inequality. To quote their findings, ``An increase in the top tax rate leads to an almost imperceptible reduction in overall income inequality, even if the additional revenue is explicitly redistributed.'' Raising taxes might be successful at generating revenue to fund greater wealth transfer payments. But it does nothing to rectify the ``opportunity gap.'' Soak the rich policies do not create greater opportunity for low- income individuals. In fact, wealth transfer policies often have the perverse effect of trapping their intended beneficiaries in soul- crushing government dependency. Moreover, because of their negative effects on economic growth and capital formation, they can reduce opportunity for all Americans. You do not have to take my word for the anti-growth effects of increasing taxes. Research by Christina Romer, President Obama's former chief economist, found that a tax increase of 1% of GDP reduces economic growth by as much as 3%. According to this study, tax increases have such a substantial effect on economic growth because of the ``powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment.'' In effect, what those who pursue wealth-destroying redistributionist policies are really saying--to quote Margaret Thatcher--is that they ``would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich.'' That may result in less differences in wealth between Americans, but the expense of making us all worse off. Our goal must be to create wealth and opportunity for ALL Americans. We should reject the notion that in order to improve the lot of one individual, someone else must be made worse off. The leadership of other side has become fixated on redistributing the existing economic pie. The better policy is to increase the size of the pie. When this occurs, no one is made better off at the expense of anyone else. This is best achieved through pro-growth policies aimed at growing the economic pie, not by taking from some and giving to others. Instead of seeking to reduce inequality by knocking the top down a few pegs on the income ladder, policies should be focused on helping individuals climb upwards by tearing down barriers that stand in their way. We all agree with the need for a sound safety net to protect the most vulnerable among us. But when that safety net begins to act like an anchor holding people back, we need to be brave enough to chart a new course. This is what we sought to do with welfare reforms in 1994 through work requirements and incentives. It is once again time for us to review and reform programs so as to minimize as much as possible the current built-in work disincentives from transfer programs that I discussed earlier. Another often overlooked issue is the burden overregulation imposes on low-income individuals. Dr. McLaughlin of the Mercatus Center in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing earlier this year discussed two negative impacts regulation can have on low-income households. First, while it is well recognized that regulations can increase transaction costs for businesses, it is equally true that consumers feel the costs in the form of higher prices. Since low-income households tend to spend, rather than save, a much larger share of their income, they are the ones hit hardest by the regulatory costs. In this regard, regulation acts much like a regressive tax on the consumption of those that are the least well off. A second point made by Dr. McLaughlin is that regulations can often create a barrier to entry. Setting out on one's own to start a business is as American as apple pie. It is an avenue that Americans throughout history have taken to climb from the poor house to the penthouse. But, the cost imposed by entry regulations can too often stand in the way. This directly limits opportunities of lower-income individuals who are the least likely to be able to cut through the red tape and have money on hand to afford the associated costs. Research by Dr. McLaughlin directly links entry regulations with income inequality. His study looked at the relationship between regulation and income inequality across 175 countries and found that stringent entry regulations are correlated with significantly higher levels of income inequality. On the campaign trail we have heard Senator Sanders sing the virtues of Denmark in his crusade against inequality. Interestingly enough, Denmark scores very well in the World Bank's ``ease of doing business'' ranking, which looks at the cost, time, and overall red tape in starting and running a business. In fact, Denmark is ranked third, while the U.S. lags behind in seventh and has been consistently falling backwards since 2008. While Senator Sanders points to Denmark as a model for the U.S. due to its tax and social welfare policies, it is Denmark's regulatory efficiency that deserves our attention. In addition to reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers and built-in work disincentives, there is no question we need to do a better job ensuring individuals have the skills necessary to compete in the 21 century economy. There has been considerable research demonstrating that the widening wage gap between skilled and unskilled labor has contributed to the growth in income inequality. I consistently hear from employers in Iowa who cannot find enough skilled workers to fill well-paying jobs. If we are to reduce income inequality, we must first reduce opportunity inequality. We have an excellent system of community colleges in Iowa that train Iowans for jobs that are available in Iowa, but those who are chronically unemployed tend to lack the so-called ``soft skills'' that are necessary to hold down a job. In order to eliminate opportunity inequality, we must get back to the notion of the inherent dignity of work and ensure that hard work pays off. These are just a few areas we should be able to work together on to increase opportunities for those least well off among us. Increasing opportunity should be our focus, not pitting American against American based on their socioeconomic status. If we make increased opportunity our focus, no one is required to be made worse off to benefit someone else. In fact, by tearing down barriers standing in the way of hardworking Americans, all Americans will benefit from higher productivity, higher wages, and higher economic growth. My colleagues on the other side who are truly interested in reducing poverty and inequality should abandon their divisive politics of envy and class warfare Instead, work with Republicans on an agenda focused on economic growth and opportunity to benefit ALL Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will be submitting a bipartisan resolution to commemorate National Police Week, which this year began on Sunday, May 15, and ends on Saturday, May 21. Senator Leahy and 52 others have joined me as original cosponsors of the measure. The theme of this year's Police Week is ``Honoring Our Heroes.'' National Police Week is dedicated to the brave men and women in blue who selflessly protect and serve our communities every hour of every day of every week and in every community across the United States. The week affords an opportunity to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while striving to make our neighborhoods safer and more secure. Multiple events have taken place in Washington, DC over the past week to not only remember those officers who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty but also to honor outstanding acts of valor and service by many others. Tens of thousands of police officers as well as their friends and family members have gathered in our nation's capital for these events, which included the Annual Blue Mass, a Candlelight Vigil and a Police Unity Tour Arrival Ceremony, among others. Yesterday was National Peace Officers Memorial Day and thousands gathered on the West Front of the Capitol for the 35th Annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service. This solemn service offered an opportunity for all of us to pay our respects to fallen officers and the families, communities, and law enforcement agencies that have been permanently altered because they paid the ultimate sacrifice. We owe these brave men and women our utmost respect and gratitude as we honor their noble profession this week. Each of the officers killed in the line of duty this year started their shift with the same goals: do some good, backup my fellow officers, and return home safely. Some of these officers had dedicated decades of their lives to protecting their communities. One of these officers was murdered mere hours after being sworn to her oath of service. At the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, the names of some 200 Iowans are inscribed amongst their law enforcement family. Carved into the Memorial's walls are the names of more than 20,000 men and women who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history. Each are unique in their own personal stories but they are uniform in their fidelity to truth and justice. The individuals are heroes, not because of the manner in which they died but because time and again they answered a call to do right, impervious to the constant lurking of danger. Regrettably, 123 new names of officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 will be added to the rolls this week and we know that they will not be the last. Mr. President, the men and women of law enforcement make sacrifices both big and small, frequently missing family celebrations and holidays because they believe in serving something greater than themselves. The work of law enforcement is not a job, it is a calling. That calling and those officers' devotion to duty merits our admiration and we are deeply indebted to them. I call on all Americans this week to pause and contemplate the safety and security they enjoy. We all must recognize that such peace is the result of sacrifices made by the brave men and women of law enforcement. I also want to take this opportunity to urge my colleagues to support this year's resolution designating National Police Week.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this Saturday, April 30, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, is coordinating the latest National Prescription Drug Take Back Day. Take back days are nationwide efforts to remove old or unused prescription drugs from medicine cabinets so they don't fall into the wrong hands and lead to substance abuse and addiction. I am proud to have helped encourage take back days a few years ago by working with Senators Klobuchar, Cornyn, and Brown to pass the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health care providers wrote almost a quarter of a billion opioid prescriptions in 2013, enough for every American adult to have his or her own bottle of pills. The accumulation of these medicines in our homes creates a public health risk, since they can be accidentally ingested, abused, stolen, and passed on to others. According to the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 6.5 million Americans abused controlled prescription drugs that year. According to that same study, a majority of abused prescription drugs are obtained from family and friends, including from the home medicine cabinet. Obviously, the consequences of this prescription drug abuse can be dangerous and even deadly. Prescription drug abuse may lead to abuse of other drugs like heroin, which is cheaper and more readily available. In 2014, more than 47,000 drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States, an alltime high. Incredibly, more than half of those deaths involved prescription opioids or heroin. So raising public awareness about the dangers of abuse and reducing the availability of unused medications are important components of preventing prescription drug abuse and addiction. The take back day initiative is a great way to make progress on both fronts. Beginning in September 2010, the DEA has coordinated these days twice a year, with fantastic results. At the most recent event last September, Americans turned in 350 tons of prescription drugs at more than 5,000 sites operated by the DEA and more than 3,800 of its State and local law enforcement partners. Overall, in its 10 previous take back events, DEA and its partners have taken in more than 2,750 tons of pills. It is not an exaggeration to say that take back events have probably saved lives. Now, for some unexplained reason, the Obama administration decided to discontinue this program a few years ago, but in May 2015, I was a member of a bipartisan group of Senators that wrote to the Department of Justice, urging that it be reinstated. A few months later, DEA Acting Administrator Rosenberg did so. I am grateful for that decision. In fact, I support expanding take back opportunities, by creating additional permanent, convenient disposal sites for the public. Expansion of the program along these lines is explicitly authorized in the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, a bill I guided through the Judiciary Committee in February. It subsequently passed the Senate by a vote of 94-1. So I urge everyone in Iowa and across the country to check your homes for unneeded or expired medicines. If you find any, please take part in this year's National Prescription Drug Take Back Day on Saturday. Participating locations typically include neighborhood pharmacies and local fire and police departments. You can locate a specific collection site near you on the DEA's website. This is one small way we can each do our part to reduce the risk of drug abuse and addiction for our families and communities.