Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Manchin-Toomey amendment that is going to be up next, I am told, won't prevent the next shooting or reduce crime or fix our mental health system. We need to also be worried about protecting the Second Amendment. My amendment addresses the Obama administration's reduction in gun prosecutions by providing money to expand Project Exile and funding for prosecuting felons and fugitives who fail background checks, targeted to the highest crime jurisdictions. It criminalizes straw purchasing and gun trafficking, provides more resources for Secure Our Schools grants, and increases funding for mental health initiatives. It incentivizes States to provide mental health records to the background check database, clarifies what records should be submitted to the NCIS system, and it provides that military members can buy firearms in their State of residence or where they are stationed, so that what happened in Chattanooga doesn't happen again. Finally, this amendment also reduces funding to those municipalities that continue to defy the law with regard to the enforcement of immigration offenses, otherwise known as sanctuary cities. I ask for adoption of the amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for the purposes of amendment No. 2914, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on this side, we yield back all of our time. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2908 contains matter that is not within the jurisdiction of the Finance or HELP Committees and is extraneous to H.R. 3762, a reconciliation bill. Therefore, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a friend of mine, Patricia Geadelmann. Pat serves as special assistant to the president for board and governmental relations at the University of Northern Iowa, my alma mater. Pat is retiring in January after more than 43 years at the university. She began her career teaching physical education and health at the Malcolm Price Laboratory School and achieved the rank of professor. Since 1984, she has served in the UNI administration under four different presidents. In fact, in total, Pat has worked at UNI under 5 of the 10 presidents the university has had. Before that, she was an undergraduate student at the university. Her experience and her knowledge of the University of Northern Iowa is unmatched. Needless to say, she has been an invaluable resource for each of the presidents she has served with and to the university as a whole. In fact, it is hard to imagine UNI without her. I have worked with Pat in her capacity as the head of government relations for the University of Northern Iowa for most of my time in the Senate. With someone who has her level of knowledge and experience, you would be tempted to wonder whether she reports to the president or the president reports to her. But, if you know her, you know she is as unassuming as she is dogged in her dedication to the university's best interests. The University of Northern Iowa was lucky to have her, and on behalf of the UNI family, we are sorry to lose her. We wish her well in her new ``retired'' career as minister of care and visitation at First Presbyterian Church in Waterloo.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2015. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Cantwell. Our bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blenders credit to a domestic production credit, and extend the credit through 2018. Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005. As a result of this incentive, and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats. Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating for years a modification to the current incentive. We have proposed making the credit available for the domestic production of biodiesel, rather than a mixture credit available to the blender of the fuel, going back to 2009. The bill we are introducing today is similar to an amendment that I offered with Senator Cantwell during consideration of the tax extenders package in the Senate Finance Committee in July of this year. Our biodiesel reform amendment passed unanimously by voice vote. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer, because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive It has been susceptible to abuse because of this. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. It's projected that imports from Argentina, Singapore, the European Union, South Korea and others could exceed 1.5 billion gallons over this year and next. We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we will also save taxpayer money. The amendment adopted in the Finance Committee is estimated to reduce the cost of the extension by $90 million. Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at only 60 percent of capacity. The domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers. It is my understanding that representatives from the House and Senate, along with the White House, are currently meeting to finalize a tax extender package before the end of the year. I strongly urge them to maintain the Senate position, and include the biodiesel reform policies that were adopted in the Senate Finance Committee. This modification will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production. Surely, House and Senate leaders recognize that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this common-sense, cost reduction modification.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2015. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Cantwell. Our bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blenders credit to a domestic production credit, and extend the credit through 2018. Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005. As a result of this incentive, and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats. Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating for years a modification to the current incentive. We have proposed making the credit available for the domestic production of biodiesel, rather than a mixture credit available to the blender of the fuel, going back to 2009. The bill we are introducing today is similar to an amendment that I offered with Senator Cantwell during consideration of the tax extenders package in the Senate Finance Committee in July of this year. Our biodiesel reform amendment passed unanimously by voice vote. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer, because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive It has been susceptible to abuse because of this. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. It's projected that imports from Argentina, Singapore, the European Union, South Korea and others could exceed 1.5 billion gallons over this year and next. We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we will also save taxpayer money. The amendment adopted in the Finance Committee is estimated to reduce the cost of the extension by $90 million. Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at only 60 percent of capacity. The domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers. It is my understanding that representatives from the House and Senate, along with the White House, are currently meeting to finalize a tax extender package before the end of the year. I strongly urge them to maintain the Senate position, and include the biodiesel reform policies that were adopted in the Senate Finance Committee. This modification will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production. Surely, House and Senate leaders recognize that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this common-sense, cost reduction modification.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor because we are discussing ObamaCare on the reconciliation bill. Webster's dictionary defines the word ``success'' as the correct or desired result of an attempt. So I want to discuss the definition of the word ``success'' as we consider repeal of ObamaCare. On the day the bill was signed into law, President Obama said the following: Today we are affirming that essential truth, a truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself, that we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations. Such grand words for where we are today with ObamaCare. Today the success of the law that now bears his name, ObamaCare, is defined in much more meager terms. Think of all we have been through to this point: the fight over the bill and the extreme legislative means used to pass it through the Congress; the Supreme Court decision that effectively repealed half of the law's coverage. Think of all the changes made to the law through regulation to make sure ObamaCare actually got launched--the postponing of the employer mandate, the postponing of lifetime limits. Think of the impact this law has had on our economy--people losing jobs, people losing the health insurance they currently have because if you like what you have, you may not be able to keep it. Let's talk about that for a moment. ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' This was the promise the President made to the American people on at least 36 separate occasions. It is a great sound bite. It is easy to say. It rolls off the tongue. It is also not true. It was never true. It obviously was not true when the law was written. It was obviously not true when the first proposed regulation came out. This is what I said on the Senate floor in September of 2010: Only in the District of Columbia could you get away with telling the people ``if you like what you have, you can keep it,'' and then pass regulations 6 months later that do just the opposite, and figure that people are going to ignore it. It is not that I have some magic crystal ball. We all knew it. The administration certainly knew the day would come when millions of people would receive cancellation notices. My constituents clearly know that. I heard from many Iowans who found out the hard way that the President made a bunch of pie-in-the-sky promises that he knew he couldn't keep; constituents such as this one from Perry, IA, who wrote to me saying: My husband and I are farmers. For nine years now we have bought our own policy. To keep the cost affordable our plan is a major medical plan with a very high deductible. We recently received a letter that our plan was going away. Effective January 1, 2014, it will be updated to comply with the mandates of ObamaCare. To manage the risks of much higher premiums, our insurance company is asking us to cancel our current policy and sign on at a higher rate effective December 31, 2013 or we could go to the government exchange. We did not get to keep our current policy. We did not get to keep our lower rates. I now have to pay for coverage that I do not want or will never use. We are not low income that might qualify for assistance. We are the small business owner that is trying to live the American dream. I do not believe in large government that wants to run my life. From a constituent living in Mason City: My wife and I are both 60 years old, and have been covered by an excellent Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield policy for several years. It is not through my employer. We selected the plan because it had the features we wanted and needed . . . our choice. And because we are healthy, we have a preferred premium rate. Yesterday, we got a call from our agent explaining that since our plan is not grandfathered, it will need to be replaced by the end of 2014. The current plan has a $5,000 deductible and the premium is $511 a month. The best option going forward for us from Wellmark would cost $955 per month (a modest 87 percent increase), and have a $10,000 deductible. And because we have been diligent and responsible in saving for our upcoming retirement, we do not qualify for any taxpayer-funded subsidies. These are just two of many letters, emails, and phone calls I have received from Iowans. Now the issue has turned to cost. Millions of people face rising premiums. The impact is real and undeniable. Here is another from a constituent from Des Moines: In 2013, I encountered some medical problems which caused me to retire early. My spouse works as an adjunct instructor . . . thus not qualifying for coverage. In 2014, with 4 part- time jobs between us, we made $44,289 in Adjusted Gross Income. Our Obamacare insurance cost $968 per month and after credits, we paid $478 per month or approximately 13 percent of our Adjusted Gross Income. In 2015, our Adjusted Gross Income will be approximately the same, however our Obamacare insurance jumped to a premium of $1,028.82 and our cost to $590.12. The insurance company touted that premiums went up less than 10 percent, but as you can see, my costs went up 23 percent. The impact to Adjusted Gross Income went to 16 percent, a 23 percent increase. I just received my 2016 premium estimate. Our Adjusted Gross Income is likely to be the same. Our gross premium is scheduled to rise 36 percent to nearly $1,400; our cost after the credit is jumping 63 percent and the impact to our Adjusted Gross Income is that 25 percent of our income will be spent on health insurance (a 56 percent increase). Thousands of Iowans have contacted me asking what can be done. Now that we clearly see that what the President sold the American people was a bag of Washington's best gift-wrapped hot air. All the grandiose talk about the importance of this statute, and what we ultimately have is an optional Medicaid expansion with a glorified high-risk pool and a government portal that makes DMV look efficient. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the co-op disaster. The first co-op to fall was Iowa's CoOportunity. CoOportunity enrolled the second most beneficiaries of any co-op in America. CoOportunity knew they were in trouble because they enrolled more than 100,000 people when they were planning for less than 20,000. CoOportunity was in contact with CMS and so was the State of Iowa. CMS chose not to further fund CoOportunity and CoOportunity has since been liquidated. American taxpayers have billions of dollars invested in these co-ops. The taxpayer only gets their money back when co-ops succeed. CMS's stewardship of this program has proven that CoOportunity was not an exception but unfortunately the rule as more and more co-ops have failed. Americans deserve better. They voted for better. It is time to admit that ObamaCare has not achieved the correct or desired result of an attempt. It has not been a success by any measure, unless, of course, you lower your standard to the point that the mere act of keeping the doors open is a success. How sad is that for all we have been through. Maybe, just maybe, it is time to admit that the massive restructuring has failed. Partisanship has failed. Perhaps it is time to sit down and consider commonsense, bipartisan steps that we could take to lower the cost and improve quality. Perhaps we could enact alternative reforms aimed at solving America's biggest health care problems, reforms like revising the Tax Code to help individuals who buy their own health insurance, allowing people to purchase health coverage across State lines and form risk pools in the individual market, expanding tax-free health savings accounts, making health care price and quality information more transparent, cracking down on frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, using high-risk pools to insure folks with preexisting conditions, giving States more freedom to improve Medicaid, and using provider competition and consumer choice to bring down costs in Medicare and throughout the health care delivery system. The American people need to know that this failed program is not the only answer and we are not scaling back our aspirations. With this vote this week, we once again demonstrate to the American people our willingness to not accept failure and to aim for better. That is what America is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 7 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I was seeking the floor, but it is my understanding that Senator McConnell, our leader, is on his way to the floor. I will wait until he speaks. I don't think we have to ask for a quorum call because I think he will be here in just a minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, because of what happened in Paris last week, a lot of speeches are going to be given on the floor of the Senate about terrorism. But it is too bad that we only seem to talk about the dangers of terrorism when bad things happen in the United States or happen in Paris or someplace else that brings the issue to our attention. I think what we all need to remember is that it is a constant danger that may not appear to us daily, but somewhere out there are people thinking about killing us for what we believe. So I rise