Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute today to the life of TSgt Joseph G. Lemm who was killed while serving his country in Afghanistan. It was his third tour of duty in Afghanistan. Joe was born in Dubuque, IA, and lived in the nearby town of Bernard as a young child. He was a police officer in New York City and served in the New York Air National Guard. Clearly, his was a life of public service, defending his fellow Americans both at home and abroad. His willingness to repeatedly put himself in harm's way speaks volumes about his courage and character. I am told that he was often called Superman, and like Superman, Joe spent his life defending ``Truth, Justice, and the American Way.'' He will be remembered for his extraordinary love of country and family. My prayers go out to his wife, Christine; his daughter, Brooke; his son, Ryan; as well as his mother, Shirley, and his father, Charles. Their premature loss will leave an enormous hole in their lives, but they can be very proud of the life Joe lived.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their commendation of the 150th anniversary of the University of Iowa College of Law. This makes it the first law school west of the Mississippi to reach that milestone. In the past 150 years, the college of law has served the people of Iowa, the Nation, and the world, and I am pleased, along with my colleague Senator Ernst, that the resolution congratulates the college of law on its accomplishments. I have been honored to attend some of the events celebrating Iowa Law this past year, and the law school should be proud of its vast history of achievement. It is the oldest law school west of the Mississippi River, and it has produced generations of attorneys who have been dedicated to improving and enhancing the practice of law in Iowa and throughout the Nation. Currently, Iowa Law has over 10,000 living alumnae who practice in Iowa and around the world. Iowa was the first State to admit a woman to the practice of law. Iowa Law followed this tradition when in 1873 it graduated what is believed to be the first female law student in the United States, Mary Hickey. Iowa Law's second female law student, Mary Haddock, was the first woman admitted to the practice of law before the district and circuit courts of the United States. Iowa Law was one of the first law schools to grant a degree to an African-American student when Alexander Clark, Jr., graduated in 1879-- decades before other law schools allowed the enrollment of non-White students. Iowa Law has always been at the forefront of the legal field, particularly when it comes to diversity. Iowa Law has consistently ranked as one of the top 10 public law schools in the country and is currently ranked the 22nd best law school in the Nation. Throughout the years, Iowa Law has maintained its commitment to the legal community and encourages students to participate in a variety of programs that better Iowa. For example, Iowa Law recently partnered with the Iowa State Bar Association to start a program that trains and recruits law students to work in rural and smalltown practices, providing better access to legal services in these communities. Iowa Law offers several clinic programs that focus on helping the citizens of Iowa and has several programs to encourage students to provide pro bono legal services. For the past 150 years, Iowa Law has produced lawyers who embody the motto of the State of Iowa, which is ``Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.'' I congratulate the Iowa College of Law on its many achievements, and I am grateful for its continued dedication and commitment to the State of Iowa. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have my letter to Senator McConnell dated December 17, 2015, printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at 1:30 a.m. Wednesday morning, an omnibus appropriations bill was filed to keep government operating for the remainder of this fiscal year. This bill, which will be voted on by the House on Friday, includes a straight and clean extension of a program called the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. This program has been plagued with fraud and abuse, but more importantly it poses significant national security risks. Allegations suggesting the EB-5 program may be facilitating terrorist travel, economic espionage, money laundering, and investment fraud are warnings against this bill too serious to ignore. Yet they are being ignored. The omnibus bill fails to include much needed reforms. The spending bill being considered by the House and Senate is a major disappointment. I am frustrated that despite the alarm bells and whistleblowers, warning us in Congress about the EB-5 program, Republican and Democratic leadership in the House and Senate decided to simply extend the program without any changes. This was a missed opportunity to protect America. What makes this especially frustrating is that the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees--both Republican and Democratic--agreed on a bill. We had consensus. I appreciate the support of Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the committee. I also commend Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Congressmen Issa and Lofgren. In a bipartisan way, we worked this bill out. We agreed on every aspect--maybe naively but believing in our hearts that we were doing the right thing. We found common ground on national security reforms. We made sure rural and distressed urban areas benefited from the program, as was intended when it was first written. We instituted compliance measures, background checks, and transparency provisions. All of those things were meant to protect our national security and weed out waste, fraud, and abuse. Through months of hard work, we put together a great deal, but despite this broad, bipartisan support, and the work of the committees of jurisdiction, not a single one of our recommendations will be implemented. Instead of reforming the program, some Members of leadership have chosen the status quo. This failure to heed calls for reform proves that some would rather side with special interest groups, land developers, and those with deep pockets. It is widely acknowledged that the EB-5 program is riddled with flaws and corruption. Maybe it is only on Capitol Hill--an island surrounded by reality--that we can choose to plug our ears and then refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts. The Government Accountability Office, our free media, industry experts, Members of Congress, and even Federal agency officials have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Why did congressional leaders ignore the chairmen and ranking members of both the House and Senate committees who were spearheading EB-5 reform? Why, at the same time--and maybe more importantly because they aren't colleagues--did they ignore the Government Accountability Office or ignore the FBI or ignore the Secretary of Homeland Security? Allow me to remind my colleagues why the EB-5 Regional Center is in need of reform. For several years I have kept close tabs on this program, thanks in part to the reports of wrongdoing brought forth by whistleblowers. The fact is that other Federal agencies, including the FBI, have raised national security concerns. Whistleblowers say that requests from politically influential people were being expedited. Last June, Congress heard from a whistleblower who was harassed for speaking out against the problem--in reference to the countries of China, Russia, Pakistan, and Malaysia, countries not known to be friends of the United States. This whistleblower said: EB-5 applicants from China, Russia, Pakistan and Malaysia had been approved in as little as 16 days and in less than a month in most. The files lacked the basic and necessary law enforcement queries . . . I could not identify how USCIS [Customs Immigration Service] was holding each regional center accountable. I was also unable to verify how an applicant was tracked once he or she entered the country. In addition, a complete and detailed account of the funds that went into the EB-5 project was never completed or produced after several requests. During the course of my investigation it became very clear that the EB-5 program has serious security challenges. There are also classified reports that detail these problems, much as the whistleblower said. