Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a bill I am introducing, the Rural Emergency Acute Care Hospital Act, or REACH Act. Since January 2010, 55 rural hospitals have closed their doors. It is even more troubling that the pace of rural hospital closures appears to be accelerating. As you can see from this chart, the number of hospital closures has increased each year over the past 5 years. These closures are creating a health care crisis for hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country. The REACH Act will create a new rural hospital model under Medicare that will enable struggling rural hospitals to keep their doors open and maintain the most critical hospital service: emergency medicine. When a rural hospital closes, the community loses the lifesaving capabilities of the emergency room. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 60 percent of trauma deaths in the United States occur in rural areas. After a traumatic event, access to an emergency room within 1 hour can make a big difference between life and death. Take, for example, Portia Gibbs from North Carolina. At 48, Portia suffered a heart attack 75 miles from the nearest emergency room. She later died while waiting for a helicopter to arrive that would have taken her over the State line to Virginia, where the closest hospital was located. If Portia's heart attack had occurred just 1 week earlier, Portia would have been transported to a hospital in Belhaven, NC, just 30 miles away. Unfortunately, the facility in Belhaven had closed just 6 days before Portia's heart attack, citing insurmountable financial struggles. Then there is the tragic story of 18-month-old Edith Gonzalez who choked on a grape in her hometown of Center, TX. Edith's frantic parents rushed her to their local hospital, Shelby Regional Medical Center, only to discover that it had closed just weeks earlier. By the time little Edith arrived at the next closest hospital, she had passed away. While we can't say with certainty that both Edith and Portia would have survived if their local hospitals had not closed, we know the earlier people access care, the better their chances are. The term used by emergency medical practitioners is the ``golden hour.'' The golden hour is the hour following a traumatic event when lifesaving intervention--like that which can be provided in an emergency room--has the best chance of impacting survival. In other words, the longer a patient has to wait to receive emergency medical care, the lower their chances will be for survival. Rural hospital closures mean patients have to travel longer distances to access emergency medical care. Ensuring that rural communities keep their emergency care resources could make the difference between life and death. Rural hospital closures also extend beyond the loss of emergency services to include economic consequences for rural communities. Hospital closures can mean the death of a rural community. Approximately 62 million Americans live in rural areas. Rural communities play an integral role in the economic stability of this country through their invaluable contributions in food production, manufacturing, and other vital industries. In addition to supporting the medical needs of those who participate in rural industry, rural hospitals also serve as the single largest employer in a rural community. The economic impacts of closing a hospital when no other hospital is close by are devastating. If we care about the physical and economic health of rural communities, we must make a change that will reverse the trend of accumulating rural hospital closures. iVantage Analytics compiled a report for the National Rural Health Association which identified 283 additional hospitals at risk of closure based upon performance indicators that matched those of the 53 facilities that already closed. Allow me to direct the Presiding Officer's attention to this map. This map depicts the approximate locations of 53 of the 55 hospitals that have closed in the last 5 years. I would like to point out that between the printing of this chart and today, two additional rural hospitals have closed. That alone is a clear indication of the problem I am trying to convey. Now, imagine this same map depicting five times the number of hospital closures you see here. That is what is what will happen if we do not act to protect America's rural hospitals. Furthermore, the loss of those additional hospitals would not only impact local economies but would also result in a $10.6 billion loss in GDP. It must change, not only for the health of rural Americans but also for the health and stability of our economy. Payment cuts to hospitals are one contributing factor to rural hospital closures. More significant, however, is the current Medicare payment structure that supports rural hospitals. Today, the Medicare payment structure for hospitals is focused on inpatient volume. Emergency rooms act as a loss leader, and income is primary generated through inpatient stays. A RAND study published in 2013 found that the average cost of an inpatient stay is 10 times the cost of an emergency room visit. Researchers at the University of North Carolina found that many of the at-risk rural hospitals around the country have an average of two or fewer patients admitted to a hospital on any given day. These hospitals can have up to 25 inpatient beds, and if only 2 or fewer of those beds are filled every day, that is a utilization rate of 8 percent or less. Instead of letting these facilities close because they do not have the needed inpatient volume to generate enough revenue, why not let go of the underutilized inpatient services in favor of sustaining life- saving emergency care. That is what the REACH Act does. It provides a voluntary pathway for rural hospitals to eliminate their underutilized inpatient services and ensure residents have access to emergency medical care that saves lives. A key component of the bill that allows the rural emergency hospital model to function is the requirement for these facilities to have protocols in place for the timely transfer of patients who require a higher level of care or inpatient admission. The value of the rural emergency hospitals in the case of a life- threatening emergency will be their ability to administer lifesaving measures in order to stabilize a patient before they are transferred to a higher level of care. In addition to providing lifesaving emergency care, rural emergency hospitals will have the flexibility to provide a wide array of outpatient services, including observation care, skilled nursing