today, again, expressing my sympathies to the people of Paris and those affected by Friday's terrible attacks by radical Islamic terrorists there. On behalf of the people of Iowa, I continue to stand with the people of France. Unfortunately, the attacks last Friday should not have been a surprise. Radical Islamic terrorists have been waging war against the United States and our allies for years. When thinking about the last three decades of the last century, you think about the terrorism at the Munich Olympics or an American being murdered on a TWA plane. Then we had a Jewish person in a wheelchair thrown overboard in the Mediterranean. There was the attempt to bring down the Twin Towers in 1993 by car bombs. Marines were murdered in Lebanon--over 200, I think it was. We had the attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where our military people were living. We had the East African Embassy attacked, and we had the USS Cole attack. Now, all of those happened before 9/11. Since 9/11, attacks have occurred around the world--from the train bombings in Madrid in 2004 to the suicide bombings in London in 2005 to the senseless slaughter in the streets of Mumbai in 2008. My focus today, however, will be on the United States homeland. Terrorists have continued to try to attack us here on many occasions since 9/11. Some of these attacks have succeeded. Most of them have failed. Some of them have involved direct coordination with terrorist leaders abroad, and some have been committed by lone wolves inspired by terrorists overseas or the views of those terrorists. But these threats are ongoing, and that is what we should not fail to understand. Consequently, we must be vigilant to guard against those threats. We know that we will face them again. Several prominent terrorist attacks in the United States come to mind. We all remember the carnage at the Boston Marathon in April 2013, where two brothers detonated bombs at the finish line that killed an 8- year-old boy and two others and injured hundreds more. Although the brothers did not appear to have direct ties with terrorist organizations, they were motivated by radical Islamic beliefs. We also remember the November 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, TX, where 13 people were killed and several dozen others were wounded. Incredibly, the Obama administration refused to categorize this as a terrorist attack, in spite of the fact that the shooter had traded emails with then senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. The shooter also later identified his extremist beliefs as a basis of his attack. But those tragedies only continued the pattern followed by radical Islamic terrorists since Al Qaeda hijacked and crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon that fateful day in 2001. Soon after 9/11, for example, British citizen Richard Reid attempted to detonate explosives packed in his shoe while on a flight to Miami in December 2001. He had previously trained at Al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thankfully, he failed, but this attempted attack put us on notice that these terrorists were not finished with what happened on 9/ 11. More attacks and plots followed, perhaps less well remembered after the passage of time. And the passage of time is our biggest enemy here, as we don't think about this often enough. But they still demonstrate the ongoing threat we face. In July 2002, an Egyptian shot and killed two Israelis and wounded four others at the Los Angeles International Airport. Although the FBI did not find evidence linking the shooter to a terrorist group, the agency concluded the shooting was an act of terror. In March 2006, another radical Islamic terrorist injured six people when he drove his vehicle into a group of pedestrians at the University of North Carolina. The attacker claimed to have conducted the attack in order to avenge the killing of Muslims around the world by our American Government. Another example is the ``Fort Dix Six'' plot in May of 2007. In that case, six men planned to kill American soldiers at the military base in New Jersey but were arrested before they could do so. The men were inspired by jihadi videos. In June 2009, a terrorist shot two recruiters at a military center in Little Rock, AR. One of the recruiters was killed, and the other was seriously wounded. The shooter told the judge in his case that he was a soldier of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Later in 2009, three radical Islamic terrorists were arrested just before they were able to conduct suicide attacks in New York City. One of these terrorists drove all the way from his home in Colorado to strike the New York City subway system with homemade explosives hidden inside a backpack. He later admitted in court that he was trained by Al Qaeda to be a part of what they call a ``martyrdom operation.'' He further confessed that Al Qaeda officials ordered these suicide attacks from Pakistan. Also in 2009, on Christmas Day, a terrorist often referred to as the Underwear Bomber attempted to blow up a bomb concealed in his underwear while on a flight over Detroit. Several days later, Al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen and Saudi Arabia claimed responsibility for that effort. In May 2010, a terrorist tried to set off a car bomb in the middle of Times Square in New York City. He was arrested while attempting to flee the country on a flight to the Middle East. The bomber was trained and financed by the Pakistani Taliban. More recently, the threat from radical Islamic extremism has sprung from the chaos in Syria. By now we are all familiar with ISIS, or the Islamic State. Last year, we witnessed the horrors of ISIS's brutal and barbaric beheading of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and aid worker Peter Kassig in Syria. As FBI Director Comey explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, ISIS presents a new type of Islamic extremist organization. For one thing, ISIS exploits social media to promote its terrorist agenda and encourage people within the United States to commit terrorist attacks. As Director Comey explained, ISIS's propaganda machine is like a devil on somebody's shoulder saying: ``Kill, kill, kill;'' and ``if you can't come to Syria, kill somebody where you are. Kill somebody in uniform. Kill anybody.'' Those are the words Comey used in paraphrasing the message that comes from ISIS on social media. ISIS's deadly message of terror is having a profound effect here in our country. Over the last year, the government has stopped numerous individuals in the United States who tried to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS. According to Director Comey, over 200 Americans have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria for this purpose. I fear that such individuals who successfully return home could recreate the Paris attack here in our country, given the training, the indoctrination, and the battlefield experience they received abroad. The Washington Post reported on November 16 that 66 men and women in the United States have been charged with crimes associated with ISIS, including both attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIS or planning attacks here. Beyond ISIS's recruitment of Americans to fight in Syria, the Paris attack demonstrates the extreme dangers the group now poses here in North America. Look at what occurred just over the past year or so. In October 2014, a radical Islamic terrorist who could not obtain a passport to travel to Syria shot up the Parliament in Canada, killing a Canadian soldier on duty at the Canadian National War Memorial. The next day, a self-radicalized Muslim convert attacked four police officers on the streets of New York City with a hatchet after watching ISIS Internet propaganda. In January of this year, the FBI arrested a person in Ohio for plotting to attack the U.S. Capitol with pipe bombs and guns. The terrorist also allegedly expressed a desire to support ISIS, and he had posted videos and messages on social media, supporting violent attacks by radical Islamic terrorists. Later, in May of this year, two Islamic terrorists drove from Arizona to Garland, TX, to attack a conference center during an art exhibit. The center was hosting an exhibition of cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. The pair shot and injured a security guard before being killed by a police officer. ISIS