Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a significant number of Americans believe the Supreme Court is highly politicized. Its approval rating has fallen over the years, not surprisingly. Its approval rating has dropped most drastically in recent years following the President's appointment of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. There are four Justices who vote in a liberal way in effectively every case the public follows. There are two Justices who stick to the constitutional text and who vote in a consistently conservative way. One Justice votes mostly, but not always, in a conservative way, and one Justice votes sometimes with the conservatives and sometimes with the liberals. All of the liberals were appointed by Democrats, the conservatives and swing Justices were appointed by a Republican President, but in a speech shortly before Justice Scalia's death, Chief Justice Roberts maintained that the public wrongly thinks Justices view themselves as Republicans or as Democrats. Of course, it is irrelevant to the public how the Justices view themselves. What is troubling is that a large segment of the population views the Justices as political. It is appropriate and instructive, then, to ask why the public takes this view and whether that view is warranted. I believe the public's perception is at least sometimes very warranted. The Chief Justice ruled out that this perception has anything to do with what the Justices themselves have done. Instead, he attributes it to the Senate confirmation process. As he sees it, Senators ``frequently ask us questions they know it would be inappropriate for us to answer. Thankfully, we don't answer the questions.'' The Chief Justice also stated: When you have a sharply divided political divisive hearing process, it increases the danger that whoever comes out of it will be viewed in those terms. You know, if the Democrats and Republicans have been fighting so fiercely about whether you're going to be confirmed, it's natural for some members of the public to think, well, you must be identified in a particular way as a result of that process. On the one hand, the Chief Justice identified precisely why it would be bad for the Court and the nominee to move forward in the middle of a hotly contested Presidential election campaign. As you have heard this Senator say, it would be all politics and no Constitution. Of course, that was the thrust of another Senator a few years back--Chairman Biden's argument in 1992. But in another respect, the Chief Justice has it exactly backwards. The confirmation process doesn't make the Justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the Court itself has drifted from the constitutional text and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences. In short, the Justices themselves have gotten political, and because the Justices' decisions are often political and transgress their constitutional role, the process becomes more political. In fact, many of my constituents believe, with all due respect, that the Chief Justice is part of this problem. They believe that a number of his votes have reflected political considerations, not legal ones. Certainly, there are academics who agree. In a recent New York Times article, academics appealed to the Chief Justice's political side. These academics asked him to intervene in the current Supreme Court vacancy, suggesting that it could be a so-called John Marshall moment for Chief Justice Roberts. That is a political temptation that the Chief Justice should resist. I can't think of anything any current Justice could do to further damage respect for the Court at this moment than to interject themselves into what Chairman Biden called the political ``cauldron'' of an election year Supreme Court vacancy. In a recent speech, the Chief Justice said: ``We're interpreting the law, not imposing our views.'' He further stated: ``If people don't like the explanation, or don't think it holds together, you know, then they're justified, I think, in viewing us as having transgressed the limits of our role.'' Again, with all due respect to the Chief Justice, tens of millions of Americans believe, correctly, that the Supreme Court has transgressed the limits of its role. Tens of millions of Americans believe, correctly, that too many of the Justices are imposing their views and not interpreting the law. That is the major reason why we should have a debate about the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice. We need to debate whether our current Justices are adhering to their constitutional role. As the Chief Justice remarked, although many of the Supreme Court's decisions are unanimous or nearly so, the Justices tend to disagree on what the Chief Justice called, in his words, the ``hot button issues.'' We all know what kinds of cases he has in mind when he talks about ``hot button issues''--freedom of religion, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, free speech, and the death penalty. One can probably name a lot of others. The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous, and the hot button cases are frequently 5 to 4. But why is that? The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a hot button case than another case. For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn't be any harder to keep personal preferences out of a politically charged case than any other case. In some cases, the Justices are all willing to follow the law, but in others where they are deeply invested in the policy implications of the ruling, those cases tend to turn out 5 to 4. The explanation of these 5-to-4 rulings must be that in hot button cases some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not--as they should be--on the law. But if hot button cases are being decided by politicians in robes, then the Supreme Court has no more of a right than the voters to be the final word. The Chief Justice regrets that the American people believe the Court is no different from the political branches of government. But again, and with respect, I think he is concerned with the wrong problem. He would be well-served to address the reality--not the perception--that too often there is little difference between the actions of the Court and the actions of the political branches. So, Physician, heal thyself. In case after 5-to-4 case, the Justices who the Democrats appointed vote for liberal policy results. This can't be a coincidence. Democratic Presidents know what they want when they nominate Justices--Justices who will reach politically liberal results regardless of what the law requires. This, of course, is what our current President means when he says that he wants Justices to look to their ``heart'' to decide the really hard cases. That is an unambiguous invitation for Justices to decide the hot button cases based on personal policy preferences. That, of course, isn't the law, and it is not the appropriate role for the Court. It is no wonder, then, that the public believes the Court is political. What Democratic Presidents want in this regard is what they get--even before Justice Scalia's death. Leading scholars found this Supreme Court to be the most liberal since the 1960s. Justices appointed by Republicans are generally committed to following the law. There are Justices who frequently vote in a conservative way. But some of the Justices appointed even by Republicans often don't vote in a way that advances conservative policy. Contrary to what the Chief Justice suggested, a major reason the confirmation process has become more divisive is that some of the Justices are voting too often based on politics and not on law. If they are going to be political actors after they are confirmed, then the confirmation process necessarily is going to reflect that dynamic. For instance, just last week, after one of my Democratic colleagues met with Judge Garland, the Senator said after discussing issues like reproductive rights: ``I actually feel quite confident that he is deserving of my support.'' Obviously, I don't know what they discussed during that meeting or what Judge Garland said about reproductive rights, and, to be clear, I am not suggesting anything inappropriate was discussed. My point is this: If Justices stuck to the constitutional text and didn't base decisions on their own policy preferences or what the President asked, based on what is in their heart or on empathy for a particular litigant, then Senators wouldn't deem it necessary to understand whether the nominee supports reproductive rights or not. With this in mind, is it any wonder that the public believes the Court is political? If we want the confirmation process to be less divisive, if we want the public to have more confidence that the Justices haven't exceeded their constitutional role, then the Justices themselves need to demonstrate that in politically sensitive cases their decisions are based on the Constitution and the law and not on political preferences or what comes from the heart or because of some empathy. So here is where we are about the public perception of the Court being political. When the Justices return to their appropriate role of deciding cases based on the facts and the law, public perception of the Court will take care of itself. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as the Senate is prepared to vote on the Defend Trade Secrets Act, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with my longtime friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch. Does the Senator agree that the ex parte seizure provision is a vital element of the bill?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank Senator Hatch. The Defend Trade Secrets Act is the product of bipartisan consensus, and as he will recall, before the bill was approved in the Senate Judiciary Committee, a modification added language that ex parte seizures would be granted under ``extraordinary circumstances.'' As I understand it, the ``extraordinary circumstances'' language was not added to impose an additional requirement for obtaining an ex parte seizure, but to acknowledge the Judiciary's general disfavor of ex parte procedures and to reinforce that particular circumstances are required to utilize the seizure provisions but still provide a much needed avenue for ex parte seizures when necessary. The legislation specifically lists these requirements for issuing an ex parte seizure order. For example, this authority is not available if an injunction under existing rules of civil procedure would be sufficient. The ex parte seizure provision is expected to be used in instances in which a defendant is seeking to flee the country or planning to disclose the trade secret to a third party immediately or is otherwise not amenable to the enforcement of the court's orders.