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing The Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2016. I am pleased to have Senator Leahy as a cosponsor. This bill would reauthorize the sound recording and film preservation programs of the Library of Congress through fiscal year 2026. The current authorization sunsets in September 2016. In addition to reauthorizing the programs, the bill would increase the National Recording Preservation Foundation's number of board members and place a cap on Federal matching funds similar to what is currently required of the National Film Preservation Foundation. Congress created the National Film Preservation Board in 1988 and the National Film Preservation Foundation in 1996 to help save historically significant American films for the benefit of the public. In 2000, Congress created the National Recording Preservation Board and the National Recording Preservation Foundation to help save historically important American sound recordings. The two boards advise the Librarian of Congress on national preservation planning policy, helping the Library develop and disseminate preservation and production standards for at-risk works. In addition, the Film Board selects films of importance to cinema and America's cultural and artistic history for the National Film Registry, while the Recording Board selects sound recordings which have been recognized for their cultural, artistic and/or historical significance to American society and the Nation's audio legacy for the National Recording Registry. The two foundations are the private sector charitable affiliates of the Boards. They raise funds and distribute them to archives throughout the U.S. The Library's Federal match is used for small grants to archives, educational institutions, museums and local historical societies with small film and sound recording collections in need of preservation. A requirement of the grants is that recipients make these works available to researchers, educators and the general public. These programs have allowed the Library of Congress, in collaboration with a wide range of industry organizations, no-profit libraries and archives, preservation organizations, artist guilds, educators and academics, to collect and preserve at-risk films and recordings all over the country. My State of Iowa has benefitted directly from these programs. For example, the National Film Preservation Foundation has provided grants to preserve films held in Iowa institutions, including Coe College, Council Bluffs Public Library, Davenport Public Library, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library-Museum, Iowa State University American Archives of the Factual Film, and the University of Iowa. In addition, a number of Iowa-related items are preserved in the Library of Congress Packard Campus audio-visual collection, including copies of Iowa Public Radio and Public Television items from the American Archive of Public Broadcasting. Iowa constituents have contacted my office about their support for the reauthorization of these programs. For example, I heard from Ben Johnson, Support Service Librarian at the Council Bluffs Public Library, Jill Jack, Director of Library Services, College Archivist and Associate Professor at Coe College, Tanya Zanish-Belcher, Director of Special Collection & Archives at Wake Forest University, and David McCartney, University Archivist at the University of Iowa, about the value of these programs to local libraries and historical societies, and how their organizations were in the possession of materials that were able to be saved with the help of these programs. According to Mr. Johnson, the Council Bluffs Public Library received a grant to preserve a 1930s silent film entitled Man Power, which had been created ``to boost the local economy by luring businesses to Council Bluffs. This historic film sat in our archives for over 80 years, unwatched and deteriorating over time. With the help of the [National Film Preservation Fund], we were able to preserve and digitize this wonderful time capsule of our local history. Thanks to the [National Film Preservation Foundation], this lost piece of history has been viewed hundreds of times and is now safe from decay and available for the public.'' Mr. Johnson wrote, ``Did you know Council Bluffs Iowa had the first electric Streetcar system in the country? As a result of this grant we were able to see, for the first time, real, moving images of Council Bluffs from back when it was a major rail hub. I have no doubt that without support from the [National Film Preservation Foundation], vital pieces of local history would be lost forever.'' Ms. Jack wrote, ``Coe College received grants to preserve two films that depict campus life in the 1930s and 1960s. Once these historically rich films were preserved more than 170 people attended a screening of the films. Thanks to that event, the college was able to raise funds from alumni to preserve a third campus film from 1972. The public funding from the [National Film Preservation Foundation] helped us not only share our history with the public but also generated financial support from the community. Since posting the films on our website students, faculty and the public have viewed the films using them in academic and public history research.'' According to a statement from Ms. Zanish-Belcher, who managed the National Film Preservation Foundation film grant when she was Head of the Special Collections Department at Iowa State University, ``[t]hanks to the National Film Preservation Foundation, NFPF, Iowa State University was able to preserve and make accessible an important group of films documenting the Rath Packing Company of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. As the Head of the Special Collections Department at Iowa State at the time, I oversaw the preservation of these fragile nitrate films from the 1930s. Without support from the NFPF, these important visual documents of Iowa History would have been lost. The NFPF continues to help regional archives throughout the country, helping to save more than 2,230 films and collections in all 50 states. While most film preservation efforts focus on the Hollywood product, the NFPF is the only agency devoted to helping organizations like Iowa State University preserve films in their collections that would otherwise deteriorate and go unseen. These films provide important historical documentation depicting local and regional business, groups, and organizations of interest to both Iowa constituents and U.S. citizens.'' According to a letter from Mr. McCartney, the University of Iowa received funds to preserve a number of films significant to Iowa history, including ``a set of student-produced dance films (1939) believed to be the oldest thesis films of their type in the nation. Another noteworthy project is Iowa State's Rath Packing Company Collection (ca. 1933), a group of depression era films documenting the largest meatpacking company in the country. The films show the Rath test kitchen, packing plant operations, and advertising efforts. Thanks to a [National Film Preservation Foundation] grant, this collection is now available for scholars and historians.'' I appreciate the fact that these Library of Congress programs have placed a special emphasis on assisting small and local projects that would otherwise have been lost or overlooked. Local libraries and historical societies have been helped by the National Film Preservation Foundation to rescue films that, according to Mr. Johnson, Ms. Jack and Mr. McCartney, ``aren't Hollywood features but regional films and newsreels that document our history and culture.'' According to Ms. Jack, ``we and other Iowa organizations have hundreds of other culturally and historically significant films that need preservation work to survive. These document the history of our state [of Iowa] from its earliest years to present time.'' So the biggest value that I see of these programs is that they boost smaller archives with few resources to protect their collections, and they provide smaller organizations with a path to learn about film preservation and successful production standards. These programs are an invaluable partner to these small and local organizations in their efforts to save America's moving picture and sound recording heritage. It is important to foster an environment that encourages the preservation of our nation's cultural resources, and films and music are a big part of the American experience. As such, vulnerable motion pictures and sound recordings of historic and cultural significance should be protected from disintegration and decay. I understand that many of these works already have been lost and that others are deteriorating rapidly. I am a history buff, so I am inspired when I see works that depict our American heritage--and especially life in Iowa and rural America--saved for future generations. We need to safeguard these precious items so they are not lost and so that generations of Americans to come can appreciate and learn about their historical and creative roots in both film and sound recordings. Many of these works are unique and rare, so I am pleased to support the Library of Congress programs and their effort to assist organizations all across the 50 States to preserve these treasures for students, researchers and the general public. I look forward to swift action on this bill so that it can be enacted before these programs sunset at the end of September. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I submitted a bipartisan resolution recognizing that April is Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. Senators Leahy, Ayotte, Casey, Ernst, and Gillibrand have joined as cosponsors of the resolution, and I thank them for their support. Our purpose in introducing the resolution is to bring greater awareness to the problem of sexual assault and publicly acknowledge the survivors. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, someone is sexually assaulted every two minutes, on average, in the United States. Sexual assault can take many forms, including rape, commercial sex trafficking, child sexual abuse, and stalking. Rape, which is the second most violent crime in the United States-- second only to murder, according to the FBI--can happen to anyone. According to the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the consequences of rape can be profound for its victims, and may include post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or even suicide. In communities across the United States, Americans have commemorated the month of April with activities designed to support survivors of sexual violence in their efforts to heal. Before the month comes to a close, it is important that Congress also express its support for the goals and ideals of Sexual Assault Awareness Month. I would also like to take a moment to mention several other bipartisan, anti-sexual assault measures that I have championed during the month of April, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these initiatives too. First, just last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I serve as chairman, cleared legislation that's designed to help sexual assault victims secure justice. I incorporated this language into the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, a measure I introduced earlier this year at the urging of a young woman who survived a sexual assault and founded an organization, RISE, that's dedicated to helping other survivors. The measure reported by our committee by voice vote on April 20th would amend the federal crime victims' statute to add a number of new rights specific to sexual assault survivors. If it's enacted, victims of federal crimes of sexual violence would have the right not to be prevented from, or charged for, receiving a medical forensic exam. They would have the right to have a sexual assault evidence collection kit preserved, without charge, until the statutory limitations period for prosecuting the crime has expired or ten years has elapsed. They would have the right to be informed of the results when their forensic evidence is analyzed. And they would have the right to written notice of policies governing their evidence kit's collection and preservation, as well as the right to notice if that evidence is about to be discarded. The latest version of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization also would make Justice Department grants available to entities that notify sexual violence victims of any applicable rights under state law. Finally, this legislation would extend the statutory period in which child survivors of human trafficking and child sexual abuse offenses can file suit against the perpetrators. The bill has been endorsed not only by RISE but also by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, and the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. Senators Schumer, Hatch, Feinstein, Leahy, Shaheen, Coons, Durbin, and Klobuchar have joined as cosponsors. Also last week, I joined Senator Gillibrand in calling on President Obama to take additional steps to investigate military sexual assault. We contacted the President to voice our concerns shortly after an organization known as Protect Our Defenders released a report questioning the accuracy of congressional testimony by a Pentagon official during a hearing on sexual assault in the military. Last but not least, due to my concerns about campus sexual assault, I am an original cosponsor of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act. I joined Senators Heller, McCaskill, Gillibrand, Ayotte, and others in introducing this bill last year. It would make additional support services available to student survivors of campus rape, require training standards and uniform discipline procedures for campus officials, and add transparency requirements for the Nation's universities. Earlier this week, the cosponsors of this measure came together to publicly call for prompt action on this legislation. Mr. President, I will close by urging my colleagues to support adoptoin of the resolution we have submitted today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing The Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2016. I am pleased to have Senator Leahy as a cosponsor. This bill would reauthorize the sound recording and film preservation programs of the Library of Congress through fiscal year 2026. The current authorization sunsets in September 2016. In addition to reauthorizing the programs, the bill would increase the National Recording Preservation Foundation's number of board members and place a cap on Federal matching funds similar to what is currently required of the National Film Preservation Foundation. Congress created the National Film Preservation Board in 1988 and the National Film Preservation Foundation in 1996 to help save historically significant American films for the benefit of the public. In 2000, Congress created the National