subsequently claimed responsibility for that attack. In June 2015, law enforcement officers in Massachusetts shot and luckily killed a knife-wielding member of a group of ISIS supporters who were plotting attacks here in the United States, along the lines of what Director Comey has said: Just go out and ``kill, kill, kill.'' Two other alleged terrorists were arrested and are being prosecuted. Just this month, an American was arrested in Ohio for supporting ISIS. He allegedly posted online detailed personal information, including their addresses, of 100 U.S. military members. He had then allegedly called on fellow terrorists to kill these military personnel in their homes and communities, along the lines of what the social networking message is from overseas to people in the United States, as Director Comey has reported to us: ``Kill, kill, kill.'' Just kill anyone. More chilling than a lot of this is the video released earlier this week. On Monday, ISIS released a video warning countries against participating in air strikes in Syria. The video claimed that ISIS would attack these countries just as it attacked France last Friday. The video specifically threatened to attack this city, right here, Washington, DC. According to the New York Times just this morning, ``at least three dozen people in the United States suspected of ties to the Islamic State were under heavy electronic or physical surveillance even before the Paris attacks.'' That ought to wake us all up to the dangerous environment that exists. It is all too obvious that we will continue to face attacks from radical Islamic terrorists in the future. We ought to remind ourselves every day about this potential threat. So to help remind us both of that certainty and that we must be prepared for it, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record a long list of terrorist attacks in the United States that I prepared from public sources. The list may not include each and every attack by terrorists, but it does include a wide variety of attempted and planned attacks against our citizens. Because of space limitations on material submitted for the Record, a more complete and annotated list can be found on my website. That list also includes a separate list of individuals prosecuted in the United States for attempting to leave the country to fight for ISIS.

Mr. GRASSLEY. These lists include successful attacks that harmed Americans as well as unsuccessful attempts that did not--often thanks to law enforcement's efforts. What is common to all the attacks is that they were undertaken by terrorists who coordinated with radical Islamic extremists, were inspired by them or by those who shared their views. The listed attacks should serve as a reminder that we must always be vigilant. We must never forget that radical Islamic extremists are waging war against us. We must always be prepared to fight this battle and to defend against their attacks. I am grateful this Thanksgiving season for the people in this country who do the difficult work of protecting us from terrorists every day. We must continually strengthen our country's ability to win this war. We must ensure that our military and Special Forces have the ability to take the fight to the terrorists overseas, wherever they are lurking. We must ensure that our intelligence agencies have the tools needed to identify terrorists and their plots, while preserving the civil liberties that make our country very special. And we must ensure that law enforcement is able to use the lawful tools provided by Congress, consistent with our Constitution and approved by our courts, to help stop these terrorist attacks. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., of Virginia, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Career Ambassador, to be an Under Secretary of State, Political Affairs. I will object because the Department of State has still not responded to almost a dozen investigative letters dating back to 2013. In addition, on August 20, 2015, my staff met with Department officials in an effort to prioritize material for production. The Department has failed to comply with its commitments, producing material late, failing to provide all requested material, and even failing to provide material to the Senate Judiciary Committee contemporaneously with providing the same documents to Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requestors. These are the same complaints that I raised on September 30, 2015, when I placed a hold on Brian James Egan of Maryland to be legal advisor of the Department of State. Apparently, the Department simply does not understand its obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner. Two and a half years ago I began a broad inquiry into the government's use of special government employee programs. I did not single out the State Department on this issue. To the contrary, I wrote to 16 different government agencies. Two and a half years have passed since I began my inquiry, and the State Department has still not produced the materials I have requested or certified they do not exist. In addition to the investigation of the Department's special government employee program, I am also investigating the Department's compliance with the FOIA as it pertains to Secretary Clinton's private server that was used to transit and store government information. The Minority Leader has questioned whether the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction extends to these matters. I would note that the special government employee designation is an exception to Federal criminal conflict-of-interest laws. Those laws are within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, as is FOIA. During the course of my investigation, a former State Department employee--Mr. Bryan Pagliano--declined to speak to the Judiciary Committee about his work on Secretary Clinton's email server. He pled the Fifth Amendment. We keep hearing that the FBI's inquiry is just a security review and not a criminal inquiry; yet this witness cited his Constitutional right against self-incrimination to avoid talking about his work on the email server. And he is relying on the Fifth Amendment to withhold his personal emails as well. So naturally we are searching for other ways to get information before deciding whether it might be appropriate to seek an immunity order for his testimony. The most likely source of information without forcing the witness to testify would be his emails. Yet the Department has failed to produce any in response to my request and the request of Chairman Johnson of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. As a further example of the Department's continued intransigence, I requested all SF-312 ``Classified Non-Disclosure Agreements'' for Secretary Clinton, Ms. Huma Abedin, and Ms. Cheryl Mills on August 5, 2015. My staff met with Department personnel three times since that letter and participated in dozens of emails and phone calls in an effort to acquire these documents. In addition, after the Department complained that it had received too many requests from me, my staff produced a prioritized list of requests to assist the Department in producing responses. At number three on that list were the SF-312 forms, and at number one are the official emails of Mr. Pagliano. Notably, during conversations with my staff on the subject, Department personnel stated that they could not locate those forms with the exception of only page 2 of Ms. Abedin's SF-312 exit form. On November 5, 2015, the Department produced SF-312 entrance forms for Secretary Clinton, Ms. Abedin, and Ms. Mills to a FOIA requestor but failed to provide the same to the Committee. Clearly, the documents exist. In addition, I am also looking into several State Department inspector general and whistleblower reports that suggest that the State Department does not hold its own employees accountable for human- trafficking and prostitution violations. Earlier this year, the Judiciary Committee led the effort to pass the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, and I have sent letters to DOJ and DHS--and not just the State Department--to ensure that Federal employees are held accountable for soliciting prostitutes. Last week, the minority leader questioned my use of Judiciary Committee resources to conduct these investigations, suggesting that my work in this area is somehow taking away from the committee's other work. Back