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank Senator Hatch for his helpful insights. Mr. President, today the Senate is poised to pass the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, a bill that offers practical and necessary solutions to a growing problem. I have recently had the opportunity to speak about a number of bipartisan bills that have passed out of the Judiciary Committee and that have been taken up here on the Senate floor. That is a testament to the fact that the Judiciary Committee is working hard through an open process to find thoughtful solutions to the problems facing our country. In fact, we have processed 24 bills out of the Judiciary Committee, all in a bipartisan fashion. Of these, 16 have passed the Senate and 6 have been signed into law by the President. While any Member of this body can tell you that it isn't always easy to find legislative agreement, the American people deserve hardworking representatives in Washington who strive to get things accomplished. And the record of the Judiciary Committee shows that we have chosen to overcome gridlock and dysfunction to pass legislation that addresses problems that American people face. Here are a few examples of the Judiciary Committee's legislative accomplishments so far. Last month, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, by a vote of 94-1. In the face of a growing and deadly epidemic of heroin and opioid painkillers, this bill addresses this crisis comprehensively supporting prevention, education, treatment, recovery, and law enforcement. In the past few weeks, the Senate also passed the FOIA Improvement Act, a bill authored by Senators Cornyn and Leahy that I worked to move through the committee process. It codifies a presumption of openness for government agencies to follow when they respond to requests for government records via the Freedom of Information Act. In passing the FOIA Improvement Act--the Senate is helping change the culture in government toward openness and transparency. In February, the Judiciary Committee reported out the bipartisan Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act by a vote of 19-0. The bill, which has now been signed into law, holds sponsors of terrorism accountable by preventing them from invoking ``sovereign immunity'' in cases involving attacks within the United States. It also allows civil suits to be filed against foreign entities that have aided or abetted terrorists. The committee has worked to protect families and children by passing bills such as the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act and the Adoptive Family Relief Act. The Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act reverses a Supreme Court decision that limited the restitution that victims of child pornography can seek from any single perpetrator, ensuring that victims can be fully compensated for these heinous crimes, and can focus their attention on healing. The Adoptive Family Relief Act was signed into law in October of 2015, after passing the Judiciary Committee, and aims to help families facing challenges with international adoptions. And once again today, we are set to approve another Judiciary Committee bill that is supported by folks across the whole of the political spectrum. The support behind the Defend Trade Secrets Act makes clear that the Senate and Judiciary Committee is working to find thoughtful solutions to problems facing our country. This bipartisan legislation is authored by Senators Hatch and Coons. It brings needed uniformity to trade secret litigation so creators and owners of trade secrets can more effectively address the growing problem of trade secret theft. It is estimated that the American economy loses 2.1 million jobs every year because of trade secret theft. Further, according to a recent report of the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, annual losses owing to trade secret theft are likely comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia--over $300 billion. Back in Iowa we have seen this first-hand as innovative companies like Monsanto and DuPont-Pioneer have become targets for trade secret theft. In a well-publicized case, a naturalized citizen was indicted and convicted for engaging in a scheme with foreign nationals to steal proprietary test seeds from Iowa fields to benefit foreign companies. Contrasted with other areas of intellectual property, trade secrets are mainly protected as a matter of state law. Forty-seven states have enacted some variation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Yet as we have learned through hearings in the Judiciary Committee and from companies who have experienced trade secret theft, the increasing use of technology by criminals and their ability to quickly travel across state lines, means at times these laws are inadequate. The existing patchwork of state laws has become a difficult procedural hurdle for victims who must seek immediate relief before their valuable intellectual property is lost forever. As the pace of trade secret theft has soared, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that their caseload for economic espionage and trade secret theft cases has also increased more than 60% from 2009 to 2013. The Defend Trade Secrets Act will create a uniform federal civil cause of action, without preempting state law, to provide clear rules and predictability for trade secret cases. Victims of trade secret theft will now have another weapon in their arsenal to combat trade secret theft, aside from criminal enforcement. This bill will provide certainty of the rules, standards, and practices to stop trade secrets from being disseminated and losing their value, and will allow victims to move quickly to federal court to stop their trade secrets from being disseminated. By improving trade secret protection, this bill will also help to incentivize future innovation. Importantly, the Defend Trade Secrets Act codifies protections for whistleblowers. An amendment that I authored with Ranking Member Leahy, which was included in Committee, would create express protections for whistleblowers who disclose trade secrets confidentially to the government to report a violation of the law. There is a longstanding and compelling public interest in safeguarding the ability of whistleblowers to lawfully and appropriately disclose waste, fraud, and abuse that would otherwise never be brought to light. As chairman, and one of the founding members of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus, I've seen how whistleblowers help hold wrongdoers accountable and allow the government to recoup taxpayer money that might otherwise be lost to fraud and other unlawful activities. The inclusion of this whistleblower protection in the Defend Trade Secrets Act allows us to help make sure that those who are best in a position to report illegal conduct can come forward. Passing legislation to help Americans deal with a growing problem like trade secret theft in a bipartisan fashion is an important accomplishment. I am proud of the way the Judiciary Committee continues to get things done. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this body was last in session during Sunshine Week, but the principle of government transparency is one that does not expire. So I would like to take a few moments now to reiterate my support for that timeless principle. Open government is good government. And Americans have a right to a government that is accountable to its people. In 1978, following the lessons learned from the Watergate scandal, Congress created Inspectors General--or IGs--to be our eyes and ears within the executive branch. These independent watchdogs are designed to keep Congress and the public informed about waste, fraud, and abuse in government. But they also help agency leaders identify problems and inefficiencies that they may not be aware of. So IGs are critical to good governance and to the rule of law. But in order for these watchdogs to do their jobs, IGs need access to agency records. That is why the law authorizes IGs to access ``all'' records of the agency that they're charged with overseeing. However, since 2010, more and more agencies have refused to comply with this legal obligation. This obstruction has slowed down far too many important investigations--ranging from sexual assaults in the Peace Corps to the FBI's exercise of anti-terrorism authorities under the PATRIOT Act. Last July, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel aided and abetted the obstruction by issuing a memo defending it. That memo has given cover to other agencies to follow the FBI's lead and withhold records from their IGs. According to OLC's 66-page opinion, Congress didn't really mean to give IGs access to ``all records''--even though that is literally what we spelled out in the law. Think about that for a second. One unelected bureaucrat in the Justice Department thinks he can overturn the will of 535 elected officials in Congress and the President who signed the bill into law. That is unacceptable, and Americans are tired of stunts like this that undermine democracy and the rule of law, and make a mockery of government transparency. The public deserves robust scrutiny of the federal government. So, since September, a bipartisan group of Senators and I have been working to overturn the OLC opinion through S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act. Among other things, this bill includes further clarification that Congress intended IGs to access all agency records, notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless other laws specifically state that IGs are not to receive such access. We attempted to pass this bill by unanimous consent in September. Since then, the cosponsors and I have worked hard in good faith to accommodate the concerns of any and all Senators willing to work with us. As a result, this bill now has a total of 17 cosponsors, including 7 of my esteemed Democratic colleagues: Senators McCaskill, Carper, Mikulski, Wyden, Baldwin, Manchin, and Peters. I want to thank each and every one of them for standing up with me for Inspectors General and for the principles of good governance. In December, we attempted to pass this bipartisan bill by unanimous consent. The bill cleared the Republican side with no objection, but the bill was objected to on the Democratic side. So, let's do the math. None of the 54 Republican Senators objected. There are seven Democrat cosponsors. That is at least 61 votes--at least. If this bill came up for a vote, it would certainly pass easily. It was developed hand-in-hand over many months with both Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives, which is ready to move an identical bill as soon as we act here in the Senate. So, on December 15, Senators McCaskill, Johnson, and I attempted to pass this bill by a process known as a live unanimous consent. Our goal was to pass the bill right then and there, and we could have, had a Senator not objected. However, the minority leader, Senator Reid stood up and objected. The minority leader obstructed a bill sponsored by seven Senators of his own party. Senator Reid refused to give any reason for obstructing this bipartisan bill, both at that time and later when questioned by reporters. All he would say publicly was that a Senator on his side of the aisle had concerns. Apparently, Senator Reid is now telling the press that his concerns relate to provisions of the bill that give IGs the power to subpoena testimony from former federal employees. In a moment, I will explain why this authority is absolutely vital to the ability of IGs to conduct effective investigations. But before I do that, I want to make one thing crystal clear. My bipartisan cosponsors and I have been working in good faith to address these concerns for 5 months--since November 2015. In those 5 months, we have offered at least half a dozen accommodations that would limit the subpoena authority in question. So we have offered reasonable compromises, but the one or two Senators who object to this provision appear to be demanding it be removed from the bill entirely. Let me tell you why we cannot do that. When employees of the U.S. government are accused of wrongdoing or misconduct, IGs should be able to conduct a full and thorough investigation of those allegations. Getting to the bottom of these allegations is necessary to restore the public trust. Unfortunately, employees who may have violated that trust are often allowed to evade the IG's inquiry, by simply retiring from the government. So the bill empowers IGs to obtain testimony from employees like this. Similarly, the bill helps IGs better expose waste, fraud, and abuse by those who receive Federal funds. It enables IGs to require testimony from government contractors and subcontractors and grantees and sub- grantees. Currently, most IGs can subpoena documents from entities from outside their agency. However, most cannot subpoena testimony, although a few can. For example, the Inspectors General for the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services already have this authority. The ability to require witnesses outside the agency to talk to the IG can be critical in carrying out an inspector general's statutory duties or recovering wasted federal funds. But I want to be clear: the bill also imposes limitations on the authority of IGs to require testimony. There are several procedural protections in place to ensure