facility care, infusion services, hemodialysis, home health, hospice, nursing home care, population health, as well as telemedicine services. This list is not all-inclusive but is just a sample of the outpatient services rural emergency hospitals could provide to their communities. The door is left open for rural emergency hospitals to design their outpatient services to match the needs of their communities. There are roughly 1,300 critical access hospitals in America, including 82 in Iowa, the second most just behind Kansas. I am not suggesting that 1,300 critical access hospitals will become rural emergency hospitals. Some hospitals may never consider giving up their inpatient beds, others may consider it in the future, but some critical access hospitals need this or something like it right now. The rural emergency hospital model, with its outpatient and emergency care services, will be good for the health of rural communities and our Nation because of the critical care it will provide when and where rural Americans need it. When there is a farm accident in the afternoon or a heart attack in the middle of the night, that emergency room can be the difference between life and death. Medicare needs a payment policy that recognizes that simple fact. I look forward to continuing to work with my cosponsor Senator Gardner, other colleagues, and stakeholders in building a sustainable future for rural health care.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a bill I am introducing, the Rural Emergency Acute Care Hospital Act, or REACH Act. Since January 2010, 55 rural hospitals have closed their doors. It is even more troubling that the pace of rural hospital closures appears to be accelerating. As you can see from this chart, the number of hospital closures has increased each year over the past 5 years. These closures are creating a health care crisis for hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country. The REACH Act will create a new rural hospital model under Medicare that will enable struggling rural hospitals to keep their doors open and maintain the most critical hospital service: emergency medicine. When a rural hospital closes, the community loses the lifesaving capabilities of the emergency room. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 60 percent of trauma deaths in the United States occur in rural areas. After a traumatic event, access to an emergency room within 1 hour can make a big difference between life and death. Take, for example, Portia Gibbs from North Carolina. At 48, Portia suffered a heart attack 75 miles from the nearest emergency room. She later died while waiting for a helicopter to arrive that would have taken her over the State line to Virginia, where the closest hospital was located. If Portia's heart attack had occurred just 1 week earlier, Portia would have been transported to a hospital in Belhaven, NC, just 30 miles away. Unfortunately, the facility in Belhaven had closed just 6 days before Portia's heart attack, citing insurmountable financial struggles. Then there is the tragic story of 18-month-old Edith Gonzalez who choked on a grape in her hometown of Center, TX. Edith's frantic parents rushed her to their local hospital, Shelby Regional Medical Center, only to discover that it had closed just weeks earlier. By the time little Edith arrived at the next closest hospital, she had passed away. While we can't say with certainty that both Edith and Portia would have survived if their local hospitals had not closed, we know the earlier people access care, the better their chances are. The term used by emergency medical practitioners is the ``golden hour.'' The golden hour is the hour following a traumatic event when lifesaving intervention--like that which can be provided in an emergency room--has the best chance of impacting survival. In other words, the longer a patient has to wait to receive emergency medical care, the lower their chances will be for survival. Rural hospital closures mean patients have to travel longer distances to access emergency medical care. Ensuring that rural communities keep their emergency care resources could make the difference between life and death. Rural hospital closures also extend beyond the loss of emergency services to include economic consequences for rural communities. Hospital closures can mean the death of a rural community. Approximately 62 million Americans live in rural areas. Rural communities play an integral role in the economic stability of this country through their invaluable contributions in food production, manufacturing, and other vital industries. In addition to supporting the medical needs of those who participate in rural industry, rural hospitals also serve as the single largest employer in a rural community. The economic impacts of closing a hospital when no other hospital is close by are devastating. If we care about the physical and economic health of rural communities, we must make a change that will reverse the trend of accumulating rural hospital closures. iVantage Analytics compiled a report for the National Rural Health Association which identified 283 additional hospitals at risk of closure based upon performance indicators that matched those of the 53 facilities that already closed. Allow me to direct the Presiding Officer's attention to this map. This map depicts the approximate locations of 53 of the 55 hospitals that have closed in the last 5 years. I would like to point out that between the printing of this chart and today, two additional rural hospitals have closed. That alone is a clear indication of the problem I am trying to convey. Now, imagine this same map depicting five times the number of hospital closures you see here. That is what is what will happen if we do not act to protect America's rural hospitals. Furthermore, the loss of those additional hospitals would not only impact local economies but would also result in a $10.6 billion loss in GDP. It must change, not only for the health of rural Americans but also for the health and stability of our economy. Payment cuts to hospitals are one contributing factor to rural hospital closures. More significant, however, is the current Medicare payment structure that supports rural hospitals. Today, the Medicare payment structure for hospitals is focused on inpatient volume. Emergency rooms act as a loss leader, and income is primary generated through inpatient stays. A RAND study published in 2013 found that the average cost of an inpatient stay is 10 times the cost of an emergency room visit. Researchers at the University of North Carolina