in September, the Justice Department sent me a letter complaining that I have sent them almost 100 oversight letters containing more than 825 questions and document requests--in 2015 alone. Since then, my office has sent 11 additional oversight letters to the Justice Department, containing more than 65 questions and document requests. So perhaps the minority leader should ask the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs at DOJ whether my committee is not doing enough DOJ oversight. The continued intransigence and lack of cooperation make it clear that the Department did not care enough about their Foreign Service officer candidates to ``get in gear'' and begin to produce responses to my oversight letters. Accordingly, I have released my hold on these officer candidates and have escalated to Mr. Shannon. The Department of State's refusal to fully cooperate with my investigations is unacceptable. As I have noted before on the floor of the Senate, the Department continues to promise results, but there has been very little or no follow-through. The Department's good faith will be measured in documents delivered and witnesses provided. My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Shannon in any way. However, the Department must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for about 6 or 7 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to express my deepest sympathies to the people of Paris and all those affected by the terrorist attacks of Islamic extremists. As we all know, hundreds of people were killed or injured in the attacks, including at least one American citizen. No one should be faced with horrific violence when attending a soccer game or concert or simply carrying out their daily lives. On behalf of Iowans, I stand with the people of France. I offer our support in recovering from and responding to those attacks. Unfortunately, there is fear that similar attacks could soon take place on U.S. soil. There is even a video that ISIS released earlier today threatening to attack America. Moreover, if we follow the administration's announced plans to bring in thousands of new Syrian refugees, we could very well be letting in similar extremists who want to harm Americans. That is because it appears that at least one of the ISIS terrorists in Paris had recently registered as a Syrian refugee in the country of Greece. Until last Friday, he appeared to all the world to be no different from any of the other thousands of people fleeing the chaos in Syria. This could happen here too. The No. 1 responsibility under the Constitution of our Federal Government is to protect the homeland and to secure the country against all threats. We must do all we can to prevent a terrorist style attack from happening here, but under the administration's proposed plan, we may not be able to stop such an attack. We cannot tell who among the thousands of Syrian refugees the administration wishes to resettle here are terrorists. One particularly alarming statement to this effect came from the Director of the FBI, James Comey. He was in a hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs just on October 8 of this year. Director Comey said ``there are certain gaps . . . in the data available to us'' in screening Syrian refugees. This data, which includes fingerprints, background and biographic information, is crucial for an adequate screening of potential refugees entering the United States. Director Comey continued in that hearing saying, ``There is risk associated with bringing anybody in from the outside, but especially from a conflict zone like that.'' Director Comey has also previously acknowledged that despite a large pool of data on Iraqi refugees, our past program for admitting refugees from Iraq inadvertently allowed into our country ``a number of people who were of serious concern, including two that were charged when we found their fingerprints on improvised explosive devices from Iraq.'' Our ability to screen individuals from war-torn Syria is extremely limited by comparison. Several States' Governors have recognized this difficulty and have accordingly moved to suspend cooperation with the administration in settling Syrian refugees in their States until those security concerns are addressed. I share such concerns for protecting our country against terrorists who have clearly infiltrated the Syrian refugee population. I recently wrote a letter to the leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee. In that letter I asked that taxpayers' funds be used effectively to properly and securely screen refugees entering the United States. I also requested in the letter that as part of the appropriations legislation before the committee, it require a comprehensive plan on how security will be achieved. I requested this be a condition for any funding for refugee resettlement for Syrian refugees. I said then and I emphasize now that not one dollar should be expended until stringent parameters for vetting these refugees are established. I would also suggest to President Obama that he reconsider his plan to admit Syrian refugees until the dust settles and we get to the bottom of the Paris attacks. We need to analyze what happened. We need to figure out how we can better screen these refugees and ensure that terrorists among them are not evading proper screenings. We need a timeout before we press forward. I stress that the United States remains an extremely generous country when it comes to refugees. This year alone we will allow 75,000 refugees fleeing persecution around the world to enter our country, but we have to set our own citizens' security as a top priority. I call on Congress to act to ensure that this administration certifies that the most stringent security standards are in place before allowing any more of the Syrian refugees into our country. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to prevent Friday's attacks from happening here. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, oversight of the executive branch of government by the Congress is as old as the Constitution, it is a critical role, and it is one that was intended by the writers of the Constitution. I believe oversight leads to better government, better laws, and actually saves the taxpayers money. That is why this Senator works very hard at oversight. I went after the Reagan Defense Department for wasteful spending in the 1980s. I held up the Department of Justice nominees during the Bush administration to get my oversight letters answered, just as I am doing now with the Obama Department of State. I voted in support of giving the Judiciary Committee the authority to issue subpoenas regarding its inquiry into the firing of U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration when a lot of Republicans didn't want that to happen. My belief in and exercise of the oversight role by Congress is longstanding and nonpartisan. Yesterday the Senate minority leader said my investigation into the Department of State's use of special government employee designations and how Secretary Clinton's private email arrangement interfered with the Freedom of Information Act compliance is political. This simply is not so. This investigation involves many things, but it does not involve politics. His speech yesterday inferred that I was doing all these things for political reasons. That is simply not true, nor is it in accordance with my reputation as an equal opportunity overseer. My investigation into the potential abuse of the special government employee designations and Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email server and the potential spillage of classified information is not political. It is evidence-based, and it has something to do with our national security. Unfortunately, the Department has been largely uncooperative since June of 2013. The Department's lack of cooperation has caused me to place 22 holds on its nominees. These are not secret holds. I have placed, according to the rules of the Senate, a statement in the Record of why those holds are placed, and to correct the senior Senator from Nevada, my holds do not include 600 Foreign Service officers and do not include individuals from Iowa. With respect to my pending requests to the Department of State, I am still waiting for a full production of documents from my June 2013 oversight request--the constitutional responsibility of those of us who pass laws and