that this authority is exercised wisely. For example, the subpoena must first be approved by a majority of a designated panel of three other IGs. It is then referred to the Attorney General. For those IGs that can already subpoena witness testimony, I am not aware of any instance in which it has been misused. In fact, the Inspector General for the Department of Defense has established a policy that spells out additional procedures and safeguards to ensure that subjects of subpoenas are treated fairly. I am confident that the rest of the IG community will be just as scrupulous in providing appropriate protections for the use of this authority as well. You see, we all win when IGs can do their jobs. And most importantly, the public is better served when IGs are able to shine light into government operations and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. This is a common sense, bipartisan bill that should have passed by unanimous consent. It overturns an OLC opinion that has been roundly criticized by nearly everyone who has read it. For example, the New York Times editorial board recently urged us to pass this bill so that we can allow IGs to do their jobs. But Senator Reid is standing in the way of the Senate doing its job. The Washington Post editorial board and the Project on Government Oversight have also called on us to fix this IG access problem. At a Judiciary Committee hearing in August, Senator Leahy said that this access problem is ``blocking what was once a free flow of information.'' Senator Leahy also called for a permanent legislative solution. Even the Justice Department witness at that hearing disagreed with the results of the OLC opinion and supported legislative action to solve the problem. But, to all of that, Senator Reid said ``no.'' Make no mistake: by blocking this bipartisan, good-government bill, Senator Reid is muzzling watchdogs, and the public is being robbed of their right to an accountable government. What is it about independent Inspector General oversight that the minority leader is afraid of? Remember, the public is better served when IGs are able to shine light into government operations and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. And the public is beginning to take notice of Senator Reid's obstruction. Just last week, the Las Vegas Review-Journal--which is the largest circulating daily newspaper in the minority leader's home State--published an article discussing his obstruction. Let me just take a moment to read a quote from this article: U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada received a government watchdog group's dubious honor . . . for blocking a bill to back inspectors general in their battles against waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement and refusing to provide a full explanation on why he did so. Then, just over this weekend, the editorial board of this same newspaper wrote an opinion piece entitled, ``Let the sun shine in.'' Let me just read an excerpt from this article: Because Sen. Grassley's bill has attracted bipartisan support, and because Republicans and Democrats jointly have objected to efforts to thwart IGs from doing their jobs, we're confident that compromise is possible . . . . We urge Sens. Reid and Grassley to work together to pass this important legislation as quickly as possible. As I mentioned earlier, the bipartisan group of cosponsors and I have already offered half a dozen accommodations to address the concerns related to the subpoena authority provision. All of those offers are still on the table, and we stand ready to work with Senator Reid and the other Senator to get this bill done; in a way that improves IG access to both documents and witness testimony. Remember, the Inspector General Act was passed in 1978, following one of the worst political scandals in American history. Today, at least 61 Senators, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and good governance groups like POGO and Citizens Against Government Waste, all support restoring the intent of that act--through S. 579. This bill would redeem the free flow of information that Senator Leahy advocated in August. And every day that goes by without overturning the OLC opinion is another day that watchdogs across the government can be stonewalled. Let me be clear. Only one Senator is publicly standing in the way of fixing this problem. Who is the obstructionist here? Who is not doing their job? We need to find a way to get this bill done. Especially now, we need to focus on the things we can agree on. When there is something with this much bipartisan support, it should be a no-brainer. One or two Senators should not be allowed to stand in the way. I urge my colleagues to work with me to get S. 579 passed so that IGs can resume doing the work that we asked them to do in 1978. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, when the Senate passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, I spoke on this floor about the good work that is getting done in the Senate since Republicans took over. Time and again, we have seen both sides of the aisle come together to find practical solutions to real problems facing the American people. That is the way the Senate is supposed to work, and we need to keep that momentum as we move forward to tackle other critical issues. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I continue to be proud of the role we have played in getting work done in a bipartisan manner. Today, on the floor of the Senate, we are doing that once again. We are passing another Judiciary Committee bill that carries strong, bipartisan support. We are passing another Judiciary Committee bill that solves real issues and is supported by folks on all ends of the political spectrum. Don't get me wrong. Finding agreement on both sides of the aisle is no easy task. Even the most well-intentioned efforts can get bogged in the details. But the fact that we are here today is a testament to good-faith negotiations and a commitment to make government work for the American people. And it is another indication of what this institution can be and what it was meant to be. The FOIA Improvement Act makes much-needed improvements to the Freedom of Information Act, and its passage marks a critically important step in the right direction toward fulfilling FOIA's promise of open government. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the FOIA Improvement Act, and I want to thank Senator Cornyn and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for their tireless, bipartisan work to advance this bill through the Senate. I am especially proud that the bill's passage occurs during this year's Sunshine Week, an annual nationwide initiative highlighting the importance of openness and transparency in government. Every year, Sunshine Week falls around the birthday of James Madison, the father of our Constitution. This isn't by mistake. Madison's focus on ensuring that government answers to the people is embodied in the spirit of FOIA, so passing the FOIA Improvement Act this week is a fitting tribute to his commitment to accountable government and the protection of individual liberty. And it is an opportunity for us all to recommit ourselves to these same higher principles. This year marks the 50th anniversary of FOIA's enactment. For over five decades, FOIA has worked to help folks stay in the know about what their government is up to. The Supreme Court said it best when it declared: ``The basic purpose of FOIA is to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable to the governed.'' To put it simply, FOIA was created to ensure government transparency, and transparency yields accountability. After all, a government that operates in the dark, without fear of exposure or scrutiny, is one that enables misdeeds by those who govern and fosters distrust among the governed. By peeling back the curtains and allowing the sunlight to shine in, however, FOIA helps fight back against waste, fraud, and abuse of the taxpayer's dollar. No doubt, FOIA has successfully brought to light numerous stories of government's shortcomings. Through FOIA, folks have learned about public health and safety concerns, mistreatment of our Nation's veterans, and countless other matters that without FOIA would not have come to light. But despite its successes, a continued culture of government secrecy has served to undermine FOIA's fundamental promise. For example, we have seen dramatic increases in the number of backlogged FOIA requests. Folks are waiting longer than ever to get a response from agencies. Sometimes, they simply hear nothing back at all. And we have seen a record-setting number of FOIA lawsuits filed to challenge an agency's refusal to disclose information. More and more, agencies are simply finding ways to avoid their duties under FOIA altogether. They are failing to proactively disclose information, and they are abusing exemptions to withhold information that should be released to the public. Problems with FOIA have persisted under both Republican and Democrat administrations, but under President Obama, things have only worsened, and his commitment to a ``new era of openness'' has proven illusory at best. In January, the Des Moines Register published a scathing editorial, outlining the breakdowns in the FOIA system and calling on Congress to tackle the issue head-on. The editorial described: ``In the Obama administration, federal agencies that supposedly work for the people have repeatedly shown themselves to be flat-out unwilling to comply with the most basic requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.'' It continued: ``At some federal agencies, FOIA requests are simply ignored, despite statutory deadlines for responses. Requesters are often forced to wait months or years for a response, only to be denied access and be told they have just 14 days to file an appeal.'' According to the editorial: ``Other administrations have engaged in these same practices, but Obama's penchant for secrecy is almost unparalleled in recent history.'' These are serious allegations, and no doubt, there are serious problems needing fixed. So reforms are necessary to address the breakdowns in the FOIA system, to tackle an immense and growing backlog of requests, to modernize the way folks engage in the FOIA process, and to ultimately help change the culture in government toward openness and transparency. What we have accomplished with this bill--in a bipartisan manner--is a strong step in the right direction. First, the bill makes much-needed improvements to one of the most overused FOIA exemptions. It places a 25-year sunset on the government's ability to withhold certain documents that demonstrate how the government reaches decisions. Currently, many of these documents can be withheld from the public forever, but this bill helps bring them into the sunlight, providing an important and historical perspective on how our government works. Second, the bill increases proactive disclosure of information. It requires agencies to make publicly available any documents that have been requested and released three or more times under FOIA. This will go a long way toward easing the backlog of requests. Third, the bill gives more independence to the Office of Government Information Services. OGIS, as it is known, acts as the public's FOIA ombudsman and helps Congress better understand where breakdowns in the FOIA system are occurring. OGIS serves as a key resource for the public and Congress, and this bill strengthens OGIS's ability to carry out its vital role. Fourth, through improved technology, the bill makes it easier for folks to submit FOIA requests to the government. It requires the development of a single, consolidated online portal through which folks can file a request. But let me be clear: it is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Agencies will still be able to rely on request-processing systems they have already built into their operations. Most importantly, the bill codifies a presumption of openness for agencies to follow when they respond to FOIA requests. Instead of knee- jerk secrecy, the presumption of openness tells agencies to make openness and transparency their default setting. These are all timely and important reforms to the FOIA process, and they will help ensure a more informed citizenry and a more accountable government. So I am pleased to see this bill move through the Senate. President Obama has an opportunity to join with Congress in securing some of the most substantive and necessary improvements to FOIA since its enactment. On July 4 of this year, FOIA turns 50. Let's continue this strong, bipartisan effort to send a bill to the President's desk before then. Let's work together to help fulfill FOIA's promise. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the next Supreme Court Justice could dramatically change the direction of the Court. And the majority of this body believes the American people shouldn't be denied the opportunity to weigh in on this question. We believe there should be a debate about the role of Supreme Court Justices in our constitutional system. With that in mind, I wanted to spend a few minutes discussing the appropriate role of the Court. Before I turn to that, I wish to note that the minority leader continues his daily missives on the Supreme Court vacancy. Most of us around here take what he says with a grain of salt. So, I am not going to waste time responding to everything he says. I will note that this is what he said in 2005 when the other side was filibustering a number of circuit court nominations, and a few months before they filibustered the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court: The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote. With that, I will turn to the appropriate role of a Justice under our Constitution. Part of what makes America an exceptional Nation is our founding document. It is the oldest written Constitution in the world. It created a functioning republic, provided stability, protected individual rights, and was structured so that different branches and levels of government can resist encroachment into their areas of responsibility. A written Constitution contains words with fixed meanings. The Constitution, and in many ways the Nation, has survived because we have remained true to those words. And our constitutional republic is ultimately safeguarded by a Supreme Court that enforces the Constitution and its text. Our Constitution creates a republic where the people decide who will govern them, and by what rules. The Supreme Court can override the people's wishes only where the Constitution prohibits what the people's elected officials have enacted. Otherwise, the Court's rulings are improper. Stated differently, the Justices aren't entitled to displace the democratic process with their own views. Where the Constitution is silent, the people decide how they will be governed. This fundamental feature of our republic is critical to preserving liberty. The temptation to apply their own views rather than the Constitution has always lurked among the Justices. This led to the Dred Scott decision. It led to striking down many economic regulations early in the last century. And Americans know all too well in recent decades that the Supreme Court has done this regularly. Justice Scalia believed that to ensure objectivity rather than subjectivity in judicial decision-making, the Constitution must be read according to its text and its original meaning as understood at the time those words were written. The Constitution is law, and it has meaning. Otherwise, what the Court offers is merely politics, masquerading as constitutional law. Justice Scalia wrote that the rule of law is a law of rules. Law is not Justices reading their own policy preferences into the Constitution. It is not a multifactor balancing test untethered to the text. We all know that Justices apply these balancing tests to reach their preferred policy results. The Court is not, and should not, be engaged in a continuing Constitutional Convention designed to update our founding document to conform with the Justices' personal policy preference. The Constitution is not a living document. The danger with any Justice who believes they are entitled to ``update'' the Constitution is that they will always update it to conform with their own views. That is not the appropriate role of a Justice. As Justice Scalia put it, ``The-times-they-are-a- changin' is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.'' Now, when conservatives say the role of Justices is to interpret the Constitution and not to legislate from the bench, we are stating a view as old as the Constitution itself. The Framers separated the powers of the Federal Government. In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote, ``The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.'' It is up to elected representatives, who are accountable to the people, to make the law. It is up to the courts to interpret it. These views of the judicial role under the Constitution were once widely held. But beginning with the Warren Court of the 1960s, the concept took hold that the Justices were change agents for society. Democracy was messy and slow. It was much easier for Justices to impose their will on society in the guise of constitutional interpretation. Acting as a superlegislature was so much more powerful than deciding cases by reading the legal text and the record. The view took hold that a Justice could vote on a legal question just as he or she would vote as a legislator. Perhaps the Framers underestimated what Federalist 78 called the ``least dangerous branch,'' one that ``can take no active resolution whatever.'' Since the days of the Warren Court, this activist approach has been common: striking down as unconstitutional laws that the Constitution doesn't even address. Now, to his credit, President Obama has been explicit in his view that Justices aren't bound by the law. While he usually pays lip service to the traditional, limited, and proper role of the Court to decide cases based on law and facts, he is always quick to add that on the tough cases, a judge should look to her heart or rely on empathy. The President's empathy standard is completely inconsistent with the judicial duty to be impartial. Asking a Justice to consider empathy in deciding cases is asking a Justice to rule based on his or her own personal notion of right and wrong, rather than law. As I have said, everyone knows this President won't be filling the current vacancy. Nonetheless, the President has indicated he intends to submit a nomination. That is ok. He is constitutionally empowered to make the nomination. And the Senate holds the constitutional power to withhold consent, as we will. But as we debate the proper role of the Court, and what type of Justice the next President should nominate, it is instructive to examine what the President says he is looking for in a nominee. The President made clear his nominee, whoever it is, won't decide cases only on the law or the Constitution. He wrote that in ``cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear,'' the Justice should apply his or her ``life experience.'' This, of course, is just an updated version of the same standard we have heard from this President before. It is the empathy standard. Of course, a Justice who reaches decisions based on empathy or life experience has a powerful incentive to read every case as unclear, so they have a free hand to rely on their life experiences to reach just outcomes. The President also said any Justice he would nominate would consider ``the way [the law] affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.'' With all respect to the President, any nominee who supports this approach is advocating an illegitimate role for the Court. It is flatly not legitimate for any Justice to apply his or her own personal views of justice and fairness. Perhaps most troubling is the President's statement that any nominee of his must ``arrive[] at just decisions and fair outcomes.'' That is the very definition of results-oriented judging. And it flies in the face of a judge as a fair, neutral, and totally objective decision- maker in any particular case. A Justice is to question assumptions and apply rigorous scrutiny to the arguments the parties advance, as did Justice Scalia. Under the President's approach, a Justice will always arrive where he or she started. That isn't judging. That is a super-legislator in a black robe. In our history, regrettably, we have had Justices who embraced this conception. Chief Justice Warren was infamous for asking, ``Is it just? Is it fair?'' without any reference to law, when he voted. Justice Scalia's entire tenure on the Court was devoted to ending this misplaced and improper approach. In reality, a Justice is no more entitled to force another American to adhere to his or her own moral views or life experiences than any other ordinary American. Imposition of such personal biases subjects citizens to decrees from on high that they can't change, except through constitutional amendment. And those decrees are imposed by officials they can't vote out of office. This is not the constitutional republic the Framers created. The American people deserve the opportunity during this election year to weigh in on whether our next Justice should apply the text of the Constitution, or alternatively, whether a Justice should rely on his or her own life experiences and personal sense of right and wrong to arrive at just decisions and fair outcomes. Senate Republicans will ensure the American people aren't denied this unique and historic opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to Sarah Root, a young woman from Iowa who had a very bright future but was taken from this Earth too soon. Sarah was 21 years old and just graduated from Bellevue University with perfect grades. 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 that were tattooed on her body: ``Live, laugh and love.'' The day Sarah graduated, she was struck by a drunk driver. That driver was in the country illegally. The alleged drunk driver was Edwin Mejia, and he had a blood alcohol content of .241, 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. As Sarah's father said, after laying his daughter to rest, ``The cost of a bond cost less than the funeral.'' Those are painful words to hear, but what is more frustrating is that the driver should have never been released. When local law enforcement apparently asked the Federal Government--specifically U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement--to take custody of the person, the Federal Government declined. ICE refused to place a detainer on the driver. 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.'' Now the Root family must face the consequences of the Federal Government's inaction while grappling with their daughter's death. 