Recording Preservation Board and the National Recording Preservation Foundation to help save historically important American sound recordings. The two boards advise the Librarian of Congress on national preservation planning policy, helping the Library develop and disseminate preservation and production standards for at-risk works. In addition, the Film Board selects films of importance to cinema and America's cultural and artistic history for the National Film Registry, while the Recording Board selects sound recordings which have been recognized for their cultural, artistic and/or historical significance to American society and the Nation's audio legacy for the National Recording Registry. The two foundations are the private sector charitable affiliates of the Boards. They raise funds and distribute them to archives throughout the U.S. The Library's Federal match is used for small grants to archives, educational institutions, museums and local historical societies with small film and sound recording collections in need of preservation. A requirement of the grants is that recipients make these works available to researchers, educators and the general public. These programs have allowed the Library of Congress, in collaboration with a wide range of industry organizations, no-profit libraries and archives, preservation organizations, artist guilds, educators and academics, to collect and preserve at-risk films and recordings all over the country. My State of Iowa has benefitted directly from these programs. For example, the National Film Preservation Foundation has provided grants to preserve films held in Iowa institutions, including Coe College, Council Bluffs Public Library, Davenport Public Library, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library-Museum, Iowa State University American Archives of the Factual Film, and the University of Iowa. In addition, a number of Iowa-related items are preserved in the Library of Congress Packard Campus audio-visual collection, including copies of Iowa Public Radio and Public Television items from the American Archive of Public Broadcasting. Iowa constituents have contacted my office about their support for the reauthorization of these programs. For example, I heard from Ben Johnson, Support Service Librarian at the Council Bluffs Public Library, Jill Jack, Director of Library Services, College Archivist and Associate Professor at Coe College, Tanya Zanish-Belcher, Director of Special Collection & Archives at Wake Forest University, and David McCartney, University Archivist at the University of Iowa, about the value of these programs to local libraries and historical societies, and how their organizations were in the possession of materials that were able to be saved with the help of these programs. According to Mr. Johnson, the Council Bluffs Public Library received a grant to preserve a 1930s silent film entitled Man Power, which had been created ``to boost the local economy by luring businesses to Council Bluffs. This historic film sat in our archives for over 80 years, unwatched and deteriorating over time. With the help of the [National Film Preservation Fund], we were able to preserve and digitize this wonderful time capsule of our local history. Thanks to the [National Film Preservation Foundation], this lost piece of history has been viewed hundreds of times and is now safe from decay and available for the public.'' Mr. Johnson wrote, ``Did you know Council Bluffs Iowa had the first electric Streetcar system in the country? As a result of this grant we were able to see, for the first time, real, moving images of Council Bluffs from back when it was a major rail hub. I have no doubt that without support from the [National Film Preservation Foundation], vital pieces of local history would be lost forever.'' Ms. Jack wrote, ``Coe College received grants to preserve two films that depict campus life in the 1930s and 1960s. Once these historically rich films were preserved more than 170 people attended a screening of the films. Thanks to that event, the college was able to raise funds from alumni to preserve a third campus film from 1972. The public funding from the [National Film Preservation Foundation] helped us not only share our history with the public but also generated financial support from the community. Since posting the films on our website students, faculty and the public have viewed the films using them in academic and public history research.'' According to a statement from Ms. Zanish-Belcher, who managed the National Film Preservation Foundation film grant when she was Head of the Special Collections Department at Iowa State University, ``[t]hanks to the National Film Preservation Foundation, NFPF, Iowa State University was able to preserve and make accessible an important group of films documenting the Rath Packing Company of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. As the Head of the Special Collections Department at Iowa State at the time, I oversaw the preservation of these fragile nitrate films from the 1930s. Without support from the NFPF, these important visual documents of Iowa History would have been lost. The NFPF continues to help regional archives throughout the country, helping to save more than 2,230 films and collections in all 50 states. While most film preservation efforts focus on the Hollywood product, the NFPF is the only agency devoted to helping organizations like Iowa State University preserve films in their collections that would otherwise deteriorate and go unseen. These films provide important historical documentation depicting local and regional business, groups, and organizations of interest to both Iowa constituents and U.S. citizens.'' According to a letter from Mr. McCartney, the University of Iowa received funds to preserve a number of films significant to Iowa history, including ``a set of student-produced dance films (1939) believed to be the oldest thesis films of their type in the nation. Another noteworthy project is Iowa State's Rath Packing Company Collection (ca. 1933), a group of depression era films documenting the largest meatpacking company in the country. The films show the Rath test kitchen, packing plant operations, and advertising efforts. Thanks to a [National Film Preservation Foundation] grant, this collection is now available for scholars and historians.'' I appreciate the fact that these Library of Congress programs have placed a special emphasis on assisting small and local projects that would otherwise have been lost or overlooked. Local libraries and historical societies have been helped by the National Film Preservation Foundation to rescue films that, according to Mr. Johnson, Ms. Jack and Mr. McCartney, ``aren't Hollywood features but regional films and newsreels that document our history and culture.'' According to Ms. Jack, ``we and other Iowa organizations have hundreds of other culturally and historically significant films that need preservation work to survive. These document the history of our state [of Iowa] from its earliest years to present time.'' So the biggest value that I see of these programs is that they boost smaller archives with few resources to protect their collections, and they provide smaller organizations with a path to learn about film preservation and successful production standards. These programs are an invaluable partner to these small and local organizations in their efforts to save America's moving picture and sound recording heritage. It is important to foster an environment that encourages the preservation of our nation's cultural resources, and films and music are a big part of the American experience. As such, vulnerable motion pictures and sound recordings of historic and cultural significance should be protected from disintegration and decay. I understand that many of these works already have been lost and that others are deteriorating rapidly. I am a history buff, so I am inspired when I see works that depict our American heritage--and especially life in Iowa and rural America--saved for future generations. We need to safeguard these precious items so they are not lost and so that generations of Americans to come can appreciate and learn about their historical and creative roots in both film and sound recordings. Many of these works are unique and rare, so I am pleased to support the Library of Congress programs and their effort to assist organizations all across the 50 States to preserve these treasures for students, researchers and the general public. I look forward to swift action on this bill so that it can be enacted before these programs sunset at the end of September. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Dr. Ruth Ellen Wasem, a specialist in immigration policy, will be retiring from CRS at the end of this month. Dr. Wasem is a graduate of the University of Michigan, where she received a Ph.D. and M.A. in history. She completed her undergraduate degree at Muskingum College--a private university located in New Concord, OH--where she graduated magna cum laude. Dr. Wasem was raised in Cadiz, OH. Dr. Wasem came to CRS in 1987 as an analyst in social legislation, where she worked on teenage pregnancy, youth policy, homelessness, and immigration policy. She eventually moved full time into immigration policy, where she became a recognized and leading expert in the field. Throughout her time at CRS, Dr. Wasem provided substantial legislative support to Members and congressional staff on various aspects of immigration and social welfare policy. Dr. Wasem's work was used by Congress in hearings, legislative development, markups, and preconference negotiations. Dr. Wasem wrote numerous analytic and concise reports for Congress-- well over 300 during her tenure at CRS. Dr. Wasem also testified before congressional committees numerous times throughout her tenure at CRS, providing testimony on issues ranging from asylum to unauthorized migration to immigration and social policy data. As CRS's immigration team leader, Dr. Wasem served as a mentor to all of the other team members, and she always displayed great generosity and selflessness in devoting time and energy to their professional development. The Congressional Research Service has given Dr. Wasem a number of outstanding commendations and special achievement awards for legislative analysis in the areas of immigration policy, Haitian relief, health care reform, homeland security, temporary foreign workers, and welfare reform. Dr. Wasem recently spent a year as a Kluge Staff Fellow at the Library of Congress where she researched legislative efforts to end national origins and race-based immigrant admissions to the United States, all of which culminated in the Immigration Act of 1965. During her time as a Kluge Fellow, Dr. Wasem was awarded the Abba P. Schwartz Research Fellowship, which is administered by the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, to further her research in this area. During her 29 years at CRS--and her 2 years of previous Federal service--Dr. Wasem won the respect and admiration of her colleagues. Her steadfast dedication to serve Congress and her commitment to the highest standards of analytic, unbiased, and timely response to congressional requests for information and analysis have made a positive and lasting contribution to the congressional policy discourse.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the United States is one of the most dynamic and innovative countries in the world. Our Nation's success in areas such as agriculture, manufacturing, computer technology, and medicine can be traced in large measure to our respect for, and protection of, intellectual property. Every year on this day, April 26, we have the opportunity to recognize the important role of intellectual property rights in the fabric of our society when we celebrate World Intellectual Property Day. Nearly 230 years ago, our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of intellectual property and made provisions for its promotion and protection in the Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 8 empowers Congress ``to promote the Progress of Science and Useful arts, by securing, for limited Times, to Authors and Inventors, the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.'' Since that time--and stemming from these values--intellectual property has played a vital role in our economy, supporting jobs and advancing creative and scientific industries. In our modern, innovation economy, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and other forms of IP are more critical than ever. As the Global Intellectual Property Center recently pointed out in their broad survey of Intellectual Property in America, IP-intensive industries employ over 40 million Americans, accounting for 38 percent of total U.S. gross domestic product. Workers in IP-intensive industries are paid better than the national average, earning an average salary of over $50,000 compared to those in non-IP-intensive sectors where the average is roughly $39,000. In fact, intellectual property is so important to the American economy that the collective worth of all of the intellectual property in the United States is now above $5.8 trillion. In Iowa, we have seen how intellectual property has become an integral part of our economy. Our system of strong intellectual property protection has led to $11.2 billion in annual IP-related exports from the State, a total of 667,557 IP-related jobs, and 19.9 percent higher wages for direct IP workers than non-IP workers. Just as Iowans utilized strong IP laws 75 years ago when they were discovering how to feed the world through cutting-edge science, today's Iowans benefit from our system of IP protection as they start companies and create new tech success stories. The Judiciary Committee plays an important role in protecting intellectual property. The committee exercises jurisdiction over our Nation's intellectual property laws including those governing patents, trademarks, and copyrights. We consider legislation that helps to ensure that intellectual property rights continue to promote jobs and innovation. The committee also exercises important oversight of the Patent and Trademark Office, ICANN, the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, and various law enforcement