appropriate money. That happened to be 2\1/2\ years ago, and the State Department has still not produced the materials I have requested. The Department has implemented several clever strategies to delay the process. I will give you some examples. The Department routinely assigns new employees to handle different requests. Each time a new employee is assigned we get the same excuses why they cannot deliver on our requests. These excuses go something like this: I am new, so I don't know who to talk to and where to find the documents. For years the Department has delayed in productions, each time with more excuses. For instance, the Department still refuses to answer whether Secretary Clinton's private server was approved. The Department has failed to provide emails for Department personnel communicating about Secretary Clinton's private server that we have strong reason to believe exist. The Department took over 2 months to schedule a single interview with a former employee. The Department for over 2 months has refused to provide instructions it gave to Clinton attorney David Kendall to secure the thumb drives that contained classified information--even though the Department was quoted in the news as providing those instructions. The Department has failed to provide travel reimbursements and leave documents for its employees. On August 5 of this year, I requested classification nondisclosure forms for Secretary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills. On November 5, the Department provided those documents to a Freedom of Information Act requester but not to the committee. I highlight that. The Freedom of Information Act request was made, but the same information that was sought by a congressional committee-- one was granted and the other so far has been denied. While the Department provided the documents to that requester under the Freedom of Information Act, Department employees told me they had been unable to find those documents. Not only has the Judiciary Committee experienced unacceptable Department of State delays in receiving the information we request, others inside and outside of the government have experienced delays as well. The Associated Press sued the State Department over the failure to satisfy repeated document requests under the Freedom of Information Act related to these same agents. One of these requests dates back 5 years ago. Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the judge responsible for this case, scolded the State Department for its failure to produce documents on time: Now, any person should be able to review that in one day-- one day. Even the least ambitious bureaucrat could do this. Let there be no mistake about this investigation. This investigation is centered on the Freedom of Information Act, a law that is within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction. This investigation is centered on potential abuse of the special government employee designation that allows government employees to be paid by outside employers, in this case hundreds of thousands of dollars by a consulting firm run by a former Clinton administration employee. This investigation is centered on potential violations of the Federal Records Act and holding government officials accountable for their actions. This investigation is centered on whether public officials properly handled classified information. Nobody is above the law. Senior government officials and regular employees should get equal treatment under the law, and that treatment should be fair and objective. It should not depend on what your position is. When it looks like the treatment is different, we have to figure out what is going on. For example, it looks like other government employees are subject to very different treatment when accused of mishandling classified information. Army LTC Jason Amerine, a decorated war hero, contacted Congress to try to warn about bureaucratic problems with U.S. hostage recovery efforts, problems that he believed were putting lives at risk. He was accused of improperly transmitting classified information to Congress in the process. This war hero was removed from his job, was escorted out of the Pentagon, had his clearances suspended, had his scheduled retirement delayed indefinitely, was fingerprinted and had a mug shot taken, was threatened with court-martial, and was subject to extensive investigation. After almost a year of being investigated, the Army decided not to court-martial Lieutenant Colonel Amerine. Instead, he was awarded the Legion of Merit for exceptionally meritorious service and was finally allowed to retire. But look at how differently he, a war hero, was treated when accused of mishandling classified information compared to Secretary Clinton and her associates. Where was the minority leader in trying to help this war hero from these attacks from this administration? Nowhere to be seen is the answer to that. It is apparent that some have a selective memory when it comes to putting value on oversight and investigations. But I do not. I have been consistent in my oversight role my entire career, investigating Republicans and Democrats. My oversight and investigations unit is involved in many investigations. The vast majority of them have nothing to do with Secretary Clinton. Looking out for the public interest isn't a waste of time, and I will keep at it regardless of misguided attacks on my motivations and mischaracterizations of my work. I will continue this investigation because the American people have a right to the truth and government officials have an obligation to answer to ``We the People.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article dated September 4, 2015, be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Before I speak on the main subject for which I came to the floor, I want to compliment the Senator from Texas for both of the points he has made about the renaming of the street by the Chinese Embassy and also for what he has done in regard to Kate's Law today. Maybe something good has come out of his presentation on the floor, even though he wasn't able to proceed, in that if there is a real desire in the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, for a bipartisan approach to getting mandatory sentences for criminal felons who have been deported and have come back into the country, so that we don't have 121 people murdered in the future, as we have had in the last 5 years--because of mandatory sentencing under Kate's Law--I would be glad to pursue that. The reason this bill didn't go through the committee in the first place is that we felt there would be every effort to stop it from getting out of committee. Inspector General Empowerment Act Before I go to my full prepared remarks, I want to tell my colleagues why we ought to pass the legislation I am going to refer to. I will summarize by saying that the 1978 inspectors general law says that an inspector general is entitled to all material he needs in each agency to do the work that he has to do. Well, about 3 months ago, probably at the behest of the FBI, a single person in the Justice Department, in the Office of Legal Counsel, issued an opinion that said ``all'' doesn't mean all. So that means an inspector general has to go through a lot of redtape in order to get the material he or she needs to do their job. I don't need to tell my colleagues how important inspectors general are. They are important because they help us do our congressional job of oversight to ferret out waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Americans have a right to know when our government is misbehaving or wasting taxpayer dollars. To ensure accountability and transparency in government, Congress created inspectors general, sometimes referred to as IGs, as their eyes and ears within the executive branch. Those independent watchdogs are uniquely positioned to help Congress and the public fight waste, fraud, and abuse in government. But IGs cannot do their job without timely and without independent access to all agency records. That is why ``all'' means all. Agencies cannot be trusted to restrict the flow of potentially embarrassing documents to the IGs who oversee them. Watchdogs need access to those documents to do their job. They are mandated by law to keep Congress fully informed about waste, fraud, and abuse problems. If the agencies can keep IGs in the dark, then this Congress will be kept in the dark