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, but this is not an isolated incident. It is business as usual in the Obama administration. Because of the administration's policies and carelessness, Sarah Root became another victim. Once again, this case shows that there is a colossal and systematic breakdown of immigration enforcement thanks to the Obama administration's flawed policies and lack of commitment to the rule of law. Unfortunately, a talented young lady whose life was cut short, who didn't have an opportunity to take on the world, is a story all too common. Under President Obama's Priority Enforcement Program, a person in the country illegally will only be detained or removed in a few limited circumstances. Some say that nearly 90,000 undocumented immigrants were released in 2015 thanks to this policy. Secretary Jeh Johnson has claimed that only those who have laid down roots and do not have serious crimes would not be subject to removal. Yet their words don't match up with their actions. Local law enforcement, such as those in Omaha, NE, have asked the Federal Government to take custody of certain individuals, but the agency in charge refuses. It hides behind their so-called priorities. The President has a constitutional duty to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The Constitution does not say the President shall make a list of which criminals would be punished or removed and which criminals may go about their lives. The Obama administration may not agree with the laws that Congress passes, but that has no bearing on its responsibility to make sure the laws are faithfully carried out. The administration claims it is well within its constitutional duties under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion. However, this administration's approach of announcing its priorities and only enforcing the laws on individuals who fall under its priorities is both unusual and obviously an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. This is unusual to prosecutorial discretion because prosecutors do not usually announce their priorities or when they will exercise prosecutorial discretion. A liberal law professor and immigration attorney, Peter Margulies, explained that prosecutors strive ``to keep prospective lawbreakers in the dark.'' He explains that if prosecutors' discretion priorities are not kept secret, they ``would effectively license the wrongdoing.'' He then went on to give an example in the case of a burglary. He said: When an admitted burglar is youthful and the burglar's ``take'' is relatively modest, judges may not wish to sentence an offender to prison, and may look with favor on a plea bargain that reflects this sentiment. However, it would be difficult to imagine prosecutors soliciting applications from known burglars for a ``burglar's holiday'' that would guarantee a specific period of immunity. In other words, it is as ridiculous to let people contemplating illegally migrating to the United States know they will get a pass under certain conditions as it would be to let people contemplating burglary know they would be let off the hook if they met certain qualifiers. Consider the drunk driver who killed Sarah Root. What message does this send to people who make a conscious decision to get behind the wheel after drinking? What this case says is that drunk driving--unless convicted--is not a serious enough offense to force removal proceedings. This is moral hazard. Hence, this administration's Priority Enforcement Program is creating a moral hazard and given license to illegal activities. Sarah Root is one of many victims in the past few weeks who died at the hands of undocumented immigrants. In Louisville, KY, Chelsea Hogue was put into a coma when Jose Aguilar, an undocumented person, hit her while driving under the influence of alcohol. ICE issued a detainer and did not take custody of Aguilar but released him a day later, again because he had ``no prior significant misdemeanor or felony conviction.'' Then there is Esmid Pedraza, who had been transferred to ICE in August of 2013 after serving time for driving under the influence. However, he was let go on bond because of limited detention space. This is what ICE said at that particular time: Due to limited availability of detention space, ICE prioritizes the use of its immigration detention beds for convicted felons, known gang members, and other individuals whose conviction records indicate they pose a likely threat to public safety. This is ironic, given that the administration has failed to live up to the mandated detention bed limit that Congress sets every year. Just a little over 2 years after his drunk driving offense, Pedraza was charged with the murder of his girlfriend Stacey Aguilar. Then on March 8, an individual illegally present in the United States allegedly murdered five people in Kansas and Missouri. The suspect entered the country in 1993, committed a series of crimes, and was removed from the United States in 2004. He attempted to illegally enter again the same month but was given ``voluntary return.'' However, he returned at some point and continued his criminal ways. The suspect had been arrested and charged with numerous crimes, including communicating a threat with intent to terrorize; battery of a spouse; several driving without a license offenses; a subsequent felony conviction for communicating a threat with intent to terrorize, reportedly based on his threat to kill his wife with a rifle, for which he was sentenced to incarceration for 2 years; two arrests for driving under the influence, which produced one conviction; and a conviction for domestic battery. On at least two occasions, ICE was notified of the suspect but, for various reasons, did not take custody of that person. That was a major failure between the Feds and local law enforcement. People are illegally entering the country, being removed, entering again, and committing more crimes. Illegal reentries are happening because there are no consequences. That is what happened in Kate Steinle's death, and that is why we need to move to what is called Kate's Law. That bill would deter people from illegally reentering 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 sanctuary communities and ignore those who have broken our laws by illegally crossing the border time and again. How many more people have to die? How many more women--like Kate Steinle, Sarah Root, Chelsea Hogue, and Stacey Aguilar--are going to be taken from their families and friends? The parents of these young women are grieving today, yet their stories fall on deaf ears at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Things have 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. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to serve as a co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth. Through this caucus and from my time in the Senate, I have learned about the experiences that many young people have faced when entering the foster care system. I have worked to help improve the system by ensuring that children are cared for and that we do all we can to find them safe, loving, and permanent homes. Children should grow up in families, not foster care. Today, I want to pay tribute to Casey Family Programs. It is the Nation's largest operating foundation focused exclusively on child welfare. Casey is operating in Iowa and all the States to provide strategic consultation, technical assistance, data analysis, and independent research and evaluation. It enjoys a unique partnership with the States by asking what jurisdictions hope to achieve that matches the foundation's mission and working with the State in partnership. Casey Family Programs also provides direct service to children and families in some States, and it is committed to the goal that no child will age out of their care without a caring adult by 2017. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I value the research, data, and policy information that Casey Family program shares. They have done so much for States, children, and families since their inception. This month, Casey Family Programs is celebrating its 50th Anniversary. I want to say congratulations to its board of trustees and leadership for working so hard to reduce the number of youth in foster care. With their help, we are working every day to make sure foster care is a layover, not a destination.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes to describe the funding that my substitute amendment for S. 524, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, is intended to authorize. Section 202 of the amendment authorizes SAMHSA's grants to prevent prescription drug/opioid overdose-related deaths. These grants were appropriated $12 million in H.R. 2029, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. The specific appropriating language is located on page 50 of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education report to H.R. 2029. Section 204 authorizes the COPS Anti-Heroin Task Force and Anti- Methamphetamine Task Force. These two task forces were appropriated $7 million each in H.R. 2029, for a total of $14 million. The specific appropriating language is located in paragraphs three and four under the section entitled ``Community Oriented Policing Services'', on page 70 of H.R. 2029. Section 301 authorizes SAMHSA's grants for targeted capacity expansion--medicated assisted treatments. Grants under this program were appropriated $25 million in H.R. 2029. The specific appropriating language for this program is located in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education report to H.R. 2029, on page 47. Section 501 authorizes SAMHSA's Services Grant Program for Residential Treatment for Pregnant & Postpartum Women. This grant program was appropriated $15.9 million in H.R. 2029. The specific appropriating language for this program is located in the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education report to H.R. 2029, on page 46. Finally, some of the other sections in CARA are being authorized through 42 U.S.C. section 3797cc, which was appropriated $11 million in H.R. 2029. The specific appropriating language is located in paragraph one under the section entitled ``Community Oriented Policing Services'', on page 69 of H.R. 2029. Therefore, the managers' amendment authorizes a total of $77.9 million in total.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as many Iowans know, I made a practice of holding townhall meetings in each of the 99 counties of my State every year. It has become known in the media as a ``Full Grassley.'' That is not something I named it. That is something someone else named it. It is kind of a flattering name, but in some ways it does not make sense because the townhalls are not about Senator Grassley. They are about hearing from Iowans whom I am proud to serve. They are about hearing about the real problems my constituents have, and, of course, from our end, trying to find practical solutions to those problems. That is what I work on every day. I suppose all of my colleagues would say that is what they work on every day. On many occasions at my townhall meetings in recent years, Iowans have asked me why the Senate never gets anything done. Both parties probably shoulder some of the blame for this attitude out there at the grassroots, but the reality is that the most obvious, the most glaring, the most unmistakable reason for the Senate's recent paralysis is the way Democratic Leader Reid ran it before he was toppled as majority leader. When the Democratic leader was in control of the Senate, he was the one who decided not to empower his committee chairs to craft and advance bipartisan legislation. He decided not to give all Members, Republican and Democratic alike, a real opportunity to participate in the process. He decided not to empower the Senate to address real problems that real people face every day. Instead, he chose dysfunction and gridlock over practicality and problem solving. By November 2014, the American people had finally had enough. After the American people spoke, the Democratic leader no longer controlled the Senate. Since the Senate has been under Republican leadership, things have started to work again. You see it in the latest example of this bill passing almost unanimously. So this is an example of Senators partnering across the aisle. Legislation is moving. The result is real progress on real issues facing our country. I am proud the Judiciary Committee has played its part. As chairman, my goal has been to open the process and seek as much consensus as possible. The results reflect that. We have reported 21 bills out of committee, all with bipartisan support. I would like to walk through some of these results because there is a lot of credit to go around on both sides of the aisle. Last February the committee passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. We passed it unanimously, 19 to 0. The bill enhances penalties for human trafficking and equips law enforcement with new tools to target predators who traffic in innocent young people. The bill passed the Senate 99 to 0 and was passed into law. Yes, there were some bumps along the way. When the Democratic leader realized that genuine bipartisanship had broken out and that we might actually accomplish something, a controversy had to be manufactured about the Hyde amendment on that particular trafficking bill, but eventually