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story. Our own executive branch agencies have communicated to us their concerns about the program. Just listen to these people concerned about it. Officials within the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement expressed concerns about the program and how prone it is to fraud. We ought to be concerned about waste, fraud, and mismanagement. We ought to be concerned about national security. The way this bill is ending up, with just a 10-month extension, nobody is taking that into consideration. An internal national security report stated the following: As in any instance where significant investment funds are raised . . . the regional center model is vulnerable to abuse. The capital raising activities inherent in the regional center model raise concerns about investor fraud and other conduct that may violate US security laws. Third Party promoters engaged by regional centers to recruit potential investors overseas fall outside of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' regulatory authority and may make false claims or promises about investment opportunities. Unregistered broker-dealers may operate outside of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' statutory oversight to match prospective investors with project developers. Moreover, the statute and regulations do not expressly prohibit persons with criminal records from owning, managing, or recruiting for regional centers. Just think of that, ``Statute and regulations do not expressly prohibit persons with criminal records from owning, managing, or recruiting for regional centers.'' Don't we think that is a threat we ought to be considering? How many more intelligence reports are needed for my colleagues to understand this problem? How many more headlines are needed before we have the will to deal with this problem? How many more whistleblowers are going to be demoted for telling us about these problems, merely committing the one crime that whistleblowers commit-- telling the truth. The Secretary of Homeland Security sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee and requested more authority to deny, terminate or revoke a regional center's designation. They wanted more authority to root out the bad apples. They have been requesting this since 2012. Considering that the Secretary of Homeland Security would say that--and he has to carry out this legislation and can't prevent some of the bad things that are happening from happening under existing law--that ought to be enough to guarantee Congress would pay heed to these problems and do something about it. As I indicated, our bill would have done just that. But the fact that our bipartisan bill was dismissed by congressional leadership means bad actors and bad regional centers will continue to operate. The EB-5 program also encourages a whole host of financial fraud and corruption. The program's abundant loopholes and lack of regulation have created a virtual playing field for unethical gamesmanship and con artists. Fortune Magazine reported how one man cheated potential immigrants out of $147 million for a make-believe building project he never intended to finish. The article explained how the trickster claimed the project would create over 8,000 jobs. In reality, some 290 foreigners were tricked out of their cash. This is not the only example of how regional centers can be used to defraud people out of millions of dollars for nonexistent projects. Another government agency we ought to pay some attention to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, encountered another fake project in which two men in Kansas purported to build an ethanol plant in that State. The Commission stated in a litigation release that ``the plant was never built and the promised jobs never created, yet the [two men] continued to misrepresent to investors that the project was ongoing.'' That same report goes on to say that millions of dollars of investor money was used for other purposes--can you believe this?--even going to another completely unrelated project in the Philippines. Just last month, the National Law Review reported another case in which Security and Exchange Commissioner filed suit against the owner of a regional center who allegedly stole $8.5 million in EB-5 funds. The owner claimed that all the money provided from the foreign investors would be held in escrow until the approval of their green cards. Instead, the article reports that the owner of the regional center blew the money on two different personal homes, a luxury Mercedes, a BMW, and a private yacht. All the while, clueless investors were exploited by loopholes in the EB-5 program. For example, the article states that both the investors and the owners of the regional center were represented by the same attorney. But for many potential EB-5 immigrants, a safe investment is not the main concern because it is simple. You can buy your way into the United States. Paying $500,000 is simply the price of admission that they are able and willing to pay. For these wealthy elites, a profitable investment is just icing on the cake of buying green cards. I hope some of my colleagues will talk to Senator Feinstein about why she thinks this program should be wiped out. Even considering our reforms, she still takes that view. She feels it is just plain wrong to sell access to the United States through buying a green card. A lot of the debate in the past 2 months has been on targeted employment area reforms. The targeted employment areas created by Congress to steer foreign investment to rural and distressed areas have been greatly abused. The designations have been gerrymandered-- gerrymandered just like congressional districts--to include the most lavish developments in the richest neighborhoods, where this law of 20 years was never expected to be used because these are not distressed areas as were anticipated by the original law. The Hudson Yards project has generated millions of dollars for a luxury apartment complex in Midtown Manhattan. Manhattan was in here complaining about needing investment, when every day you read in the newspaper that Chinese entrepreneurs are investing in New York all the time. Not far away, another flagrant example of gerrymandering is the Battery Maritime Building, right next to Wall Street, in Lower Manhattan. The New York Times described it by saying it ``snakes up through the Lower East Side, skirting the wealthy enclaves of Battery Park City and Tribeca, and then jumps across the East River to annex the Farragut Houses project in Brooklyn.'' That is the gerrymandering that goes on here to get a project in a very wealthy part of New York to qualify. I have to ask my fellow Senators: How many more media reports will it take to understand the extent of EB-5 gerrymandering? Have the Senators who helped table our reforms ever read those reports in the Wall Street Journal? I can say with certainty that the status quo will not benefit middle America. It benefits New York City and other affluent areas at the expense of areas in Iowa, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Vermont. Another way to put it is that it is not going to benefit those who were the original intent of the legislation when passed two decades ago. It was supposed to deal with rural areas and with high-unemployment areas. Some may say that there wasn't enough debate or public input on EB-5 reforms. Well, I would like to walk through how much debate we have had on this issue, besides what is very obvious from the newspaper reports or from what whistleblowers say or what the FBI says or what the Securities and Exchange Commission says or even what the Secretary of Homeland Security says. In the history of our leading up to this legislation, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the program in late 2011 and at every hearing since in which Secretary Johnson has testified, the issue of EB-5 has come up. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, as well as House committees, have had hearings on this program. In 2013 the Senate debated an immigration bill that was over 1,000 pages long. In a few short months, we voted that bill out of this body. Parts of the bill that we were working on to be included in this omnibus appropriations bill included EB-5 reforms that we talked about in that immigration bill of 2 years ago. Then in 2014, the House Judiciary Committee voted out a bill that included some changes in the program. The bill would have raised the investment level to $1.6 million. This year in June, Senator Leahy and I introduced S. 1501. We called it the American Job Creation and Investment Promotion Reform Act. It was a tough, serious bill to overhaul the program. Since June, we have listened to other Members of Congress. We have heard input from their constituents and regional centers in their States. We listened to stakeholders. We met with lawyers, lobbyists, and regional center operators. We listened to groups that represented trade and labor union groups. We met with the agency at the Department of Homeland Security that runs the program. We worked with them and the Securities and Exchange Commission on language. We consulted other congressional committees. We took this input from a wide range of sources and made changes to our bill. On November 7, we circulated a new draft with Chairman Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Ranking Member Conyers of that committee joined our conversations, as well, and I want to tell you that Ranking Member Conyers has had invaluable input into this bill. Again, I want to emphasize--because that is what the leadership of this body is always talking about: Do things in a bipartisan way. Again, we had a bipartisan, bicameral agreement with the four leaders of the committees of jurisdiction. The leaderships of both bodies said that committees would do their job and be relevant to the legislative process again, except for the EB-5 program, evidently. We weren't the only ones who wanted action. We had colleagues such as Chairman Corker and Chairman Johnson, who on November 6 joined me in sending a letter to Leaders McConnell and Reid, urging them to include critical provisions that would better guard against fraud and abuse and give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to terminate centers that Secretary Johnson didn't feel he had the authority to terminate and where there was obvious fraud. As I said about Senator Feinstein when I referred to her position on this issue, she would prefer to see the program end. In early November she wrote: We have seen in recent years that the program is particularly vulnerable to securities fraud. According to legal complaints, applicants for some projects were swindled out of their investment, and jobs were never created. . . . When the program comes up for renewal in December, Congress should allow the program to die. She is a respected Member of this body and very involved in national security and intelligence issues. When she sees something wrong with a program such as this, we ought to give it proper attention. Two weeks ago the Judiciary staff was asked, after all these changes were made in the bill, to come in and talk to Democratic and Republican leadership. Staff was asked to hear out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Real Estate Roundtable, and other industry representatives. I don't think there is anything wrong with listening to anybody's view about any legislation we have--whether it is an individual or an organization representing individuals. But to have them right there in the room writing legislation, I think, goes a little bit too far. On that first day of December negotiations, there was a lot of discussion about how New York wouldn't be able to compete with rural America if our reforms were enacted. They thought the bill was unfair to urban areas, and they wanted every project in the country to qualify for the special targeted employment area designation. The solution was to provide a set-aside of visas at the higher levels to ensure they could use the program. It was apparent that an agreement was in the works. But, when you have these greedy people coming to talk to you, there is no end to what they are going to ask for. When the group returned the next day for discussion, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Real Estate Roundtable, along with a small group of developers represented by law firms in town, came with yet another new list of demands. They had half a dozen major issues, not to mention their so called technical changes. After nearly 12 hours in the room with EB-5 protectionists, Judiciary Committee staff conceded and tried to find common ground, because we wanted to at least take care of these national security issues and get some of the fraud out of the program. The group I am talking about left with an agreement in concept. But again, you think you are satisfied, and you have something to go on, and then all of a sudden you find out the next day, when staff was called in to finalize the language, that the industry said they wanted more. This is a very common theme. The industry wants more, and they wanted more, and they wanted more. It made one really wonder if they actually wanted a bill with reforms. This was an effort to hoodwink people into what we thought were good- faith negotiations, and it turned out it wasn't in good faith. Then, after all the concessions made to the industries, some Members in the Senate came to us and wanted to make even more concessions. Despite all these challenges, the four corners of the Judiciary Committees compromised more. We gave in on many areas for the sake of national security and, hopefully, taking fraud out. We tried to strike an agreement, as much as it made the bill weaker, because the security reforms are also desperately needed. But after all of that, our House and Senate leadership failed us. They extended the program without any changes whatsoever for 10 months in the appropriations bill that we will vote on tomorrow. No reforms. No plugs for national security. No safeguards against fraud and abuse--it will go on for at least another 10 months. The bill we presented to the Republican and Democratic leadership took into consideration edits from the industry, immigration attorneys, and several congressional offices. I am very disappointed that the leadership simply extended a very flawed program. But I also know the product we provided them on Monday night did not accomplish much that we were hoping to do. It was a very flawed, compromised bill. It was too watered down. It was a giveaway to New York City, Texas, and rich developers who simply wanted to protect their projects. It was a giveaway to affluent urban areas and a failure for rural America. This morning we had the benefit of some enlightenment as to how this happened. I have an ABC News report stating that more than $30 million was spent this year alone in a lobbying effort against the reforms--$30 million. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ABC News article entitled ``Lobbyists Declare Victory After Visa Reform Measure Dies Quietly'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. So this is where the years of work to reform EB-5 have come. So this is how several years of work ended--a reform blocked by selfish interest. I have to be an optimist around here, and I believe that, eventually, right wins out. It is time for things to change. I was for reform. I wanted to make it better. But now, I am not so sure reforms are possible. It may be time to do away with EB-5 completely. Maybe we should spend our time, resources, and efforts on other programs that benefit the American people. Maybe it is time that this program goes away. The next 10 months will be spent exposing the realities and vulnerabilities of this program. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I will exercise oversight of this program even more than I have in the past. I will ask tough questions and make more recommendations. My quest to either have EB-5 reformed or to end the program has just begun. This is not the end, this is just the beginning. I yield the floor, and if I have any time, I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to compliment Senator McCaskill and Senator Johnson for their leadership in bringing this bill out of their committee--a committee I don't serve on but a bill that is very important to the oversight work of this Senator, and I hope every Senator considers it to be very important. I would say that I agree with everything they have said. I want to emphasize what they said, and I want to take a few minutes to do that because I feel strongly about this piece of legislation. There is an important principle here--a very important principle-- that we ought to keep in mind, because it is an insult to 100 Senators and 435 Members of the House of Representatives when legislation is written and it is explained very clearly what that legislation is supposed to accomplish: that an inspector general would have access to all records. Then we have a lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice--one person making an interpretation of a law that is contrary to congressional intent--that one person out of 2 million people in the executive branch of government can override the will of 535 Members of Congress. That will was expressed way back in 1978. This is just a little different quote from a letter Senator Johnson has already talked about from a respected Member of this Senate for 24 or maybe 30 years, Senator John Glenn of Ohio, who was very much interested in making sure that we had strong oversight by Congress and that within the executive branch, they had strong oversight that the IG would do within a specific department. Senator John Glenn of Ohio was one of the chief architects of this legislation. He said: ``Full and unfettered access is vital to an IG's ability to effectively prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse in an agency's programs and activities.'' Here we are with what Senator John Glenn said when he was a Member of this body and this legislation passed. Then we have one lawyer out of 2 million executive branch employees interpreting a statute contrary to congressional intent and then overriding it--in other words, giving Cabinet heads opportunities to avoid doing what the inspector general law says and what an inspector general needs to do to do their job: have access to all records. Senator McCaskill made that clear. Senator Johnson made that clear. This is a bipartisan effort coming unanimously out of this committee, that this is an egregious attack on the powers of Congress and we can't let one person out of 2 million people in the executive branch of the government get away with it. Yet we seem to have some problems getting it passed. I don't understand it. You try to explain that to the people of this country, whether it is in New York City or whether it is in Des Moines, IA. There is no way this can be justified, that one lawyer out of 2 million people in the executive branch of government can issue an opinion and override the Congress of the United States. I intend to go into some detail about how I feel about this legislation, if my colleagues haven't come to that conclusion already. To ensure accountability and transparency in government, Congress created inspectors general, or IGs, as our eyes and ears within the executive branch. That is the foresight of one famous Senator and astronaut by the name of John Glenn. But IGs cannot do their job without timely and independent access to all agency records. That is why this bill is called ``all means all.'' Agencies cannot be trusted not to restrict the flow of potentially embarrassing documents to the IGs who oversee them. If the agencies can keep IGs in the dark, then this Congress will be kept in the dark as well. When Congress passed the Inspectors General Act of 1978, the Congress explicitly said that IGs should have access to all agency records. Inspectors general are designed to be independent but to also be part of an agency. Inspectors general are there to help agency leadership identify and correct waste, fraud, and abuse. What Cabinet head wouldn't want somebody in their department to have access to all records that show that maybe that department isn't spending money according to congressional intent or maybe not following the law the way Congress intended? It ought to be welcome by any administration head. Fights between an agency and its own inspector general over access to documents are a waste of taxpayers' money and personnel time. The law requires that inspectors general have access to all agency records-- precisely, by the way, to avoid these costly and time-consuming disputes. However, since 2010, a handful of agencies, led by the FBI-- and I respect the FBI, but in this case I don't--has refused to comply with this legal obligation. The Justice Department claimed that the inspector general could not access certain records until--guess what--department leadership gave them permission to do it, even though the law says they are entitled to all documents. Requiring private approval from agency leadership for access to agency information undermines inspectors general independence. That is bad enough, but it also causes wasteful delays. After this access problem came to light, Congress took action. So we have the 2015 Department of Justice Appropriations Act declaring--this is Congress again declaring--that no funds should be used to deny the inspector general timely access to all records. In other words, just this year--or last year when the appropriations bill was passed for 2015--we had Members of Congress saying that this lawyer, out of 2 million executive branch employees, who is frustrating the will of Congress is wrong. This new law directed the inspector general to report to Congress within 5 days whenever there was a failure to comply with this requirement. In February alone, the Justice Department's IG notified Congress of three separate occasions in which the FBI failed to provide access to records requested for oversight investigations. IGs for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, and the Peace Corps have experienced similar stonewalling. Then, in July, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel--that is this one lawyer out of 2 million employees--the Office of Legal Counsel released a memo arguing that we did not really mean ``all records'' when we put those words in the statute. Here we have somebody in the Justice Department--one person out of 2 million employees-- trying to tell 535 Members of Congress what they meant when they said ``all'' means all. So let me be clear. We meant what we said in the IG act: ``All records'' really means all records. I told my colleagues about the Department of Justice Appropriations Act responding to this a year ago. Well, 1 week after this report was issued, that the Office of Legal Counsel issued its awful legal opinion, Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby--both outstanding members of the Committee on Appropriations--sent a letter to the Justice Department correcting the Office of Legal Counsel's misreading of the appropriations rider, also known as section 218. I would like to read from the Mikulski and Shelby letter: We write to inform you that the OLC's interpretation of section 218 is wrong and the subsequent conclusion of our committee's intention is wrong. We expect the department and all of its agencies to fully comply with section 218 and to provide the Office of Inspector General with full and immediate access to all records, documents, and other materials in accordance with section 6(a) of the Inspectors General Act. So we wrote a statute in 1978. We have no problems with it until this person--one lawyer out of 2 million executive branch employees--writes an opinion saying ``all'' doesn't mean all. Then we have Members of the body who are insulted by that interpretation, and these Members write: No money in this appropriations bill can be used to carry out that Office of Legal Counsel opinion. And, if they would have listened to the members of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Johnson and Senator McCaskill would not have to work so hard to correct a bad opinion, contrary to congressional intent, that was written by the Office of Legal Counsel. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, particularly Senators Mikulski and Shelby, for standing up for the inspectors general. In early August I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing on the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and the devastating impact it is already having on the work of inspectors general across the country. Remember, the Office of Legal Counsel is in the Justice Department. Well, we had a Justice Department witness before our committee disagree with the results of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and actually support legislative action to solve the problem. So following the hearing, 11 of my colleagues and I sent a bipartisan--I want to emphasize bipartisan--as well as bicameral letter to the Department of Justice and the entire inspectors general community. In this letter, the chairs and ranking members of the committee of jurisdiction in both the House and the Senate asked for specific legislative language to reaffirm that ``all'' means all. As the witness from the Justice Department said, there ought to be legislative language to correct this awful interpretation by one lawyer out of 2 million employees in the executive branch, overriding 535 Members of Congress. It took the Justice Department 3 months to respond to this letter, and its proposed language was far too narrow to actually override this Office of Legal Counsel opinion. However, the inspectors general community responded to our letter within 2 weeks. In September, a bipartisan group of Senators and I incorporated the core of this language into the bill we are talking about today, S. 579. It is entitled the ``Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015.'' In total, 13 colleagues have joined me on this bill: Senators Johnson, McCaskill, Ernst, Baldwin, Carper, Cornyn, Lankford, Collins, Ayotte, Kirk, Mikulski, Fischer, and Wyden. It is bipartisan. I am grateful to each of them for standing up with me for inspectors general. I especially want to thank Senators Johnson and McCaskill, as I have already done, but do it again for working closely with me on this legislation from the very beginning and for their work in getting this bill through their committee. Let me tell you what this bill does. The Inspector General Empowerment Act includes further clarification that Congress intended IGs to have access to all agency records, notwithstanding any other provision of law, unless other laws specifically state that IGs are not to receive such access. Let me be clear. The purpose of this provision is to nullify and overturn this awful decision that this one lawyer in the Department of Justice out of 2 million-plus Federal employees in the executive branch issued this opinion. These words, notwithstanding any other provision of law, are key to accomplishing that goal, but the bill does much more than overturning the OLC opinion, which has been roundly criticized by both sides of the aisle. It bolsters IG independence by preventing agency heads from placing them on arbitrary and indefinite administrative leave. It promotes transparency by requiring IGs to post more of their reports online, including those involving misconduct by senior officials that the Justice Department chose not to prosecute. Also, the bill equips IGs with tools they need to conduct effective investigation, such as the ability to subpoena testimony from former Federal employees. 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 public trust. God only knows how much restoration of public trust in the government in Washington we have to restore. Unfortunately, employees who may have violated that trust are often allowed to evade the IGs inquiry by simply retiring from the government. So the bill empowers IGs to obtain testimony from employees like that. (Ms. AYOTTE assumed the Chair.) 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, subcontractors, grantees, and subgrantees. Currently, most IGs can subpoena documents from entities from outside their agency. However, most cannot subpoena testimony, just documents-- although there are a few agencies that can. For example, the inspector general for the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services already have that 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. The IG community recently provided me with numerous examples of actual, real-life cases that illustrate the need to subpoena witnesses. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document that lists these accounts.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I received yesterday from the Project on Government Oversight.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Project on Government Oversight is a nonpartisan, independent watchdog that has been advocating good government reforms for decades. In this letter the Project on Government Oversight expresses its support for this bill in general and for provisions that equip inspectors general with the authority to require testimony. Let it be clear that 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 be approved by a designated panel of three other IGs. It is then referred to the Attorney General. For those IGs who can already subpoena witnesses' testimony, I am not aware of any instances 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 the subjects of subpoenas are treated fairly. I am confident the rest of the IG community will be just as scrupulous in providing appropriate protection for the use of this authority. You see, we all win when inspectors general can do their jobs. Most importantly, the public is better served when IGs are able to shine light in the government operation and stewardship of taxpayer dollars. In September we attempted to pass this important bill by unanimous consent. It has been nearly 3 months since leadership asked whether any Senator would object. Not one Senator has put a statement in the Record or come to the floor to object publicly. At the August Judiciary Committee hearing, there was a clear consensus that Congress needed to act legislatively and needed to overturn this Office of Legal Counsel opinion that one person out of 2-plus million employees in the executive branch overruled this 1978 act that the inspector general ought to be entitled to all information. Every day that goes by without fixing the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel is another day that watchdogs across government can be stonewalled. At that hearing, Senator Leahy said this access problem is ``blocking what was once a free flow of information'' and Senator Leahy called for a permanent legislative solution. Senator Cornyn noted that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion is ``ignoring the mandate of Congress'' and undermining the oversight authority that Congress has under the Constitution. Senator Tillis stated that the need to fix this access problem was ``a blinding flash of the obvious'' and that ``we all seem to be in violent agreement that we need to correct this.'' However, some Members raised concern about guaranteeing IGs unchecked access to certain national security information. Fortunately, we were able to agree on some changes to the bill that addressed those concerns, without gutting the core of the bill. We made these concessions so the bill can pass by unanimous consent. This Senator thanks my colleagues who worked with me to arrive at this compromise. As we move forward, it is important to note the following: First, I am not aware of a single instance in which an IG has mishandled any classified or sensitive operational information. IGs are subject to the same restrictions on disclosing information as everyone else in the agency they oversee. Second, the Executive orders restricting and controlling classified information are issued under the President's constitutional authority. Naturally, this bill does not attempt to limit that constitutional authority at all. It just clarifies that no law can prevent an IG from obtaining documents from the agency it oversees unless the statute explicitly states that IG access should be restricted. No one thinks this statute could supersede the President's constitutional authority. Third, there is already a provision in law that allows the Secretary of Defense to prohibit an Inspector General review to protect vital national security interests and to protect sensitive operational information. We agreed to clarify that already existing provision