as well. If given the chance, agencies will almost always choose to hide their problems from scrutiny. In other words, the public's business that ought to be public sometimes does not become public and there is less accountability. Getting back to the 1978 act, when Congress passed this act, we very explicitly said that IGs should have access to all agency records. Let's get back to what happened. What happened was one person in the Department of Justice said that ``all'' doesn't mean all. Does it make sense to have one person out of the entire bureaucracies of the United States make a ruling that when Congress says ``all'' means all, all of a sudden ``all'' doesn't mean all? If inspectors general deem a document necessary to do their job, then the agency should turn it over immediately. Inspectors General are designed to be very independent but also to be a part of the agency. They are inside so they can see when the laws aren't being followed, when the money isn't being spent according to law. They are there to help agency leadership identify and correct waste, fraud, and abuse. I would hope every agency head appreciates a person whose main responsibility is to help see that the law is followed. Fights between an agency and its own inspector general over access to documents are a waste of time and a waste of taxpayers' money. The law of 1978 requires that inspectors general have access to all agency records precisely to avoid these costly and time-consuming disputes. However, since 2010 a handful of agencies--led by the FBI, the law enforcement agency of the U.S. Government--has refused to comply with this legal obligation that ``all'' means all. Agencies started to withhold documents and argued that IGs are not entitled to ``all records'' even though that is exactly what the law says. In other words, it is pretty simple: ``All'' means all. But on this island of DC, surrounded by reality, maybe common sense doesn't prevail and maybe ``all'' doesn't mean all. The law was written to ensure that agencies cannot pick and choose when to cooperate with the IGs and when to withhold records. Unfortunately, that is precisely what several agencies started doing after this single person in the Department of Justice made this ruling. The Justice Department claimed that the inspector general could not access certain records until Department leadership gave them permission. Requiring prior approval from any agency leadership for access to agency information undermines the inspector general's responsibilities and, most often, his independence. That is bad enough, but it also causes wasteful delays. It effectively thwarts inspector general oversight. This is exactly the very opposite of the way the law is supposed to work. After this access problem came to light, Congress took action. The 2015 Department of Justice Appropriations Act declares that ``no funds provided in this Act shall be used to deny the Inspector General of the Department of Justice timely access to all records, documents, and other materials. . . . '' The new law also directed the inspector general to report to Congress within 5 days whenever there was failure to comply with that statutory requirement. In other words, these people take an oath to uphold the laws. The law says ``all'' means all, and somehow they can ignore it. In February alone, the Justice Department's inspector general notified Congress on three separate occasions in which the FBI failed to provide access to records requested for oversight investigations. IGs for the Environmental Protection Agency, for the Department of Commerce, and for the Peace Corps have experienced similar stonewalling. Then, in July, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel released a memo arguing that we did not really mean all records when we put those words in the law of the United States of America. That is the one person I am talking about. The Office of Legal Counsel released this memo that says ``all'' doesn't mean all even though the law says ``all'' means all. So let me be clear. We meant what we said in the IG Act: All records really means, pretty simply, all records. In early August, I chaired a hearing on this opinion and the devastating impact it is already having on the work of inspectors general across government. Multiple witnesses described how the opinion handcuffed inspectors general and brought their important work to a standstill. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service had already cited the misguided Office of Legal Counsel opinion in order to justify stiff- arming its IG access to all records. Even the Justice Department's witness disagreed--get this--we had a Justice Department official testify, and that witness disagreed with the results of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and directly told us that we ought to support and initiate legislative action to solve the problem. Now, here is a high-level person, above the Office of Legal Counsel, saying we ought to pass a bill to correct what that agency says had had an impact that wasn't surmised would happen--that we ought to pass a bill when they could just withdraw the Office of Legal Counsel ruling. As a result of that testimony, following that hearing, 11 of my colleagues and I sent a bipartisan, bicameral letter to the Department of Justice and to the inspector general community of the various agencies. In that letter, the chair and ranking member of the committees of jurisdiction in both the House and Senate asked for specific legislative language to reaffirm that ``all'' means all for all inspectors general, every one of them. It took the Justice Department 3 months to respond to that letter for the very same thing they had testified about--that we ought to pass a law to do it, and we asked them for their help. The language it provided, however, fails to address the negative effects the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion is already having on the ability of IGs to access their agency records all across government. However, the inspector general community throughout our bureaucracy responded to our letter within 2 weeks and provided language that is actually responsive to our request. In September, a bipartisan group of Senators and I incorporated the core of this language in S. 579, called the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015--a bill we shouldn't even have to pass, if Justice would just withdraw this Office of Legal Counsel opinion that causes this problem in the first place. Specifically, I was joined in this effort on this bill by 11 other Members, including Senators McCaskill, Carper, Baldwin, and Mikulski. Senator Mikulski serves as vice chair of both the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee which has jurisdiction over appropriations for the Justice Department. She and Chairman Shelby were the authors of the appropriations rider I recently spoke about. In July, 1 week after the Office of Legal Counsel issued its awful legal opinion, Senators Mikulski and Shelby sent a letter to the Justice Department correcting the Office of Legal Counsel's misreading of that appropriations rider, also known as section 218. I will read a few excerpts from that letter from the two highest people on the Appropriations Committee, who are in a pretty good position to tell these bureaucrats where to go and particularly where to go when the law is very clear and the Appropriations Committee is very clear that some opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel isn't even justified. Quote: We write to inform you that Office of Legal Counsel's interpretation of Section 218--and the subsequent conclusion of our Committee's intention--is wrong. Surmising that multiple interpretations of section 218 created uncertainty, Office of Legal Counsel chose one of the three rationales that most suited its own decision to withhold information from the Office of Inspector General. This conclusion was not consistent with the Committee's intention at all. Rather, the Committee had only one goal in drafting section 218. . . . to improve OIG access to Department documents and information. 