the Democratic leader took yes for an answer and the bill got done. This victory was a credit to the leadership of one Democrat and one Republican--Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar. Their bill provided real solutions for real victims of trafficking. A few months later, in October, the committee passed the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. Sentencing reform is a difficult and complex issue. Many Senators have strongly held views. Despite that, the bill emerged from our committee with a strong 15-to-5 bipartisanship vote. My bill would recalibrate prison sentences for certain drug offenders, target violent criminals, and grant judges greater discretion at sentencing for low- level, nonviolent drug crimes. I am grateful for the Senators who have partnered with me on this legislation, especially Senators Durbin, Cornyn, Whitehouse, and Lee. I am hopeful that if we keep working together, landmark sentencing reform can be another major accomplishment of this Senate. Time is growing short, but I cannot think of a more productive use of the Senate's time than to make our criminal laws more just. This is another example of a real problem we can solve together. Also, in July of last year, the committee passed my Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act, again, without opposition. The bill will ensure that at-risk youth are fairly and effectively served by juvenile justice grant programs. These important programs provide the chance for kids to get back on the right track so they will not enter the criminal justice system as adults. Every one of these young people are worth helping to reach their greatest potential. Senator Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and I are working hard to move this bill through the full Senate. I thank him for working with me on it. There are many other bipartisan accomplishments of this Senate that the Judiciary Committee cannot take credit for. I will not try to go through all of them, of course, but one example that comes to mind was the outstanding work of Senator Burr, a Republican, Senator Feinstein, a Democrat, on the cyber security bill. That legislation passed the Senate on a solid 74-to-21 vote. A conference version of it was later signed into law by the President. With reports of breaches of our personal data on an almost daily basis, it is self-evident that this bill helped to address a real problem that has affected millions of Americans. That brings me to the Senate's passage of the bill that was just voted on, the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--CARA, for short. It passed today with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. This legislation reflects the Senate at its finest, working in a bipartisan way to address an awful epidemic that is gripping our country. I thank the authors of CARA for their leadership in crafting the legislation and working with me to move it through the Judiciary Committee and out of that committee unanimously. In particular, I thank Senators Portman, Ayotte, Whitehouse, and Klobuchar; you see, two Democrats and two Republicans. Real lives will be saved because of the leadership of this bipartisan group. That is not something we can say every day around the Senate. I know the efforts of those Senators and others to address this epidemic stretch back a few years. It is a shame the Democratic leader decided not to address this crisis at the early stage when he was deciding the agenda of the Senate, but he decided not to act, even in the face of mounting evidence that the country was facing a grave and gathering epidemic of heroin and opioid painkiller overdoses. Deaths from prescription opioid painkillers rose over 30 percent from 2007 to 2014. Heroin overdose deaths more than quadrupled during that time. Heroin seizures at the southwest border more than quadrupled as well. All the while, the Democratic leader never brought a bill to the floor to address the crisis. So given the dysfunction that had overtaken the Senate not long ago, we should take a moment to appreciate the bipartisan process through which the Senate just passed this CARA bill. As the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I moved a Democratic bill through the committee. It passed without opposition. Then the Republican leader promptly scheduled the bill for floor consideration. I don't recall that ever happening under the former Democratic leadership. The Senate had rollcall votes on four amendments, although the Republican leader offered more such votes on Democratic amendments. All four of those amendments were offered by Democratic Senators, and the bill passed overwhelmingly, as amended. This process would have been unthinkable under the Democratic leader. This simply would not have happened. You know the statistics. There were 18 rollcall votes on amendments all during the year 2014. During 2015, we had 198 rollcall votes on amendments and only 4 more Republican amendments than Democratic amendments. Yes, once again the Democratic leader tried to manufacture a controversy when this bill first came to the floor about a week ago Monday, this time over some alleged funding for this heroin-opioid epidemic. But when $400 million in newly appropriated money for it hasn't even been spent yet, well, that argument by the Democratic leader was a tough one to sell. Over the last few days, the Democratic leader played some games with negotiations on a managers' package of amendments. The Republican side, the majority side, worked hard to clear amendments offered by many Democrats, including Senators Durbin, Gillibrand, Heinrich, Kaine, McCaskill, Blumenthal, Schatz, Heitkamp, and Cardin, but the Democratic leader objected to completely uncontroversial, commonsense amendments that would be in the package offered by two Republicans, Senator Johnson and Senator Kirk. Why? Simply because these Republican Senators are up for reelection this year, and under those circumstances, we couldn't reach an agreement. So all these Democratic amendments didn't go because the Democratic leader had objection to two Republican, relatively noncontroversial amendments, one of them absolutely noncontroversial. How noncontroversial were these amendments? Let me give you one example. Senator Johnson wanted to add the Indian Health Service as a member of the task force the bill creates to develop best prescribing practices for opioids. I suspect many Americans, including even people living in the State of Nevada, would think Senator Johnson's idea is a good one. Addiction is a problem for so many in our country, and the Native American community is unfortunately no exception. But this is the kind of dysfunction, the kind of gridlock that the Democratic leader is known for. A good idea becomes a bad idea if it is simply offered by a Member of the Republican Party, and that especially is the case if you are a Republican up for reelection. As CARA's name reflects, the bill addresses this epidemic comprehensively, supporting prevention, education, treatment, recovery, and law enforcement. CARA begins with prevention and education. The bill authorizes awareness and education campaigns so that the public understands the dangers of becoming addicted. It also creates a national task force to develop best prescribing practices, as I mentioned. The bill encourages the use of prescription drug monitoring programs, such as those in my State of Iowa, which help to detect and deter what is called doctor shopping behaviors by addicts. The bill authorizes an expansion of the Federal program that allows patients to safely dispose of old or unused medications so that these drugs don't fall into the hands of young people. In fact, along with a few other committee members, I helped start the original take-back program in 2010 through the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act. CARA also focuses on treatment and recovery. The bill authorizes programs to provide first responders with training to use naloxone, a drug that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose and directly save lives. Critically, the bill provides that a set portion of naloxone funding go to rural areas, like much of Iowa, which are being affected most acutely. This is critical when someone overdoses and isn't near a hospital. The bill also authorizes an expansion of Drug-Free Communities Act grants to those areas that are most dramatically affected by the opioid epidemic. And it also authorizes funds for programs that encourage the use of medication-assisted treatment, provide community-based support for those in recovery, and address the unique needs of pregnant and postpartum women who are addicted to opioids. Finally, the bill also bolsters law enforcement efforts as well. The bill reauthorizes Federal funding for State task forces that specifically address heroin trafficking. So in all these ways, CARA will help real people address the very real epidemic. The eastern part of my State has been hit the hardest. The human costs of what is happening across so many of these communities is incalculable. Every life that is lost or changed forever by this crisis is precious, especially for many young people who fall victim to addiction early in their lives. There is so much human potential at stake. I can't wait until my next townhall meeting. I am going to be proud to explain how the Senate did something today that will help so many people in Iowa and around the Nation, Republicans and Democrats working together. Let's keep it going. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as my colleagues in the Senate just heard, the tantrums from the other side continue, but I guess it shouldn't surprise anybody because everyone around here knows that nothing makes the minority leader more mad than when his side is forced to play by its own rules. The American people are divided, and the divided government the American people delivered over the last several election cycles reflects those divisions. Our constitutional Republic was designed with a series of checks and balances. As any branch gets too powerful or exceeds its authority and tries to impose policies the American people don't want, the people express their will through the electoral process, and that is what we have witnessed during the last several election cycles. Over the last few years, our current President has engaged in a systematic and very massive overreach of his executive power, way beyond what the Constitution has ever considered, and--thank God for checks and balances--the courts have said as much, and that is why I am here today. I am here today to tell you how the courts have interceded and curbed this massive overreach of Executive power. But as he has done so, the people have responded. Since he was first sworn into office in 2009, nearly 70 additional Republicans have been elected to the People's House. And there are 13 more Republican Senators today than there were in January of 2009. In January of 2014, frustrated that the people's representatives wouldn't enact his liberal policies, the President famously said that he would use ``a pen and a phone'' and impose his agenda anyway even though Article One of the Constitution is very clear. It states that the legislative powers of the United States shall be vested in the Congress, not with the President of the United States. Just a few months later, in November of 2014, the people spoke and sent nine additional Republicans to the U.S. Senate. This is the beauty of our system of checks and balances, and the Framers of our Constitution designed it that way. The Framers knew a thing or two about Executive overreach, because they had to deal with somebody called George III. They had firsthand experience with an Executive, King George III, who imposed his will on the people unilaterally. So you wonder why our Constitution has checks and balances? The President holds the Executive power, the Congress writes the laws, and the Supreme Court interprets them. That is what we call separation of powers. That's why we have checks and balances. That's why we have separation of powers. And that