entities charged with protecting IP. Some recent examples of important legislation that helps promote intellectual property rights are the PATENT Act of 2015 and the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016. The PATENT Act, which passed the committee by a vote of 16 to 4 last June, takes important steps to stop abusive patent litigation practices. As bad actors are exploiting the high costs of litigation and using deceptive tactics to prey on businesses, it is important that this legislation be considered in the Senate. Just 3 weeks ago, the Senate unanimously passed the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, sponsored by Senators Hatch and Coons. Building upon the bipartisan consensus generated in the Judiciary Committee, the bill passed on the Senate floor by a vote of 87 to 0. It is estimated that the American economy loses 2.1 million jobs and over $300 billion in economic losses every year because of trade secret theft. The Defend Trade Secrets Act brings much-needed uniformity to trade secret litigation. This will allow the creators and owners of trade secrets to more effectively address the growing problem of trade secret theft. The House of Representatives is expected to pass our bill this week and I hope it will be immediately signed by the President. Tomorrow, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on counterfeits and their impact on consumer health and safety. We will hear from a panel of experts, including witnesses from the Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and industry. These businesses include companies that provide home health care products and equipment to our troops. They will discuss how counterfeits can harm consumers and what their impact is on the economy. We will hear how law enforcement is addressing this problem as well as how stakeholders are educating consumers to protect themselves from counterfeits. The focus of this year's World Intellectual Property Day is ``digital creativity.'' As the World Intellectual Property Organization notes, the current era of Internet connectivity is transforming how consumable culture such as films, TV, music, books, art, and other cultural works are created and distributed. This has led to radical changes in the way we access content and in how businesses operate. As challenges emerge as to how we protect intellectual property rights in these new economic models, we must continue to search for effective solutions that promote creativity across different mediums. So on this World Intellectual Property Day, it is important to once again recognize the significance of our Nation's robust system of intellectual property protection and enforcement. This system has helped create the United States' enduring role as a leader in innovation and creativity. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to embrace my role as a promoter of intellectual property rights and American jobs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am here to join Senator Merkley in offering amendment No. 3812 regarding funding for wind energy research. This is a straightforward amendment. It simply restores funding for wind energy research to the amount provided for just last year--$95.4 million. The underlying bill provides $80 million, so the Merkley-Grassley amendment will increase funding by just $15.4 million. These additional funds will come from within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, so we can see there is no cost to this amendment from the bottom line of the bill. It does not raise overall spending levels. It simply redirects $15 million from other renewable and efficiency programs to wind energy research. This funding will allow the Department of Energy to continue the advancement of wind technologies and innovations. These advances have greatly increased the competitiveness of wind and facilitated rapid growth in wind energy across the country. In Iowa, wind energy now accounts for more than 30 percent of the State's total electricity supply. Wind supported 88,000 jobs in 2015, an increase of 20 percent from the previous year. Wind was also the No. 1 source of new generating capacity in 2015--greater than natural gas and solar. Some of my colleagues oppose wind energy and Federal policies that support this clean and renewable energy. They argue we shouldn't pick winners or that wind is a mature industry. Don't kid yourself. Wind, while nearly mature, is just an infant compared to the Federal dollars and incentives provided for fossil and nuclear energy. It is quite amusing to me that some of the strongest opponents of wind energy in this body are the biggest proponents of other much more costly programs for mature, traditional energy sources. For example, the 100-year-old oil and gas industry continues to benefit from tax preferences that benefit only their industry that result in the loss of more than $4 billion annually in tax revenue. Nuclear energy is another great example. The first nuclear powerplant came online in the United States in 1958. That was 58 years ago. Nuclear received special tax treatment, including--would you believe it--a production tax credit. Nuclear also benefits from Price-Anderson Federal liability insurance that Congress provided as a temporary measure way back in 1958. This temporary measure--can you believe it-- has been renewed through 2025. Nuclear energy has also received more than $74 billion in Federal research and development dollars since 1950. This bill includes over $1 billion for nuclear research. This is an increase of $71 million, or 7.3 percent, over fiscal year 2016 for wind energy research. We are just asking for the same amount of money appropriated for next year as this year. Fossil energy research and development is another one I can point out, which is allocated $632 million in this bill, equal to the 2016 levels. Even prominent conservative advocacy groups have called for the nuclear and fossil fuel energy funds to be cut or eliminated altogether. Again, this amendment will simply provide level funding for wind energy research by providing an additional $15 million. This is not new money, so there is no score by the CBO. I urge my colleagues to support the Merkley-Grassley amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes on another subject as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I recently gave a speech to the Midwest Political Science Undergraduate Research Conference, which was held at Wartburg College in Waverly, IA. It dealt with the current state of our political discourse and what we should all do as Americans to try and elevate that political discourse. The election-year rhetoric is already heating up in the Senate, so I think it is appropriate to share with the Senate what I told these political science students and their professors. This is an election year, so there is a lot of talk about how Americans have voted and will vote, as well as which Americans will vote and which ones will not vote. There is something that is evident in this election season, and it is also something I have seen increase steadily since I have served in elected office, and that happens to be cynicism. Americans are increasingly cynical about their system of government and those who serve in that government. Candidates of all political stripes are tapping into this cynicism by railing against so- called elites. Sometimes it is the notion of elites within a political party, elites in Washington generally, or elites even in the private sector. Regardless, there is a perception that elites of some kind or another have an undue influence over decisionmaking and ordinary citizens are being ignored. I am not saying that such concerns are all illegitimate, but I think the cynicism is made worse by a lack of understanding when it comes to how our government works and, more importantly, why it works the way it does. It seems to me there has been a decline in interest in teaching American students about our constitutional system and especially the principles on which it was founded. You cannot understand how our government works and how it is supposed to work without understanding the Constitution. I would add that the best guide to the Constitution is the Federalist Papers. You also cannot understand the Constitution without understanding the Declaration of Independence, but you cannot understand the Declaration of Independence without understanding the natural rights philosophy. You also cannot separate the study of history from political science. To understand our current political debate, it is important to understand how we got where we are today. For instance, the debate between anti-Federalists and Federalists sheds a great deal of light on what our founding generation agreed upon and what they disagreed upon. Subsequent events such as the Civil War, the progressive movement, and the civil rights movement all drew upon earlier American political ideas, either borrowing from or rejecting them. Our political discourse today is inevitably influenced by this heritage, but it also seems disconnected from it. From cable news shows to the local diner, people with different views shout past each other without comprehending the opposing arguments. In recent years, there has been a realignment of political parties that follows more closely along philosophical lines. That has led to more party-line votes, but you would think that would make our debate more about principles instead of pure partisanship, but it hasn't. There has been a lot written about how Americans are increasingly sorting themselves into groups--where they live and work with people who think like they do and only consume like-minded media. As a result, when people do encounter a view they don't agree with, there is a tendency to think there must be something wrong with the person who holds that view. Moreover, if a policy you disagree with gets enacted but almost no one you know supports it, naturally you feel there must be something amiss. That leads to anger, resentment, and cynicism, and that makes for fertile ground for demagogues. There are real differences of philosophy reflected in the two major political parties, so I am not arguing there shouldn't be vigorous debate. In fact, the clash of ideas is an essential part of our representative system of government, but you cannot effectively challenge an opponent's philosophy if you don't understand that philosophy, and you cannot understand your opponent's philosophy unless you understand what you believe and why you believe it. That is why it is so important Americans study American history and civics. Thomas Jefferson said: If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed. In an election year, we talk a lot about voting being a civic duty, but that is incomplete. Our civic duty goes well beyond the simple act of voting. We have a responsibility to understand what we believe and why before we go into the voting booth. Representative government doesn't work very well if citizens are only engaged in the month or two before an election. Our system of government relies on an informed and active citizenry. We need more Americans to write their Members of Congress and to ask their positions, attend town meetings, and seek to understand both sides of an issue. Still, we have to come to terms with the fact that we are a closely divided nation. Better understanding of each other's principles will elevate the debate, which is good for representative government, but it will not eliminate and shouldn't eliminate political differences. The next step is to respect other people's right to live according to their principles. I believe that calls for a renewed commitment to federalism. The Father of our Constitution, James Madison, designed a system for what he called an extended republic. The classical understanding of a republic as small, unitary, and homogeneous did not apply to the new United States and it certainly doesn't now. In fact, Madison argued that our large, diverse country could better prevent a majority faction from forming and trampling on the rights of others. However, it also required decentralizing power and allowing different States and communities to do things their own way. Whenever a government takes an action, there will almost certainly be some people unhappy with it. That is why the presumption should be to let individual Americans live their lives as they see fit. When government action is warranted, the decision should be made as close as possible to those it affects. In my view, the extent to which the Federal Government now makes a great many decisions that affect the lives of Americans beyond the limited role envisioned in the Constitution leads to a great deal of unnecessary conflict. Since our government is so closely divided, a great many decisions will upset almost half of the American people. That is not a sustainable situation. So my preferred solution--which, of course, is based upon my political philosophy--is to let States and communities make more of their own decisions when it comes to issues such as health care and education. Of course, others may disagree and do disagree, and we should have that debate, but it should be an honest and respectful debate based upon very basic principles. That was the end of my substantive remarks to those students at Wartburg College. I then commended the students for their interest in exploring political issues. I also said to the students that the fact that they are interested and that they are engaged and many of their peers are not gives these students a very special calling. I ended my speech with a challenge. I said: I would challenge you to continue developing your understanding of your political beliefs and those of others with whom you may disagree and then do your part to elevate the political dialogue. I would issue the same challenge to my colleagues here in the Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to take this time to respond to Senator Reid's juvenile attacks on my Judiciary Committee's investigations and to Senator Reid's frequent crying about my previous State Department holds. Over the past several months, Senator Reid has been obsessed with mentioning holds on nominees--holds which I no longer have. Holds are often necessary to force the executive branch to comply with congressional investigations. If you want proof of that, just ask the Obama administration. In a Federal court filing during the Fast and Furious litigation, the Obama administration argued that the court should not even consider that particular case. The Justice Department's brief said courts should not enforce subpoenas at all. Instead, the Justice Department reasoned that Congress should use other powers to get documents. Here is exactly what the government brief said: ``Among other powers, Congress can withhold funds from the Executive Branch, override vetoes, decline to enact legislation, refuse to act on nominations, and adjourn.'' Later in the brief, the Obama administration specifically suggested that Congress can ``tie up nominations'' in order to get documents. If the administration can say that, why would Senator Reid think that is a wrong act for Congress to take? It is this simple: If the minority leader doesn't like Senators using holds to get documents from agencies, perhaps Senator Reid should talk to his friends in the Obama administration who suggested that in the first place. In addition, Senator Reid shows his hypocrisy since Members on his own side have held up Obama nominees, and Senator Reid never said a peep about Democrats exercising their rights. Further, Senator Reid's attempts to politicize the Judiciary Committee's oversight work are very uninformed and result in misguided statements, and Senator Reid's accusation that taxpayer money is being wasted by engaging in oversight of the executive branch rings hollow. Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server and private email arrangements effectively walled off her official communications from the normal Freedom of Information Act and other Federal recordkeeping requirements. So to Senator Reid, I say: The Freedom of Information Act is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and subject to oversight. The former Secretary's use of a secret, private server to conduct all of her official business led to an avalanche of Freedom of Information Act litigation. It also caused inaccurate responses to Freedom of Information Act requests. For example, in December 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for records of Secretary Clinton's email addresses. The Department responded by stating: ``No records responsive to your request were located.'' That response is very misleading, at best. Senior Department officials knew about Secretary Clinton's use of private email for official correspondence since they were sending emails to her nongovernment email address. They would have known instantly of records responsive to that request that the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted. Yet those senior officials apparently failed to communicate with the State Department's Freedom of Information Act office. Even then, if State's FOIA office were to search Secretary Clinton's government email account, they would find nothing since she operated a private account not subject to freedom of information. Separate from her email address, Secretary Clinton's nongovernment server was a secret to high-level officials at the State Department who were responsible for information technology and security. These officials had no idea the Secretary was operating a separate unofficial system. She did not get their approval to do so, so how would they know? The Judiciary Committee has interviewed the Chief Information Officer, the former Chief Information Officer, the former Deputy Chief Information Officer, and the Director of Diplomatic Security at the State Department. The Chief Information Officers oversaw the work of the information technology staffer who Secretary Clinton secretly paid to maintain her nonpublic server, yet all of these people knew nothing about that nonpublic server. That staffer didn't ask permission to have outside employment. While working at the State Department, he didn't disclose his outside income on his financial disclosure forms. Now, think about that. Officials whose job it is to know were kept in the dark about this ``home brew'' email server. If a government agency hopes to be transparent with the American people--and that is the point behind the Freedom of Information Act legislation--it must first be transparent with itself. Now we know that highly classified material was transmitted to and stored on Secretary Clinton's secret server. What is important about that is this is an issue of national security. State Department diplomatic security personnel have informed the Judiciary Committee that they were unaware of Secretary Clinton's using a nongovernment server for official business. So how, then, could they possibly secure it from security threats? Now, the FBI is investigating this matter as well as several other investigations. We keep hearing that the FBI's inquiry is just a security review and not a criminal inquiry. So let me tackle that. However, one witness asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination rather than answer questions about his work on Secretary Clinton's secret server. And he is relying on the Fifth Amendment to withhold his personal emails as well. Recently, the Department of Justice granted him immunity. So, quite naturally, we are searching for other ways to get information before deciding whether it might be appropriate to seek an immunity order for his testimony. Now, to Senator Reid: These are legitimate oversight inquiries for the Judiciary Committee. Further, Secretary Clinton did not turn over all of her official emails. Emails between GEN David Petraeus and Secretary Clinton, which Secretary Clinton failed to provide to the State Department, were later turned over to the Defense Department. Secretary Clinton also failed to turn over emails with Sydney Blumenthal, whom Secretary Clinton views as an off-the-books intelligence resource, while Secretary of State. If Secretary Clinton had used a government email address for official emails, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. So how many more official emails were not turned over but should have been? The Judiciary Committee cannot ignore these important issues simply because the former Secretary decided to run for President. And to be perfectly clear, I started this investigation before Secretary Clinton announced her candidacy. Senator Reid suggested that the committee's work on these issues is a waste of money. Senator Reid, that is nonsense. Congressional oversight is not a waste of money; it is a constitutional responsibility. The minority leader fails to understand that Congress is obligated to oversee that the executive branch of government faithfully executes the laws and faithfully spends the money the way Congress intended. Without such constitutional oversight, Congress will not know if there are failures in the executive branch's duty to faithfully execute the laws that we pass. But do my colleagues know what is a real waste of money? This administration fought tooth and nail in the courts against Congress for more than 4 years. Why? Just to avoid disclosing documents in the Fast and Furious scandal that they eventually turned over. That is a waste of money--a 4-year waste of money. The Obama administration has fought against the press and watchdog organizations for years in the Freedom of Information Act litigation over former Secretary Clinton's email records. Senator Reid, that is a waste of money. It is shocking that the Obama Justice Department devotes so much taxpayer resources to avoiding the very transparency that President Obama promised on January 21, 2009--1 day into office. This administration was going to be the most transparent in the history of the entire country, and it has turned out to be the most stonewalling. None of that would be necessary if the administration would just comply with congressional subpoenas and the Freedom of Information Act. That is the way to save money. By the way, I would like to ask how much taxpayers' money does Senator Reid spend having his staff write daily speeches trying to undermine the work of the Judiciary Committee. Senator Reid also fails to understand that we are not only focused on Secretary Clinton. The committee is conducting dozens of investigations on a broad range of issues under the jurisdiction of the committee. Some of the executive branch agencies have complained about the amount of oversight work the committee does on other matters. To justify my statements for this part of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two letters. The first is from the Department of Homeland Security, and the second is from the Department of Justice.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, both of the letters note the many dozen letters and hundreds of requests that I have sent, and both essentially complain about the volume of our investigation and requests for information. The Judiciary Committee is hard at work doing the people's business, and the committee is doing much more than just oversight. The committee has reported 16 executive nominees and 37 judicial nominees. It has processed 27 bipartisan bills out of committee, and every bill that has come out of committee is a bipartisan bill. Eighteen of those bills were passed out of the Senate over to the House, eight of which have been signed into law by the President. Just last week, the committee unanimously adopted bipartisan legislation to finally protect FBI whistleblowers who report wrongdoing to their supervisors and provide for independent review of FBI whistleblower cases for the first time. So reviewing that record, it seems to me we can ask Senator Reid to justify his claim that this committee is partisan. The committee concluded an investigation into the abuse and misuse of paid administrative leave. The committee took the results and worked hard with Members on both sides of the aisle to actually fix that problem. In February, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved the bipartisan, commonsense reforms in the Administrative Leave Act of 2016. Similarly, the committee has worked with Democrats and Republicans alike to overturn an Office of Legal Counsel opinion that allows the agencies across government to stonewall their inspectors general. Now let me tell my colleagues how Senator Reid is involved in stonewalling that effort. We came up with a legislative solution called the IG Empowerment Act and attempted to pass it in December by a live unanimous consent request. But Senator Reid objected to the bill even though it is supported by seven Members of his own caucus and supported by the New York Times editorial board and a host of civil liberties and good-government groups. Even the largest circulating daily newspaper in the home State of Senator Reid urged him to work with us on a compromise. But rather than engaging us in a productive and civil manner, Senator Reid publicly slandered the bill as a legislative overreach. He claimed that he was concerned about a provision that allowed inspectors general to issue testimonial subpoenas to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. In fact, Senator Reid voted--Senator Reid actually voted--to give the exact same authority to the Office of Special Counsel in 1989. That 1989 bill passed the Senate unanimously and is now law. Senator Reid, was that legislative overreach when you did it? Like that bill, the IG Empowerment Act has near unanimous support and is designed to root out wrongdoing from government, while ensuring proper safeguards of the use of subpoenas. So there is no reason to object to this bill on policy grounds. Yet Senator Reid stands in the way of getting that done. The Judiciary Committee will continue its work. I say that to just one Senator: Senator Reid. And during the course of my oversight work, I will use every tool at my disposal to obtain answers for the American people. So, Senator Reid, I will keep faith with my oath of office and ``we the people.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I wish to pay tribute to Sarah Root, a young woman from Iowa who just graduated from college with perfect grades. She was devoted to her family and friends and had a bright future, but she was taken from this earth too soon. I want to express my sympathies to Sarah's parents and acknowledge Michelle Root, Sarah's mother, who is watching today. She will be testifying tomorrow before the House Committee on the Judiciary at a hearing titled, ``The Real Victims of a Reckless and Lawless Immigration Policy: Families and Survivors Speak Out on the Real Cost of This Administration's Policies.'' The hearing will focus on how the Obama administration's failed immigration policies allow thousands of criminal aliens to roam free. Michelle Root will share her personal story about the loss of her daughter and how someone in the country illegally was able to walk free and abscond from authorities after fatally hitting her daughter's vehicle on graduation night. Sarah was 21 years old and had just graduated from Bellevue University with an interest in pursuing a career in criminal justice. In the words of her family, ``she was full of life and ready to take on the world.'' According to a close friend of hers, Sarah was smart, outgoing, and dedicated to her friends and family. She embodied the words: ``live, laugh, love.'' The day Sarah graduated, she was struck by a drunk driver in the country illegally. The alleged drunk driver was Edwin Mejia, who had a blood alcohol content of more than three times the legal limit. The driver was charged with felony motor vehicle homicide and operating a vehicle while intoxicated on February 3. Bail was set at $50,000, but he was only required to put up 10 percent. So, for a mere $5,000, the drunk driver walked out of jail and into the shadows. This case has shed light on the breakdown between the Federal Government and State and locals. It has also been a terrible example of why the President's policies don't work, and how they are having a dire effect on American families like the Root family. Under President Obama's Priority Enforcement Program, a person in the country illegally will only be detained or removed in a few limited circumstances. The administration hides behind these so-called ``priorities'' to ensure that a vast majority of people in