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 material in accordance with section 6(a) of the Inspector General Act. End Quote. So there we have the appropriators saying what our bill is trying to do, saying that it is wrong for one person in the Office of Legal Counsel to overturn 30 years of law that we have had in the inspector general's office. I applaud my colleagues on this very important Appropriations Committee for standing up for inspectors general, and I applaud my colleagues who have joined me in sponsoring the legislation entitled The Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2015. I especially thank Senators Johnson and McCaskill for working with me on this legislation from the very beginning and for their work in getting this bill through their committee. Apparently the plain language of the IG Act and the 2015 appropriations rider was somehow not clear enough for the Office of Legal Counsel to understand, so the Inspector General Empowerment Act includes further clarification that Congress intended IGs to access all agency records--and these next words are very important--notwithstanding any other provision of law unless other laws specifically state that the IGs are not to receive such access. This ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' language is what the OLC opinion indicates would be necessary before OLC would believe that Congress really means to ensure access to all records. But overturning an OLC opinion that was roundly criticized by both sides of the aisle is just the beginning. In addition, the legislation also bolsters IG independence by preventing agency heads from placing them on arbitrary and indefinite administrative leave. The bill would also promote greater transparency by requiring IGs to post more of their reports online. The bill would increase accountability by equipping IGs with tools to require testimony from contractors, grantees, and other employees who have retired from the Government, often while under investigation by an IG. In September, we attempted to pass this bill via unanimous consent. It has been more than a month since the 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 the Office of Legal Counsel opinion as quickly as possible. 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 Leahy said that this access problem is ``blocking what was once a free flow of information'' and called for a permanent legislative solution. 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 have raised concerns about guaranteeing IG access to certain national security information. I wish to explain why this bill should not be held up for that reason. First, this bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators, including Democrats and Republicans on the Intelligence Committee. These people know something about the protection of national security. These Senators are Senator Mikulski, Senator Lankford, and Senator Collins. Second, the inspector general of the intelligence community supports the bill. Third, the bill would not affect intelligence agencies under title 50, such as the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Fourth, the Executive orders restricting and controlling classified information are issued under the President's constitutional authority. This bill does not in any way attempt to limit that constitutional authority at all. It 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. Fifth, there is already a provision in the law that allows the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to halt an inspector general review to protect vital national security interests. Nothing in the bill would change that already existing carve-out for the intelligence community. All IGs should have the same level of access to records that their agencies have, and all IGs are subject to the same restrictions and penalties for disclosure of classified information. No inspector general's office has ever violated those restrictions. They have an unblemished record of protecting national security information. If there are changes that can be made to the bill so that it can pass by unanimous consent, I am ready to consider those. However, any changes or carve-outs for the intelligence community should not impact other IGs. The point of the bill is to overturn the Office of Legal Counsel opinion and restore complete, timely, and independent access for IGs to agency records. That goal must be preserved. We all lose when inspectors general are delayed or prevented in doing their work. Every day that goes by without a fix is another day that watchdogs across the Government can be stonewalled. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters that I mentioned earlier and a letter I received from the inspector general community today showing why the Department of Justice's proposed language is insufficient to solve the problem at hand. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op- ed that was recently published in the Washington Post in support of this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I see Senator Johnson on the floor. I thank him very much for his leadership in this area. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues, in particular my colleague from Iowa but also the people who are very senior leaders of this body: Senator McConnell, Senator Reid, and my friend on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, whom I have served with for 35 years. I thank them for their kind words and for what they said about my service to the people of Iowa as an elected representative. I have interacted with tens of thousands of Iowans as their Senator, so I have a feeling that I know each Iowan personally at this point. Of course, I don't. I know that is technically impossible, but one of the benefits of a State that is not especially big geographically is that I have enough planning that I can get to every county every year, as has been said several times by my colleagues. Every year, Iowans in each county host me at a question-and-answer session at their factories, schools, or their service clubs. Most of these are my own town meetings that I set up. At each stop, I might get a dozen or so questions on any topic under the Sun, and that is as it should be in representative government because that is a two-way street. The electorate's job is to ask the questions and my job is to answer them. If people are satisfied that I have answered their questions or that at least I have tried to answer them, then I hope I have demonstrated how much their participation means to the process of representative government and to casting my votes in Washington because I bring the benefits of every comment, question, and criticism heard from Iowans to that vote. With these 12,000 votes, I think of the many conversations and pieces of correspondence behind each vote. Whether I am meeting with Iowans in the Hart Building in Washington or at the University of Northern Iowa volleyball matches near my farm in New Hartford, the time that people take to visit with me is well spent for me, and I hope they consider it a time well spent for them. People ask me if I have any hobbies. I cannot say that I do, at least not in the way people usually think of hobbies. Spending time with the people of Iowa is part of my work. I get paid to listen and make sure that is what I do. It is my pleasure to spend time with Iowans. When someone stops me at the Village Inn in Cedar Falls, where I go for Sunday brunch after church, to talk about cyber security or sentencing reform, I am glad to do it. What is important to the people of Iowa is my vocation. I am grateful for the opportunity to cast 12,000 votes. Thanks to the people of Iowa, thanks to my wife Barbara and the rest of my family who share my regard for what is important, representing the people of Iowa.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. May I have 1 minute to speak to that point?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I wish to commemorate my friend and colleague for casting his 15,000th vote today in the Senate. Senator Leahy has been a stalwart Member of this body since joining the Senate at the age of 34 in 1975. Four decades later, Senator Leahy continues to serve his State and our Nation with great passion and conviction. Senator Leahy has been a good friend as we work together in leading the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, Senator Leahy, congratulations on this tremendous milestone. I hope we can cast many more votes together as we continue to work in a bipartisan way on the committee. I applaud the Senator from Vermont for his great commitment to service, and I wish him many more votes in the future. (Applause, Senators rising.)