to include the ability to restrict access to information as well as to prevent a review from occurring. However, we kept the language in that provision that requires notification to Congress whenever that authority to restrict an IG's access to information is exercised. After making these changes, we attempted to hotline the revised bill last week. Since then, no Senator has publicly stated any other concerns. The cosponsors have worked hard behind the scenes over the past 3 months in good faith to accommodate the concerns of any and all Members willing to work with us. Now the time has come to pass this bill. We all lose when Inspectors General are delayed or prevented from doing their work. I urge my colleagues to stand up for Inspectors General, overturn the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, and restore the intent of the Inspector General Act. All IGs should have access and timely independent access to all agency records. The most important thing is the principle that not one lawyer--that any one lawyer in the Department of Justice or any agency of government doesn't have a right to override the opinion of the Congress expressed in a statute so clearly as this is expressed. Madam President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 68, S. 579, the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015; I further ask consent that the Johnson substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRASSLEY. May I ask on whose behalf the minority leader is objecting? Is it on his own behalf or on behalf of another Senator?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will not question what the minority leader just said, but it seems to me we ought to know who that Senator is besides the minority leader because Senator Wyden and I have worked very hard over the last 10 years, and we finally got done what we thought was a very good measure for this body; that the people who put holds on legislation ought to be made public, and there has been nothing in the Record. So why don't these people have guts enough to put in the Record their reasons and who they are? The public has a right to know that.

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 6 p.m. today.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, according to press reports, this administration may be just weeks away from lifting sanctions on Iran. This is despite Iran's recent actions that indicate they have little intention to comply with the terms of the agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency released the final report on the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program. It is quite clear Iran was less than cooperative with the International Atomic Energy Agency. For some reason, despite Iran's stonewalling, the President seems intent and confident that they know the extent of Iran's past nuclear weaponization work. It is important to remember the evolution of the importance of this information. In April 2015, Secretary Kerry stated in an interview that Iran must disclose its past military-related nuclear activities as part of any final deal. His words on this matter were unequivocal. He stated: They have to do it. It will be done. If there's going to be a deal it will be done. It will be part of the final agreement. It has to be. Just a few weeks later, when it was clear President Obama's administration was ready to surrender to Iran's demands on this issue, Secretary Kerry said that we didn't need a full accounting of Iran's past activities. He said the U.S. intelligence agencies already had ``perfect knowledge'' of Iran's activities. Just a few days ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency released their report, which was supposed to be a comprehensive overview of Iran's nuclear program and their past military dimensions of that program. Because of Iran's obstruction, the report is far from comprehensive--as we were promised. The International Atomic Energy Agency report essentially concludes what many of us have known for a very long time. Iran was working toward developing nuclear weapons capability and they have continually lied and continually misled the international community regarding that program. The International Atomic Energy Agency also concluded that Iran's nuclear weapons program was in operation until 2009, several years later than many believed. President Obama repeatedly stated that the nuclear agreement was based on unprecedented verification. Yet it is very clear from the International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran had no intention of cooperating with the requirement that they come clean on their nuclear program. In many areas, the International Atomic Energy Agency indicated that Iran provided little information, misleading responses, and even worked to conceal portions of that program. Many of the questions around the Parchin military facility remain unanswered. This report from the International Atomic Energy Agency states: The information available to the Agency, including the results of the sampling analysis and the satellite imagery, does not support Iran's statement on the purpose of the building. The Agency assesses that the extensive activities undertaken by Iran since February 2012 at the particular location of interest to the Agency seriously undermined the Agency's ability to conduct effective verification. An effective verification was what we were promised. The Iranians were actively working to cover up and destroy any evidence of their weaponization efforts at Parchin. On many occasions, Iran refused to provide any information or simply reiterated previous denials. Iran refused to cooperate and instead continues to deceive the international community on the military dimensions of its nuclear program. Some may wonder why we should even care about this. It matters because a complete and accurate declaration of all nuclear weapons activity is a critical first step in the verification regime and the safeguard process that the International Atomic Energy Agency will be asked to enforce and something we put our confidence in. I shouldn't say ``we'' because I didn't vote for it--but something this country puts its confidence in this Agency's ability to enforce. There must be a baseline declaration to ensure effective international monitoring going forward. It also matters because President Obama entered into an agreement, along with our allies, to provide sanctions relief in exchange for Iran giving up its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. It matters because it is clear we do not have ``perfect knowledge''--which we were promised-- of what Iran is up to, as Secretary Kerry has claimed. It also matters because since the agreement was finalized, Iranian leadership has not changed their behavior. If anything, they have increased their hostility. Here are some examples of hostility: On October 10, Iran launched a long-range ballistic missile. This is clearly in violation of Security Council Resolution 1929. Then, on November 21, Iran launched another ballistic missile. It is clear that Iran has no intention to comply with the ballistic missile restrictions of this deal. These are blatant violations. How are we supposed to have any faith in this agreement or Iran's intent to comply? Iran did not comply with the International Atomic Energy Agency. They have continued to test ballistic missiles. They continue to hold Americans hostage. A Washington Post reporter has been imprisoned for more than 500 days and was recently convicted of unspecified charges in a sham trial. Iran has no intention to honor any of their obligations under this deal. It is naive to think otherwise. As a recent Wall Street Journal editorial put it, ``The larger point is that the nuclear deal has already become a case of Iran pretending not to cheat while the West pretends not to notice.'' I hope President Obama and his administration finally wake up and quickly recognize Iran's track record of noncompliance. Iran cannot and should not be rewarded with sanctions relief. The international community should not reward Iran with sanctions relief while Iran doubles down on its confrontational and uncooperative behavior. They should not be given hundreds of billions of dollars while continuing to defy and deceive the international community. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in his 2013 confirmation hearing, FBI Director James Comey called whistleblowers ``a critical element of a functioning democracy.'' That is what I have been saying for years. Whistleblowers expose waste, fraud, and abuse. They help keep Government honest and make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. By pointing out problems, whistleblowers foster transparency and make it possible for an organization to do better. Agencies should value their contributions. Instead, agencies often ignore whistleblower complaints or worse--retaliate against whistleblowers for bringing wrongdoing to light. Across the Federal Government, whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a picnic, instead of the dedicated public servants they are. Unfortunately, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is no exception on that point. However, the FBI is the exception when it comes to legal protections for whistleblowers. Unlike every other federal agency, the FBI is the only agency where employees are not protected for reporting wrongdoing to their direct supervisors or others within their chain-of-command. This makes no sense. Studies show the great majority of whistleblowers first make disclosures to their supervisors. The FBI's own policy encourages reports to supervisors within the chain-of-command. Nevertheless, an FBI employee who makes a disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse to their supervisor has no protection under law if the supervisor retaliates. It is no surprise, then, that a 2015 report by the Government Accountability Office found that, of the 54 closed FBI whistleblower complaints it reviewed where documentation showed the reason for closing the case, at least 17 cases were dismissed in part because an employee made a disclosure to someone in their chain-of-command or management. Why is there this gaping hole in FBI whistleblower protections? Because, unlike every other federal law enforcement agency, the FBI is statutorily exempt from government-wide whistleblower protection laws. As a result, it lives under its own unique regulatory scheme conceived, created, and controlled entirely within the Department of Justice. There is no independent review. This unique exemption for the FBI has led to outrageous delays in the adjudication of FBI whistleblower complaints due to endless internal appeals and the low priority that FBI whistleblower cases receive at the Justice Department. Currently, FBI whistleblower cases are adjudicated by the Department's Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management--an office whose very name clearly shows it was not designed to address reprisal cases. Appeals are considered by the Deputy Attorney General's office. That office has made clear that it has other priorities that render it incapable of even minimal communications with whistleblowers to inform them of their case status. Clearly, we need to do better. I have worked with many FBI whistleblowers over the years who put everything on the line just to tell the truth. In exchange for their courage, they faced delays of up to a decade in adjudicating their cases, a deaf ear from the highest levels of the Justice Department, and in many cases, no protection at all. Consider the case of Michael German. Michael testified at our hearing in March this year where we examined the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of the Justice Department's FBI whistleblower regulations. Before he resigned from the FBI in 2004, Michael German was a decorated undercover special agent who successfully risked his life to infiltrate white supremacist and neo-Nazi hate groups across the United States, some with ties to foreign terrorist groups. He discovered that a portion of a meeting between two such groups had been illegally recorded by mistake. Rather than following the rules and documenting the error, as he suggested, a supervisor told him to ``pretend it didn't happen.'' But he refused to back down. He reported the wrongdoing to his Assistant Special Agent in Charge. Then the FBI ``froze him out and made him a `pariah.' '' Because Special Agent German disclosed wrongdoing to his ASAC instead of one of the nine specifically designated entities in the Justice Department regulations, he was not protected. His case was not even investigated ``in earnest,'' according to him, until he resigned from the FBI and reported the matter to Congress. This is the tragedy of weak FBI whistleblower protections: If this bill had been law when Michael German first blew the whistle, this country might still have the benefit of this decorated FBI Special Agent in our fight against terrorism. He is by far not the only FBI whistleblower sidelined and ostracized by the failures of current law and policy. In today's world, we cannot afford to lose public servants like Michael German. That is why today, with my cosponsor Senator Leahy, I am introducing this hi-partisan legislation, the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2015. Among other things, this bill will for the first time provide legal protection to FBI employees who report wrongdoing to their supervisors, provide a more independent process for whistleblowers who have suffered reprisal, and increase oversight and transparency of the FBI whistleblower complaint process. This bill is a long time coming. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I wish to honor Iowa Governor Terry Branstad on a very historic milestone. On December 14 of this year, Governor Branstad will become the longest serving Governor in the Nation's history. He breaks a record set by Governor Clinton of New York in the early days of our country, even before the Constitution of our country was established, between the Articles of Confederation into the early years of New York as a State in the United States of America. That is a very large feather in the cap of a farm kid from the town of Leland, population 289, in Winnebago County in northern Iowa. In many ways, a smalltown farm background prepared Terry Branstad for his success as a State house member, Lieutenant Governor, and then Governor on two separate occasions. If he finishes this term--and he will--it will add up to 24 years as Governor. The farm crisis of the 1980s hit every farm State hard, and Iowa, at the heart of the Nation's breadbasket, suffered deeply. All of us who lived in Iowa at that time saw friends and neighbors lose their family farms and struggle with what to do next for a living. The State needed men and women with vision and ambition to pull the economy out of the doldrums. It needed people who could see the potential for farmers to add value to their operations and for Iowa to diversify its economy, which it has now done. Of all the people out there, Terry Branstad stood out as Governor. He was at the forefront of creating a new environment to do business. He welcomed and actively encouraged innovation that would capitalize on Iowa's bedrock work ethic and our strong schools. As a result, agriculture was and continues to be a mainstream of Iowa's economy. But agriculture more than ever is an engine for many other employment sectors: renewable energy, manufacturing, crop research, insurance and financial services, and, of course, as we Iowans know, much more. As Governor from 1983 to 1999, Terry Branstad took the helm during some of the State's worst economic turmoil in decades and steered the ship toward impressive economic growth. The unemployment rate went from 8.5 percent to a record low of 2.5 percent. The Governor could have rested on those laurels and continued to work outside of State government after he retired after those first 16 years, but he again answered the call when the State needed him again in 2010. He put the State of Iowa's interests ahead of his own and went to work for Iowans this second time, bringing his valuable leadership to the Governor's office for another round. That, in a nutshell, tells you everything you need to know about Terry Branstad. The State of Iowa comes first for him. Iowans are well acquainted with Terry Branstad's accomplishments and work ethic. It is gratifying to