is why our Constitution is designed so that no President can appoint a Supreme Court Justice with a pen and a phone. As we continue to discuss what is at stake during this Presidential election and whether the American people want to elect a President who will appoint yet another liberal Justice, I wanted to take a few minutes to review some of this President's efforts to expand the reach of his power and impose his will on the American people. This President has pushed the envelope at every turn. He has sought to impose his will on the American people in ways and to a degree that this Nation has never before witnessed. What is striking about this President's record before the Supreme Court is that even with a Court as liberal as ours, the Obama administration still has the lowest winning record of any President going back to at least the Truman administration. When presented with this undeniable fact, the President's apologists quickly grasp for the nearest bogus defense. Most notably, they claim that the Supreme Court is more ideologically hostile to this President than previous Courts were to other Presidents. Now that is a very crafty argument, but it is what Justice Scalia would have called ``pure applesauce.'' Leading Supreme Court analysts declared the last term of the Supreme Court, even with Justice Scalia on that Court, as the most liberal since the 1960s. So the President's defenders can't blame the Court's makeup for its rebuke of his expansive claims of power. And of course this explanation fails to account for the fact that President Eisenhower took office and litigated in a Supreme Court with eight Justices who were appointed by Democrats or that President Nixon's administration began with an even more liberal Court than Eisenhower. No, this President hasn't lost cases because the Court is ideologically hostile to this President and his policy; the Court has rejected this President's power grabs because they are based on ideology and an unwillingness to recognize that the law constrains that power. All too often the President's claims are supported by an Office of Legal Counsel and a Solicitor General's Office that seem unwilling to tell the President that his impulse for expanded power is flatly contrary to the law. I'd like to describe a few examples. The President's lawyers argued that he could ignore the Senate's determination--this body's determination--of when it was in session in order to make recess appointments. No President in our history ever claimed that recess appointments were permissible in that situation. But the Office of Legal Counsel--once considered the crown jewel of the Department of Justice--offered a tortured justification to sanction that assertion of power. If this view of Presidential power were allowed to stand, the President could bypass the Senate with ease to install individuals in powerful government positions with no check from the Senate, as the Constitution envisions. Fortunately, the Supreme Court disagreed 9 to 0. That means even this President's appointments to the Supreme Court said that he violated the Constitution with those recess appointments. The Constitution clearly says that the Senate shall determine when we are in session and in recess. That isn't the only example. The Obama administration argued that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission could resolve an employment discrimination case between a minister and the church that fired her. The Supreme Court found the Obama administration managed to violate two different provisions of the First Amendment at the same time. It violated the free exercise of religion clause because if the President's argument carried the day, the government could interfere with a church's doctrine. Additionally, it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because if this President had his way, the Federal Government could get into the business of selecting a church's ministers. The Supreme Court rejected those claims 9 to 0. On the regulatory front, in a series of rulings, the Supreme Court rejected the President's arguments that agencies can deny the ability of private citizens to seek relief against regulatory overreach. For instance, the Court rejected the Environmental Protection Agency's powers to force a homeowner, through escalating fines, to comply with an order while at the same time denying that homeowner the ability to challenge the order in court. The Supreme Court rejected Obama's EPA's claims 9 to 0. In another case, the Court held--contrary to the position advanced by the Army Corps of Engineers--that a landowner could sue in court for just compensation for a taking when the government-caused flooding of his property is temporary and recurring. Again, the Supreme Court rejected the government's position 8 to 0. When the Internal Revenue Service attempted to enforce a taxpayer's summons while at the same time denying the taxpayer the right to question the IRS official about their reasons for the summons, the Supreme Court rebuked the administration 9 to 0. In still another case, the Court rejected the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's argument that its decisions aren't subject to judicial review when that agency concludes by its own estimation it fulfilled its duties to attempt conciliation under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Once again, the Supreme Court rejected that claim by this administration 9 to 0. Similarly, when a veteran's benefits were denied and the appeal wasn't filed within a certain time period, the Department of Veterans Affairs turned around and denied that veteran the ability to seek judicial review. The Supreme Court rejected the position of the Department of Veterans Affairs 8 to 0. And when the Federal Communications Commission changed its policies midstream regarding isolated examples of indecent language, the Supreme Court found 8 to 0 that the FCC had violated due process. These are important rulings. Far too often, this administration imposes government power against the people while brushing aside important procedural safeguards. Remember, the Constitution is to protect the people from its government--something we learned from George III. Justice Frankfurter spoke to this point. He once wrote: ``The history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards.'' Consider as well areas in criminal law where the Obama administration pressed positions that erode individual freedom. This President's lawyers argued that the police could install a GPS device on a vehicle, and then use that device to monitor the car's movements without a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. I don't know what would be left of the Fourth Amendment if the Supreme Court had upheld the President's claim that the government could operate in that manner. Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected that argument as well. The vote tally was 9 to 0. The Court blocked the Justice Department's prosecution of a person under the Chemical Weapons Convention because the convention didn't reach the defendant's simple assault. Again, the Supreme Court rebuked the President 9 to 0. These are not the rulings of a Supreme Court that is ideologically hostile to the Obama administration. Every one of these rulings was unanimous--every one. And there are still other Supreme Court decisions rejecting this President's power grabs where the vote tallies were much closer. The President and his lawyers made utterly baseless arguments for executive and regulatory power in case after case. In so many of these cases, the unifying thread underlying this President's litigating position is the notion that the people are subservient to the Federal Government and, of course, subservient to its agencies, rather than the other way around. So far the Supreme Court has not agreed. But during this Presidential election, the American people should consider whether they want to elect a President who may nominate a Justice who will embrace such a vast expansion of executive and regulatory power. This is what I've called for in a number of speeches, both in Iowa and here as well. This is an opportunity for the American people to have their voices heard. Letting the people decide in the election isn't just about who the next Justice on the Supreme Court is going to be. It is about the role of the Supreme Court and the judicial branch in our constitutional process. We heard just a little while ago the floor leader of the minority party saying that somehow I want to rewrite the Constitution. This isn't about rewriting the Constitution. The Constitution is pretty clear: The Supreme Court interprets law, not makes law. And with the approval rating of the Supreme Court going down from about 50 percent to 28 percent in polls ever since this President took office, and the tendency for some Republican appointees as well as Democrat appointees to make the law the way they want it, that is just getting back to the basics--that the Supreme Court is an interpreter of the law, not a maker of the law. So I think having a basic debate similar to what people learn in high school isn't a bad thing. Now, will an election change what the Supreme Court, the people who are on it now, decide to do? I don't know--probably not. But it will allow for the next elected President to have the opportunity to choose which direction they want it to go. Do they want a Justice who is going to interpret the law or a Justice who is going to make the law? Before the passing of Justice Scalia, we had four conservative justices, four liberal justices, and one in the middle--Justice Kennedy--who could go either way in some cases. We know what kind of judicial activists this President puts on the Supreme Court. Do you want to change the direction so that the Second Amendment rights of guns are in jeopardy or like when we saw attempts by this administration to say who a church can hire or not hire--and violate the freedom of religion--and other very important issues that are at stake? It is pretty fundamental what is at stake, and I think having this debate is very important. And I think letting the people decide is very important. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning because of the important subject that is before us, the bill that deals with the opioid epidemic, the follow-on heroin problem, a bill that was reported out of committee unanimously, a very important piece of legislation. Right now we have unfortunate political gamesmanship that has overtaken some of my Democratic colleagues at the very same time that everybody on the Judiciary Committee knows we need to pass the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act that goes by the acronym CARA for short. It happens, though, that the opioid epidemic is not a political game. It is a real problem out there. A massive hearing we had in committee demonstrates that. I am very proud the Senate has taken up the CARA bill, after this public health crisis festered for so long while the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. For example, tragically heroin overdose deaths more than tripled from 2010 to 2014. All the while, the Democratic leadership simply did not make it a priority to move a bill like CARA. It is a bipartisan bill that addresses the public health crisis of heroin and prescription opioid abuse. Through the hard work of many on both sides of the aisle because it is a bipartisan bill, as I said, it passed out of our committee--and you can't say so often--unanimously. Everybody at the grassroots level of America thinks everything here is always partisan between Republicans and Democrats--not when it comes to the opioid issue or a lot of other issues. This bill came out of committee unanimously, and we ought to get it to the House of Representatives as fast as we can and to the President. Just a few weeks after it came out of committee, here we are working on it with an opportunity to pass it. This reflects the Senate working in a very constructive, bipartisan way on behalf of the American people and the people who are addicted to heroin and opioids. This is very much