the country are not removed. Some say that nearly 90,000 illegal immigrant criminals were released in 2015 because of this policy. The administration's polices result in tragedies like Sarah's. A smart young lady who had a bright future was struck by a drunk driver who entered the country illegally, and was turned over to a brother who was also in the country illegally, while awaiting his immigration court date. After the accident, local law enforcement apparently asked the Federal government--specifically U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--to take custody of the driver, but the Federal government declined. ICE refused to place a detainer on him. An ICE spokesman stated that the agency did not lodge a detainer on the man because his arrest for felony motor vehicle homicide ``did not meet ICE's enforcement priorities.'' The driver made bond and absconded, never showing up for his hearings and required drug tests. It is difficult for the family to have closure since the man is nowhere to be found. It is unknown if he is still in the United States or if he has fled to his home country of Honduras. Sarah Root is one of many victims who have been harmed or killed because of lax immigration enforcement and the notion that drunk driving isn't always a public safety threat. Even though this tragic accident happened in the heartland of America, this is a border security problem. The driver of the vehicle that killed Sarah entered the country illegally. Every day, people are illegally entering the country, being removed, entering again, and committing more crimes. Illegal re-entries are happening because there are no consequences. That is what happened in Kate Steinle's death. And, that is why we need to move on Kate's law. That bill would deter people from illegally re-entering by enhancing penalties and establishing new mandatory minimum sentences for certain individuals with previous felony convictions. The Obama administration cannot continue to turn a blind eye to drunk drivers, sanctuary communities, and people who ignore our laws, overstay their visas, or cross the border time and again. I am still waiting for answers from the Obama administration on this case, and many more. There are many unanswered questions. How many more people have to die? How many more women and young people are going to be taken from their family and friends? Things have got to change. The President must rethink his policies and must find a way to ensure that criminal immigrants are taken off the streets. The Obama administration should try enforcing the law, instead of its priorities, for the sake of the American people. I want to wish Michelle Root the best of luck while she is in Washington this week, and send my thoughts to her father who is trying to find justice back home. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 18, 2016, following the first vote at 5:30 p.m., in room S-216 of the Capitol.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week we commemorate National Crime Victims' Rights Week, which began this past Sunday and concludes this Saturday, April 16, 2016. For the over 20 million people in the United States who become crime victims each year, this week offers an opportunity for Congress, the Department of Justice, as well as State and local law enforcement, communities, and service providers across the country to publicly proclaim our support for crime victims and survivors. The physical, emotional, and psychological impact that crime causes for the victims and their loved ones can prove devastating. Crime wreaks havoc on our communities. Given these hardships, we must do all we can to support and protect survivors by holding their perpetrators accountable and ensuring that all victims are treated with dignity, fairness, and respect. We can accomplish this aim, at least in part, by recognizing the critical position that victims hold within the criminal justice process. The theme for this year's National Crime Victims' Rights Week is ``Serving Victims; Building Trust; Restoring Hope.'' In keeping with that spirit, I want to recognize and thank the countless professional and volunteer victim advocates and service providers. Your dedication and commitment to our moms and dads, brothers and sisters, and daughters and sons, often during their time of greatest need, is truly profound. Thank you, thank you, for being that solid ground and strong shoulder supporting our fellow Americans as they fight for justice and to once again become whole. To the millions of victims and survivors, you are not alone, and you have not been silenced. We hear you and pledge to do all we can to support you through your recovery. As the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to combat the scourge of crime through legislation and oversight, we will continue to both acknowledge and honor the needs and rights of victims and survivors.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I turn to my prepared remarks, I wish to note that the minority leader came to the floor this morning to complain, again, that the Senate is following the Biden rules on the Supreme Court vacancy. As I have said before, there is not much that makes the minority leader more mad than when his side is forced to play by its own rules. So, I won't dwell on his daily missives. Most us around here have grown used to it and don't pay him much mind, especially given his record of leading a Senate where even some Members of his own party were never allowed to offer a single amendment. He voted 25 times to filibuster judicial nominees--including a Supreme Court Justice, and at the time argued there is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to vote on nominees. And, of course, he will be remembered as the leader who did more damage to the Senate than any other leader in history when he invoked the so-called nuclear option in November of 2013. ``I think just from reading the cases you'll acknowledge that there's politics in legal rulings.'' That is what President Obama said last week when he visited the University of Chicago. The President met with law students and answered their questions. They asked him about judicial nominations, including his decision to make a nomination to fill Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. His responses were revealing. I agree with President Obama that too often politics seep into legal rulings. He is right as a factual matter. In fact, I said the same thing on the Senate floor a few days before the President did. Oddly, those on the left who were up in arms over my remarks were silent on the President's. I suppose that is because, unlike the President, I think it is a bad thing that there is politics in judicial decisionmaking these days. Politics in judicial rulings means that something other than law forms the basis of those decisions. It means the judge is reading his or her own views into the Constitution. Unlike the President, I believe the biggest threat to public confidence in the Court is the Justices' willingness to permit their own personal politics to influence their decisions. This isn't the first time the President has talked about how he believes Justices should decide cases. He has repeatedly said they should decide cases based on something other than the Constitution and the law. His views on this subject are clear. When Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed, then-Senator Obama said that in the really hard cases, ``the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.'' In 2009, President Obama said he views ``empathy'' as an essential ingredient for Justices to possess in order to reach just outcomes. And before he made his most recent Supreme Court nomination, the President said that where ``the law is not clear,'' his nominee's decisions ``will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment.'' But what is in a judge's ``heart,'' or their personal ``perspective [and] ethics'' have no place in judicial decisionmaking. The President's idea of what is appropriate for Justices to consider is totally at odds with our constitutional system. We are a government of laws and not a government of judges. I have said before that we should have a serious public discussion about what the Constitution means and how our judges should interpret it. President Obama and I have very different views on those questions. Politics belongs to us-- it is between the people and their elected representatives. It is important that judges don't get involved in politics. That is because, unlike Senators, lifetime-appointed Federal judges aren't accountable to the people in elections. It is also because when nine unelected Justices make decisions based on their own policy preferences, rather than constitutional text, they rob from the American people the ability to govern themselves. And when that happens, individual liberty pays the price. To preserve the representative nature of our government and our constitutional system, our judges need to return to their limited role, and decide cases based on the text of the Constitution and laws that the people's representatives have passed. President Obama last week described the justices' power as an ``enormous'' one. That is true in a sense. But the Constitution limits the Justices' power to deciding controversies in specific cases that come before them. President Reagan talked about this on the day that Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia were sworn in. He recounted how the Founding Fathers debated the role of the judiciary during the summer of 1787. As President Reagan said, the Founders ultimately settled on ``a judiciary that would be independent and strong, but one whose power would . . . be confined within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws.'' For decades now, the Supreme Court has been issuing opinions purportedly based on the Constitution where the Constitution itself is silent. This kind of judicial decisionmaking usurps the right of Americans to govern themselves on some of the most important issues in their lives. That is what happens, for example, when the Court ``discovers'' rights in the Constitution that aren't mentioned in its text and weren't observed when the Constitution was adopted. The same thing happens with ordinary statutes that Congress passes. If the Justices limited themselves to saying what the Constitution or statute says about the case before them, their power wouldn't be so ``enormous.'' President Obama says it is not so simple. He says the cases that really matter are the ones where there is some ambiguity in the law. In those cases, President Obama thinks a justice needs to apply ``judgment grounded in how we actually live.'' Again, I disagree. When judges ask what a law should mean, the meaning of a law will change, depending on the judge's ``life experiences'' or what judge happens to hear the case. The people lose control of what their laws say. It is not consistent with our system of self-government. James Madison--the ``Father of the Constitution''--explained the same thing in a letter to Richard Henry Lee. He said that ``the sense,'' or meaning, ``in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation'' defines the Constitution. He said that is the only way the Constitution is legitimate. That is because, in Madison's words, ``if the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it,'' the ``shape and attributes'' of government would change over time. And importantly, that change would occur without the people's consent. It wouldn't be consistent with the way we govern ourselves through our representatives. That is a very different view than the President suggested in Chicago last week when he said that ambiguous cases ask a judge to consider ``how we actually live.'' In President Obama's view, the judge isn't asking what a law meant when it was passed, but what it should mean today. President Obama described this as his ``Progressive view of how the courts should operate.'' With respect to the President, it is my view that the courts shouldn't operate in a political way at all. Not a progressive one, not a moderate one, not a conservative one. Instead, in my view, the courts should operate in a constitutional way that ensures government by the people. Again, when Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia were sworn in, President Reagan touched on this very subject. He said that for the Founding Fathers, the question about the courts was not whether they would be liberal or conservative. The question, President Reagan said, was ``will we have government by the people?'' Judges have a role in ensuring that we have government by the people. They fulfill that role when they try to understand what a law meant--either a statute or the Constitution--when the people's representatives enacted it. If the Justices decided cases that way, there would be a lot less politics in legal rulings. Unlike the President, I think that would be healthy for our democracy. But more important, it was the understanding of those who wrote and adopted our Constitution. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Des Moines police officer Susan Farrell had a lifelong dream of a career in law enforcement. At the young age of 30, she was living out her dream and on course for a bright career. But on March 26, just five months after joining the Des Moines Police Department, Officer Farrell lost her life in the line of duty along with fellow officer Carlos Puente-Morales when their vehicle was struck by another that was driving the wrong direction on Interstate 80 near Waukee. I wish to take a moment to celebrate Officer Farrell's life and service. Early on, growing up in the Des Moines area, Officer Farrell knew she wanted a career in public service. She studied criminal justice at Hamilton College and returned to her home town after graduating to begin living her dream. She worked as a detention officer in Polk County Jail for several years and was promoted to deputy just a year ago. She joined the Des Moines Police Department last fall and was excited to expand her education there. Along the way, Officer Farrell quickly earned the respect of her colleagues. She was someone they could always count on to help resolve situations. She also received awards of commendation and lifesaving for her work on the response team. One colleague summed up her abilities like this: ``There wasn't a situation where I wouldn't want Susan with me.'' Officer Farrell will be greatly missed by her family and friends, as well as the Des Moines community that she worked to protect. I express my deepest sympathies to Officer Farrell's family, friends, and colleagues and my sincere gratitude for her service to our State and for her work to keep our communities safe.