see those attributes get attention on a national scale and in the history books. He has earned his place in history. Of course, First Lady Christine Branstad ought to be complimented too. We thank her for her public service and, most importantly, for sharing her family with all Iowans. We are lucky to have had Governor Terry Branstad for these years as chief executive in Iowa, and, of course, I am lucky to call him a friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in his 2013 confirmation hearing, FBI Director James Comey called whistleblowers ``a critical element of a functioning democracy.'' That is what I have been saying for years. Whistleblowers expose waste, fraud, and abuse. They help keep Government honest and make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. By pointing out problems, whistleblowers foster transparency and make it possible for an organization to do better. Agencies should value their contributions. Instead, agencies often ignore whistleblower complaints or worse--retaliate against whistleblowers for bringing wrongdoing to light. Across the Federal Government, whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a picnic, instead of the dedicated public servants they are. Unfortunately, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is no exception on that point. However, the FBI is the exception when it comes to legal protections for whistleblowers. Unlike every other federal agency, the FBI is the only agency where employees are not protected for reporting wrongdoing to their direct supervisors or others within their chain-of-command. This makes no sense. Studies show the great majority of whistleblowers first make disclosures to their supervisors. The FBI's own policy encourages reports to supervisors within the chain-of-command. Nevertheless, an FBI employee who makes a disclosure of waste, fraud, or abuse to their supervisor has no protection under law if the supervisor retaliates. It is no surprise, then, that a 2015 report by the Government Accountability Office found that, of the 54 closed FBI whistleblower complaints it reviewed where documentation showed the reason for closing the case, at least 17 cases were dismissed in part because an employee made a disclosure to someone in their chain-of-command or management. Why is there this gaping hole in FBI whistleblower protections? Because, unlike every other federal law enforcement agency, the FBI is statutorily exempt from government-wide whistleblower protection laws. As a result, it lives under its own unique regulatory scheme conceived, created, and controlled entirely within the Department of Justice. There is no independent review. This unique exemption for the FBI has led to outrageous delays in the adjudication of FBI whistleblower complaints due to endless internal appeals and the low priority that FBI whistleblower cases receive at the Justice Department. Currently, FBI whistleblower cases are adjudicated by the Department's Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management--an office whose very name clearly shows it was not designed to address reprisal cases. Appeals are considered by the Deputy Attorney General's office. That office has made clear that it has other priorities that render it incapable of even minimal communications with whistleblowers to inform them of their case status. Clearly, we need to do better. I have worked with many FBI whistleblowers over the years who put everything on the line just to tell the truth. In exchange for their courage, they faced delays of up to a decade in adjudicating their cases, a deaf ear from the highest levels of the Justice Department, and in many cases, no protection at all. Consider the case of Michael German. Michael testified at our hearing in March this year where we examined the effectiveness--or lack thereof--of the Justice Department's FBI whistleblower regulations. Before he resigned from the FBI in 2004, Michael German was a decorated undercover special agent who successfully risked his life to infiltrate white supremacist and neo-Nazi hate groups across the United States, some with ties to foreign terrorist groups. He discovered that a portion of a meeting between two such groups had been illegally recorded by mistake. Rather than following the rules and documenting the error, as he suggested, a supervisor told him to ``pretend it didn't happen.'' But he refused to back down. He reported the wrongdoing to his Assistant Special Agent in Charge. Then the FBI ``froze him out and made him a `pariah.' '' Because Special Agent German disclosed wrongdoing to his ASAC instead of one of the nine specifically designated entities in the Justice Department regulations, he was not protected. His case was not even investigated ``in earnest,'' according to him, until he resigned from the FBI and reported the matter to Congress. This is the tragedy of weak FBI whistleblower protections: If this bill had been law when Michael German first blew the whistle, this country might still have the benefit of this decorated FBI Special Agent in our fight against terrorism. He is by far not the only FBI whistleblower sidelined and ostracized by the failures of current law and policy. In today's world, we cannot afford to lose public servants like Michael German. That is why today, with my cosponsor Senator Leahy, I am introducing this hi-partisan legislation, the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2015. Among other things, this bill will for the first time provide legal protection to FBI employees who report wrongdoing to their supervisors, provide a more independent process for whistleblowers who have suffered reprisal, and increase oversight and transparency of the FBI whistleblower complaint process. This bill is a long time coming. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the 2014 farm bill and attempts to change it by Members of this Congress. The farm bill process was a long, hard, and frustrating exercise. Nobody got everything they wanted, but in the end we got a new bill for farmers across the country. I believe our country needs good farm policy, which means an adequate, yet limited safety net for farmers. Our farmers face real, uncontrollable risks every year. The farm bill provides farmers with a number of programs that help mitigate those risks. That is why I was very concerned when I learned the budget deal was cutting $3 billion from the Federal crop insurance program. That cut would have forced the Risk Management Agency at the Department of Agriculture to renegotiate the Standard Reinsurance Agreement next year and save $300 million per year. These cuts were almost universally opposed by rural America. Lenders, commodity groups, input suppliers, and many others opposed the cuts to the crop insurance program. Beyond being bad policy, I opposed the crop insurance cuts because-- like many of my colleagues on both the House and Senate Agriculture committees--I do not support reopening the 2014 farm bill. I am very glad the highway bill is going to reverse these cuts to the crop insurance program. I also want to speak to the importance of not reopening the farm bill in the omnibus. Section 739 of the House Agriculture Appropriations bill reauthorized commodity certificates. For those who don't remember what commodity certificates are, they are a way around payment limits. The language in the House bill specifically directs the USDA to administer commodity certificates as they were in 2008 when they were not subject to any payment limits at all. I want to be very clear so there is no misunderstanding by those in this body or the agriculture lobby. Section 739 of the House Agriculture Appropriations bill brings back commodity certificates, which reopens the 2014 Farm Bill. If the agriculture community wants to be taken seriously, we should heed our own advice and not reopen the Farm Bill by reauthorizing commodity certificates. I am opposing cuts to the crop insurance program today because that would reopen the farm bill. I hope tomorrow I don't have to oppose commodity certificates in the Omnibus because a few people want to reinstate unlimited farm subsidies. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2914.

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