unlike the way the Senate acted when the Democrats controlled it. This issue was not brought up. For political reasons, that is not a narrative some Democrats want the American people to hear, and so we are having this game today. Yesterday, there was a manufactured controversy over the amount of funding. Of course, the opioid crisis demands resources, and significant resources are being directed to it, both by the Appropriations Committee and the programs laid out in this bill before us right now. In fact, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Appropriations Act passed in December provides more than $400 million in funding specifically to address the opioid epidemic. This is an increase of more than $100 million over the previous year. None of that money has been spent yet. All of that money is still available today. This bill authorizes so many activities to combat the crisis, but it was never intended to appropriate funding. That is what we have Appropriations Committees for. That is why we have an appropriations process. Through the appropriations process, we can evaluate competing priories, evaluate tradeoffs, and in the end ensure that adequate resources are directed to this epidemic while at the same time maintaining fiscal discipline. I am glad the Senate rejected that attempt to inject gamesmanship into the debate over ways to improve this bill. That vote happened yesterday. Now the minority in the Senate, the Democrats, are setting up additional procedural roadblocks. We tried to set up additional votes this morning to move this very important bill along so we can help the people of the various States, and particularly New England, solve this opioid addition and heroin problem--also a problem in the eastern part of my State--but somehow the Democrats would not agree. Because we have this bill on the floor, I also asked the Democrats on the committee to hold our weekly Judiciary Committee business meeting over here in the Capitol Building instead of in the committee room, right off the floor of this Senate, as we do quite regularly, particularly when we have so much business here. That was a routine accommodation I asked them to make, similar to the accommodation I gave to them when we had a hearing scheduled earlier this week on the EB-5 immigration bill, when they asked to cancel that because this bill was on the floor of the Senate. So I accommodated them. Would they give me the accommodation of holding this meeting off the floor of the Senate so we could take up the business of voting out some judges? There was not any legislation on our agenda, but we could have voted out some judges. How often do we hear that the Judiciary Committee is not moving judges? We had a chance to do that probably in a 10-minute meeting right in the President's Room, just a few feet from where I am standing right now. I gave them an accommodation, but now I am running into trouble because I canceled a meeting because we have this important bill on the floor of the Senate. I understand they are protesting the Judiciary Committee's lack of action on a Supreme Court nomination, which nomination we could not even possibly consider if the President does not send it up. I imagine this is just the first of several problems we are going to have in the next few weeks. While they do that this morning, I want you to know I am going to be on the Senate floor trying to get this very important opioid addiction bill--heroin addiction bill--passed, and I will be thinking about so many people CARA will help once this bill is signed by the President. At our Judiciary Committee hearing we had on this very important problem, we heard from Nick Willard, chief of the Manchester New Hampshire Police Department. His officers will benefit from the training the bill authorizes to use naloxone, a drug that can save lives after an overdose. At that hearing, we also heard from Tonda DaRae, a courageous Ohio woman who lost a daughter to an overdose and who founded a support group for those in recovery called Holly's Song of Hope. Her group may profit from this legislation's grants aimed at building communities of recovery. I will be thinking about the many Iowans I have heard about who have been impacted by this crisis. I spoke earlier this week about Kim Brown of Davenport, who lost her son Andy to an overdose. She now speaks out across the State about the epidemic. There is Carla Richards, of Waukee, IA, who lost her daughter Anna to an overdose as well. She founded an organization to promote awareness called Anna's Warriors. There are all kinds of tragic stories that every Senator in this body could talk about that highlight the rationale behind this legislation and the $400 million that is waiting to be spent to overcome the opioid addiction. There is a seed of hope in many of them, hope that we can act to address this epidemic, each in our own way. I will be thinking of these stories today as we try to move CARA one step closer to becoming law. So why would a bill that got out of committee unanimously have this sort of shenanigans going on, on the floor of the Senate, at a time when people are dying--44,000 people in the most recent statistical year, more than automobile accidents and gun crimes together. This is a real problem. We need to get this bill passed, and we are working on accommodating amendments and moving it forward. It is not the time for the go-slow approach we are seeing already on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would ask the Senator from Vermont a question, if he would take it.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I heard what they said about the meeting being canceled today, because we could have held the meeting off the floor and voted out three judges. So somehow that interfered with what they wanted to do in the Judiciary Committee meeting. I asked for an accommodation. I asked the ranking member for the same accommodation I gave his side when we canceled a hearing on the EB-5 Program earlier this week. And a hearing obviously doesn't take the same time away from the floor as a markup might. So consequently I am asking the ranking member if that accommodation isn't worth the accommodation that I asked today.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we have had quite a discussion this morning on why the Judiciary Committee didn't meet. We were prepared to meet the same way we often meet when there is just maybe 5 minutes of business. We meet off the Senate floor so that we can do both the work of the entire Senate and the work of the Judiciary committee. That happens often. And that's the accommodation I asked for from the minority. But they objected. Of course, they asked me to accommodate them on a hearing that I had scheduled for earlier this week on the EB 5 immigration issue. I postponed that hearing because minority members of the Judiciary Committee didn't want to have that hearing when this very important opioid addiction bill was on the floor. The heroin addiction bill is before the United States Senate with 44,000 lives being lost in a year because of that addiction. And we're considering important legislation to solve that problem. I did not get that accommodation, so I canceled the meeting. So what we heard on the floor here, while my colleagues were holding up the opioid bill, all this talk about having a debate about the next nominee to the Supreme Court--a nominee that hasn't even been made yet. So I come to the floor now to respond to just a couple ridiculous arguments that my friends made this morning. First of all, we are going to have a debate about the Supreme Court and the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice in our constitutional system. We are going to debate whether or not the American people want yet another Justice who decides cases based on what is in his or her heart or whether they want a Justice who will decide cases based on the Constitution and the law. That is not my estimation of the debate; that is exactly what this President said regarding previous judges and Justices. He said he was looking for somebody who would have empathy for people who came before the Court. Having empathy for people that come before the Court means that you are supposed to do something different than what judges are supposed to do. Judges are supposed to look at the facts and the law and base their decisions on the law. They aren't supposed to base their decisions on personal feelings. We are a nation based on the rule of law. So this is what the American people have to think about and decide. They need to have a voice in this process. As Senator Biden said in 1992 or as Senator Schumer said in 2007--we are not going to consider a Supreme Court nominee during a heated Presidential election. So we have an opportunity to have a national debate. This whole debate is about whether we are going to have Justices who decide cases based on empathy rather than the letter of the Constitution and the letter of the statute. On the second point, we have heard a lot of complaining around here-- and I suspect we are going to hear a lot more--because Senate judiciary Republicans met and then made public our decision not to hold hearings on the Supreme Court nomination during a heated Presidential election year. Give me a break. We made a decision based on history and our intention to protect the ability of the American people to make their voices heard. We didn't play games, just as Senator Biden wasn't playing games when he gave that 20,000-word speech in 1992 where he said that we shouldn't have a lameduck President make a nomination during a Presidential election campaign, just like Senator Schumer said in 2007 before the American Constitution Society, 18 months before George W. Bush was out of office. So that is the historical approach. Very plain and open, both Democrats and Republicans taking the same tone so the people could make their voices heard. The American people should be heard not only on who is going to fill Justice Scalia's seat, but also on the proper role of the Supreme Court and whether or not the Court ought to be a legislative body. Like I said, we made that decision and immediately made it public. I don't remember being invited to the secret meetings that the Democrats held before they walked onto the Senate floor in November of 2013 and invoked the nuclear option so they could pack the D.C. circuit. We wanted to save taxpayer money. The D.C. circuit is the least worked circuit court in the country. Everyone knew you didn't need three more judges. That court was fairly evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. But because that court reviews the President's Executive orders and regulations, this President wanted to make sure he had enough judges on that court, so that when the court reviews the actions he takes with his pen and phone, he would get favorable rulings. So they packed the D.C. circuit, so that is why we had the nuclear option, because the other side had to get around the 60-vote rule that we had here for the approval of judges. I also keep hearing this claim Senator Biden, when he was chairman of the committee, should be praised for how he handled the Bork-Kennedy episode. Now, I happened to be here in 1987. I saw what happened to Robert Bork. I saw how he was smeared. And because he was smeared, that seat remained open and was filled in early 1988. If that is the other side's argument, then I think we all know how weak their position is. Finally, let me say this. I said yesterday and I want to say it again, the other side knows that this nominee isn't going to get confirmed. Everyone knows it. The only reason that they are complaining about a hearing on the nominee is because they want to make the process as political as possible. And that goes to the heart of the matter. We are not going to politicize this process in the middle of a Presidential election year. We are going to let the people have a voice. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up the substitute amendment No. 3378.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up the Feinstein-Grassley amendment No. 3362.