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Des Moines Police Officer Carlos Puente- Morales's life was marked by a commitment to serving others and frequent expressions of love--love for his family and love for those he worked with. On March 26, Officer Puente-Morales lost his life in the line of duty along with fellow officer Susan Farrell when their vehicle was struck by another that was driving the wrong direction on Interstate 80 near Waukee. I wish to take a moment to celebrate the life and service of Officer Puente-Morales. Officer Puente-Morales served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Iowa Army National Guard, where he attained the rank of staff sergeant. He served his community as a deputy sheriff for Franklin County and as an Ottumwa police officer before coming to Des Moines to be closer to family. He joined the Des Moines police force just last year. Des Moines Police Chief Dana Wingert has referred to Officer Puente- Morales as a loyal servant. I believe this to be a very fitting description. He was loyal to his family, to his community, to his country, and he did it with a heart full of love. He was just 34 years old when he left us, but his service and the example he set for all of us will endure for many years to come. Officer Puente-Morales will be missed by his family and the community that he served. Officer Puente-Morales's mother wisely said, ``We shouldn't wait for a tragedy to recognize our heroes.'' She is exactly right. On behalf of Iowans and all Americans, I express my gratitude for Officer Puente- Morales's service to community and country. My deepest sympathy is with his family in this difficult time. I thank all those who walk in Officer Puente-Morales's *COM007*footsteps to protect and serve.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have a unique opportunity for the American people to have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court. The American people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this very important matter. Our side, meaning the Republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard, and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next President the type of person who should be on the Supreme Court. As I have stated previously, this is a reasonable approach, it is a fair approach, and it is a historical approach--one echoed by then- Chairman Biden, Senator Schumer, and other Senators. The other side, meaning the Democratic side, has been talking a great deal about the so-called pressure campaign to try to get Members to change their position. It is no secret that the White House strategy is to put pressure on this chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other Republicans in the hopes that we can be worn down and ultimately agree to hold hearings on the nominee. This pressure campaign, which is targeted at me and a handful of my colleagues, is based on the supposition that I and they will crack and move forward on the consideration of President Obama's pick. This strategy has failed to recognize that I am no stranger to political pressure and to strong-arm tactics--not necessarily just from Democratic Presidents but also from Republican Presidents. When I make a decision based on sound principle, I am not about to flip-flop because the left has organized what they call a pressure campaign. As many of my colleagues--and especially my constituents--know, I have done battle with administrations of both parties. I have fought over irresponsible budgets, waste, fraud, and policy disagreements. I have made tough decisions. I have stuck with those tough decisions regardless of what pressure was applied. The so-called pressure being applied to me now is nothing. It is absolutely nothing compared to what I withstood from heavyhanded White House political operations in the past. Let me say, by the way, that most of that has come from Republican White Houses. To just give a few examples, in 1981, as a new Member of the Senate and a brand-new member of the Senate Budget Committee, I voted against President Reagan's first budget proposal because we were promised a balanced budget and it didn't balance. I remember very specifically the Budget Committee markup in April 1981 on President Reagan's first budget. It happened to be that I wasn't alone on this. I was one of three Republicans to vote against that resolution because it did not put us on a path to a balanced budget. You can imagine that when a budget has to come out on a party-line vote, you cannot lose three Republicans, and three Republicans who were elected in 1980 on a promise to balance the budget did not go along with it. What a loss this was for this new President Reagan--that his budget might not get adopted by the Budget Committee. We were under immense pressure to act on the President's budget regardless of the deficits that it would cause. But we stood on principle and didn't succumb to the pressure. As an example, right after that vote where the President's budget wasn't voted out of the Budget Committee, I was home on a spring recess. I remember calls from the White House. I remember threats from the Chamber of Commerce while I was home for Easter break, even interrupting my town meetings. Four years later, I led the charge to freeze spending and to end the Reagan defense buildup as a way to get the Federal budget under control. In 1984 I teamed up with Senator Biden, a Democrat, and Senator Kassebaum of Kansas, a Republican, to propose a freeze of the defense budget that would have cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the annual deficit. At the time, it was known as the Kassebaum-Grassley Budget or the KGB defense freeze. We were going to make sure that across-the-board budgets were responsible. For months, I endured pressure from the Reagan administration and from my Republican colleagues who argued a freeze on defense spending would constitute unilateral disarmament. President Reagan had put together a less aggressive deficit reduction plan. We didn't think it went far enough. My bipartisan plan was attacked for being dangerous and causing draconian cuts to the defense budget. I knew it was realistic and a responsible approach. I didn't back down. We forced a vote that year in the Budget Committee. We forced a vote on the Senate floor on May 2, 1984, and that particular year we were not successful. However, this effort required the Senate and the Nation to have a debate about a growing defense budget. We started that debate, about the waste and inefficiency in the Pentagon and the growing Federal fiscal deficits. Despite the weeks-long pressure from conservatives in the Reagan administration, I did not back down because I knew the policy was on my side. In this process I stood up to pressure from President Reagan, Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, Secretary Barry Goldwater, Senator John Tower, Chairman of the Budget Committee, and many others. I remember a meeting at the White House where I reminded the President that he had been talking through the campaign about the Welfare queens impacting the budget. It happens that I reminded him there were Defense queens as well. I started doing oversight on the Defense Department. It wasn't long before the evidence of waste and fraud began appearing. We uncovered contractors that billed the Defense Department $435 for a claw hammer, $750 for toilet seats, $695 for ashtrays. We even found a coffee pot that cost $7,600. I had no problem finding Democrats to join my oversight effort back then, but it is interesting how difficult it is to find bipartisan help when doing oversight in the current Democrat administration. Nevertheless, 12 months later, on May 2, 1985, after a year of work to make the case that the Defense Department needed structural reforms and slower spending growth, I was successful. My amendment to freeze the defense budget and allow for increases based on inflation was agreed to when a motion to table failed by a vote of 48 to 51. A majority of the Republicans opposed me, and a majority of the Democrats were with me. That didn't matter because I knew we were doing the right thing. I went against my own party, my own President, to hold the Pentagon accountable, and I never backed off. I had a similar experience with President George W. Bush in 1991. In January 1991, the Senate debated a resolution to authorize the use of U.S. Armed Forces to remove Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait. I opposed the resolution because I felt the economic and diplomatic sanctions that I voted for should have been given more time to work. I was not ready to give up on sanctions in favor of war. In the end, I was one of just two Republicans, along with Senator Hatfield of Oregon, to oppose the resolution. I was under pressure from President Bush, Vice President Quayle, and White House Chief of Staff John Sununu. I was even pressured by Iowa Governor Terry Branstad. I heard from a lot of Iowans, particularly Republicans, who were disappointed and even angry with my position. Some were even considering a public rebuke because of my vote. As one of just two Republicans, it was difficult to differ with a Republican President on such a major issue. But as I stated at the time, my decision was above any partisanship. It was a decision of conscience rather than a matter of Republican versus Democrat. After a tremendous amount of soul-searching, I did what I thought was right, regardless of the political pressure. The same is true today with regard to the Supreme Court vacancy. Under President George W. Bush, I faced another dilemma. The President and the Republican congressional leadership determined that they wanted to provide $1.6 trillion in tax relief in 2001. I was chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance. The problem is, we had a Senate that was divided 50-50 at the time. The parties' numbers also equal, on the Senate Finance Committee. I had two members on my side who were reluctant to support a huge tax cut because they had concerns about the deficit and the debt. As we saw a few years later, their concerns were not totally unwarranted. But, at the time, the administration leadership would have nothing to do with anything except what the President wanted--$1.6 trillion in tax relief. Obviously, the White House wasn't thinking about how many Republicans might vote against it, and when you have a 50-50 Senate, you can't lose a lot of Republicans. After very difficult negotiations, I finally rounded up enough votes to support $1.3 trillion in tax relief. A hailstorm of criticism followed. There were Republican House Members who held press conferences denouncing the fact that the Committee wasn't able get enough votes for the whole $1.6 trillion. Those House Members were more professional in their criticism of my position, than what we currently witness almost every day from the current minority leader about my role as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But, it was still a very contentious and difficult period that included both the budget and the reconciliation process. Minority Leader Reid has already recently brought up the pressure I came under in regard to ObamaCare back in 2009. Of course, his version is his usual attempt to rewrite the actual history. At that time, I was the ranking member of the Finance Committee. I was involved in very in- depth negotiations to try to come up with a health care solution. We started in November of 2008. We had negotiations between three Republicans and three Democrats on the Finance Committee. We met for hours and hours at a time. We met between November 2008 and mid-September 2009, and then the other side decided they ought to go political and not worry about Republicans. The minority leader, in his usual inaccurate statement of facts has tried to say that Republicans walked out of those negotiations on ObamaCare. The fact is, we were given a deadline and told that if we didn't agree with the latest draft of the bill, then Democrats would have to move on. I would suggest that anybody in the Senate who wants some reference on this should talk to Senator Snowe or Senator Enzi. I was the other Republican. Talk to Senator Baucus, talk to Senator Conrad and the then-Senator from New Mexico. The President called six of us to the White House in early August of 2009. The first question I got was this: Would you, Senator Grassley, be willing to go along with two or three Republicans to have a bipartisan bill with ObamaCare at that point? And I said: Mr. President, the answer is no. What do you think we have been working on for 9 months? We have been working, trying to get a broad bipartisan agreement. It's something like 70 to 75 votes you need to get if you really want to have a changed social policy and have it stick. We didn't abandon this until 2009. But my idea is that probably it was that meeting at the White House in early August 2009 where this President decided: we don't want to mess around with those Republicans anymore. We have 60 votes; we are going to move ahead. Well, that happened then in that September. The fact is, we were given that deadline, and we were shoved out of the room. So when we didn't bow to this pressure and agree to Democratic demands, it ended up being a partisan document. That is why it still doesn't have the majority support of the American people. I want the minority leader to know that is what happened, not what he described a couple of weeks ago. Eventually, as we all know, the former majority leader--now minority leader--had his staff rewrite the bill that came out of the HELP Committee and in secret in the back rooms of his leadership office. And we ended up with the disaster called ObamaCare that we have today. The Senate minority leader also recently proclaimed that rather than follow Leader McConnell--and these are Senator Reid's words-- ``Republicans are sprinting in the opposite direction.'' The minority leader also wishfully claimed that the Republican facade was cracking on the issue. Senator Schumer fancifully stated that ``because of the pressure, Republicans are beginning to change.'' You can almost hear the ruby slippers on the other side clicking while they wish this narrative they describe were true. The fact is, the pressure they have applied thus far has had no impact on this Senator's principled position or the principled position of almost everybody on this side of the aisle. Our side knows and believes that what we are doing is right, and when that is the case, it is not hard to withstand the outrage and the pressure they and the White House have manufactured. The pressure we are now getting on this issue pales in comparison to the pressure I have endured and withstood from both Democrats and Republicans in the past. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to tell a story about how a distinguished naval career was ruined by abuse of suspected whistleblowers. The end result is a mixed bag of good and bad. In doing oversight of the Defense Department whistleblower cases, I have learned a difficult lesson. As hard as we may try, whistleblower cases rarely have good outcomes. Now, true, a wrong may be made right, a measure of justice may have been meted out, but the victims--the whistleblowers--have been left out in the cold. They may never get the remedy they seek and deserve. At the center of this case is an honored naval officer, RADM Brian L. Losey. He can only blame himself for what happened. No matter how you cut it, though, the destruction of a distinguished military career-- especially one devoted to hazardous duty in Special Operations--is very unfortunate and very sad as well. Yet that is accountability's harsh reality. This admiral allegedly broke the law and must now pay the price. In the end, under pressure from several quarters, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus was forced to deny Admiral Losey his second star. This promotion was hanging fire for 5 long years, mostly because of ongoing investigations. Admiral Losey had allegedly retaliated against several whistleblowers. If the Secretary of the Navy and the Navy's top brass had their way, Admiral Losey would be wearing that second star today, but late last year it got tossed into a boiling cauldron. Mounting opposition was coming from four different directions. First, on November 13 of last year, after learning about the controversy, a bipartisan group of Senators weighed in with a request for all the reports on the Losey matter. The requests came from Senators Wyden, Kirk, Boxer, Johnson, Markey, McCaskill, and Baldwin, along with this Senator from Iowa. We happen to be members of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus. Other Senators also made similar requests for those reports. The second operation. On December 2, 2015, we received four of the five Department of Defense Office of Inspector General reports on that investigation. One is still being reviewed, and I will tell you about that particular report in a minute. In reviewing these documents, we quickly realized that Admiral Losey appeared to be a serial retaliator of whistleblowers. The evidence was overwhelming. He allegedly broke the law. It all began in July 2011 at the Norfolk naval base Travel Office. There was a minor dispute over who should pay for his daughter's airline ticket to Germany. As a Coast Guard Academy cadet, that daughter was not entitled to travel as a dependent at taxpayers' expense. Although Admiral Losey, his wife, and staff allegedly ``pestered'' the Travel Office to pay for the ticket, Admiral Losey eventually purchased it with his own money. Nonetheless, this incident triggered a hotline complaint on July 13, 2011. Admiral Losey was informed of the complaint 2 months later, and then from that point it was all downhill. After learning of the anonymous hotline tip, Admiral Losey was reportedly ``livid.'' He saw it as an act of disloyalty and ``a conspiracy to undermine his command.'' He reportedly developed a list of suspects and began a punitive hunt for more. Reports indicate he was determined to find out who blew the whistle, and when he did, he allegedly said he ``would cut the head off this snake and end this.'' So in his drive to root out moles, he created a toxic environment in his command. His seemingly reckless behavior and blatant disregard for the law and well-being of his subordinates led to his downfall. The end result of the admiral's misguided search for moles was a series of reprisals against suspected--just suspected--whistleblowers. His choice of suspects was gravely mistaken. No one, in fact, had blown the whistle. Yet each was allegedly subjected to adverse personnel action at his direction and with his concurrence. His targets were mostly senior members of his command staff at Stuttgart, Germany. The person who actually blew the whistle worked at the Travel Office in Norfolk, VA. Clearly, this was a case of misdirected retaliation, which makes his alleged abuses even more egregious. As soon as Senators finished reviewing these reports and started asking pointed questions, the Navy knew the watchdogs were on the case. The Navy brass went to general quarters. According to reports in the Washington Post, the top brass turned up the pressure. They arbitrarily dismissed the inspector general's findings and put the promotion on a fast track. Now for the third part of this story. My good friend from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, on December 18 of last year, upset the apple cart. He placed a hold on the pending nomination for a new Under Secretary of the Navy, Dr. Davidson. His hold was not directed at Dr. Davidson; instead, it was directed at Admiral Losey's pending promotion. He had grave concerns about revelations in the inspector general's reports. His hold restored much needed leverage lost when the Senate confirmed the admiral's promotion in December 2011. He wanted the Secretary of the Navy to reconsider the promotion. So I commend my friend from Oregon for taking this action because it was an immediate game-changer. Fourth, on January 14, 2016, there came a bolt out of the blue. The Senate Committee on Armed Services fired a shot across the bow that stopped the Navy dead in the water. The committee's letter to the Secretary of the Navy began with this damaging assessment. After reviewing the investigative reports, we--meaning the committee-- ``maintain deep reservations'' about Admiral Losey's ability to successfully perform as a two-star admiral. This was the death knell, but the committee's condemnation didn't end there. If it had known in 2011 what it knew in January of this year, the committee said it would never have confirmed Admiral Losey's nomination in the first place. The inspector general's damaging investigative reports had turned its earlier assessment upside down. The committee then very much slammed the door shut. The committee urged the Secretary of the Navy to use his authority to deny the promotion. There was no gentle nudge. This letter effectively ended Admiral Losey's career. The Secretary of the Navy had run out of options. The Secretary had to do what he had to do. The committee of jurisdiction had laid down the law. The admiral should not be promoted. End of story. Admiral Losey will now step down as leader of the Naval Special War Command and retire. The committee's groundbreaking letter was signed by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed, and what is important about this letter is that it is a very sharp departure from actions taken by past Armed Services Committees in questioning a lot of these things that go on in the Defense Department. During the course of my oversight work, I have had several beefs with this committee over issues exactly like this. All were about the need to hold senior officers accountable for alleged misconduct based on evidence in inspector general reports. The response back then was very different from what I see of the work of the committee today. I see this letter as a breakthrough. I see it as a masterpiece. I am proud of the Committee on Armed Services. This about-face came under new leadership, and I hope it signals the dawning of a bright new day. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that I would thank Chairman McCain and thank Ranking Member Reed from the bottom of my heart for this outstanding leadership. Their actions send a message to whistleblowers: Reprisals will not be tolerated. That is a real morale booster for all whistleblowers suffering under the weight of reprisals. From what I know about whistleblowers, most of them are very patriotic people. They just want the government to follow the law and spend the money appropriately. They just want the government to do what the government is supposed to do. When they see it isn't being done, and they work up the chain of command but do not see any changes, then they come to Members of the Senate and the Congress. So I thank them again for having the courage to do the right thing. Holding such a distinguished naval officer accountable was no easy task. To the contrary, it was as difficult as they get. Mr. President, now that the question of the admiral's promotion has been laid to rest, I would like to turn to that unfinished business I earlier referred to. The true scope of the admiral's retaliation actions is still being examined because there is a fifth report out there. The focus of the fifth and final report of the Losey investigation is more like a phantom than a real report. Over 1,150 days have passed since this investigation began, and it is still not finished. It should be a piece of cake. The cast of characters, the facts, the evidence, and the findings should be essentially the same as in other Losey reports published long ago. So I ask: What is really going on here? I have received several anonymous tips. What I hear is very disturbing. This report is allegedly being doctored, causing bitter internal dispute over across the river. On one side are the investigators just doing their job. They appear--as we would expect--to be guided by the evidence. On the other side is top management at the Defense Department. They appear very eager to line up with the Navy's decision to arbitrarily dismiss evidence. From the get-go, the findings in the draft report substantiated reprisal allegations against Admiral Losey--consistent with the other reports. Top management initially concurred with those findings. So then, what is wrong? Why not issue the report? However, in response to alleged pressure from the Secretary of the Navy's office, they caved and agreed to take Losey out of the report. How could they get such a bad case of weak knees? The evidence staring them in the face seems irrefutable--rock solid. Plus, it was just reaffirmed by an unlikely source--the U.S. Air Force. Because two Air Force officers were allegedly involved, the Air Force had to conduct its own review. The Air Force also found the evidence very compelling. As a result, the Air Force officer--who was Admiral Losey's command attorney--reportedly faces potential legal trouble. He allegedly facilitated the admiral's retaliatory actions against the whistleblowers. The other officer will retire. Despite the red flags and the need for caution, caution has been tossed to the wind. On March 31, 2015, Deputy Inspector General Marguerite Garrison gave the Navy a green light to proceed. She notified Admiral Losey by letter that he ``was no longer a subject of the investigation.'' How could she do such a thing with all the evidence that is already out there in the other four reports and what we think we know in this report that is not public? At that point in time, Admiral Losey's alleged retaliation was the centerpiece of the report. True, it was a draft report in the midst of review. True, there were questions about Admiral Losey's role. Yet, after the passage of 1 year, the dispute remains unresolved. The report is still in draft and, obviously, mired in controversy. I think this all shows that there is something rotten at the Pentagon. To send such a letter, which was inconsistent with the evidence in an unfinished report, seems inappropriate. The Garrison letter set the stage for what has followed, and I will tell you what followed. To conform to the Garrison letter, the findings in the draft report had to be allegedly changed from ``substantiated'' to ``not substantiated.'' The investigators, thank God, dug in their heels and stood their ground. The evidence was apparently on their side. In early December of last year, as the Losey promotion issue reached a critical juncture, top management allegedly ``directed'' the investigators to change the report's findings from ``substantiated'' to ``not substantiated.'' The investigators were also allegedly directed to change facts and evidence to fit the desired findings. In other words, key pieces of evidence had to be allegedly ``removed'' to ensure that the evidence presented in the report was aligned with the specified conclusions. These are very serious allegations. Deliberately falsifying information in an official report constitutes a potential violation of law. If the directed rewrite of this report really happened, and if it is allowed to stand, it could undermine the integrity of the whole investigative process. The new acting Defense Department inspector general, Mr. Glenn Fine, whom I know from a similar position in the Justice Department to be a pretty good inspector general, needs to grab the bull by the horns in this case, and he has the authority to do it. He needs to call the top officials involved on the carpet. This would include Mrs. Garrison, her deputy, Director Nilgun Tolek, and Deputy Director Michael Shanker. The IG needs to ask them to explain and justify their actions. Next, he needs to ask the investigators to present their side of the story. Then, he needs to weigh independently and objectively the evidence and figure out what needs to be done to get this solved and get this report out. I think Mr. Fine has the capability to be independent and objective, and I ask him to do that. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.