found that many of the at-risk rural hospitals around the country have an average of two or fewer patients admitted to a hospital on any given day. These hospitals can have up to 25 inpatient beds, and if only 2 or fewer of those beds are filled every day, that is a utilization rate of 8 percent or less. Instead of letting these facilities close because they do not have the needed inpatient volume to generate enough revenue, why not let go of the underutilized inpatient services in favor of sustaining life- saving emergency care. That is what the REACH Act does. It provides a voluntary pathway for rural hospitals to eliminate their underutilized inpatient services and ensure residents have access to emergency medical care that saves lives. A key component of the bill that allows the rural emergency hospital model to function is the requirement for these facilities to have protocols in place for the timely transfer of patients who require a higher level of care or inpatient admission. The value of the rural emergency hospitals in the case of a life- threatening emergency will be their ability to administer lifesaving measures in order to stabilize a patient before they are transferred to a higher level of care. In addition to providing lifesaving emergency care, rural emergency hospitals will have the flexibility to provide a wide array of outpatient services, including observation care, skilled nursing facility care, infusion services, hemodialysis, home health, hospice, nursing home care, population health, as well as telemedicine services. This list is not all-inclusive but is just a sample of the outpatient services rural emergency hospitals could provide to their communities. The door is left open for rural emergency hospitals to design their outpatient services to match the needs of their communities. There are roughly 1,300 critical access hospitals in America, including 82 in Iowa, the second most just behind Kansas. I am not suggesting that 1,300 critical access hospitals will become rural emergency hospitals. Some hospitals may never consider giving up their inpatient beds, others may consider it in the future, but some critical access hospitals need this or something like it right now. The rural emergency hospital model, with its outpatient and emergency care services, will be good for the health of rural communities and our Nation because of the critical care it will provide when and where rural Americans need it. When there is a farm accident in the afternoon or a heart attack in the middle of the night, that emergency room can be the difference between life and death. Medicare needs a payment policy that recognizes that simple fact. I look forward to continuing to work with my cosponsor Senator Gardner, other colleagues, and stakeholders in building a sustainable future for rural health care.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Laura Newell on my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of today's session.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I will be introducing, the Transition to Independence Act. The bill is a Medicaid demonstration program that will give incentives to States to achieve more integrated employment for people with disabilities. The Federal Government funds a hodge podge of programs that provide supports for people with disabilities. However, the largest of all programs providing supports for people with disabilities, the Medicaid program, could do much more to drive better outcomes. The Medicaid program provides critical supports for people with disabilities including primary health care and home and community-based care. This bill is unique in that it uses the resources of the Medicaid program to drive better outcomes for people with disabilities. Our public policy encourages people with disabilities to participate in society, to live in the community and to have integrated employment. But what does the government do to encourage that outcome? What does government do to insure that all people with disabilities have the opportunity to achieve their maximum participation? I would argue, not enough. The program that is the largest funder of supports for people with disabilities is Medicaid. Unfortunately, Medicaid funding to States is in no way tied to producing better outcomes. Now I know we cannot just snap our fingers and make it so. The Federal Government cannot just order the States to do better. The Federal Government needs to provide States the right incentives to achieve better outcomes. That is the goal of the Transition to Independence Act. This bill creates a 5-year, 10-State Medicaid demonstration program. States participating in the demonstration program will receive Medicaid bonus payments for meeting achievement targets for individual integrated employment. Simply stated, as States move people with disabilities to integrated settings, they get more money. States can also achieve additional funding for agreeing to give up new congregate placements. States can achieve additional funding for ending vocation rehabilitation for congregate settings. States can achieve additional funding for taking actions that will grow the workforce serving people with disabilities. Finally, States can achieve additional funding for taking steps to improve interagency collaboration. Too much of disability policy occurs in isolated silos where people in charge of policy don't talk to each other. There is health services, long-term supports, housing, education and workforce training, and transportation available to people with disabilities all run by people who aren't working together to maximize the outcome for the individual. Now it is legitimate to ask: why can't States take these policy steps today? They can take some actions of course. But they have a significant financial incentive not to take these actions. It will take a significant investment of resources for a State to achieve better outcomes for people with disabilities. If a State wants to improve outcomes, it needs to invest in providing the supports necessary to help people with disabilities participate more fully in the community. In the end, moving people with disabilities from more expensive congregate settings to more self-sufficient, integrated settings is better for the individual and ultimately better for the taxpayer because it will require less intensive, less expensive supports. But under Medicaid, when a State makes that investment, it has to give half or more of the savings achieved back to the Federal Government. Again, that is a serious disincentive for the States. Basically, the bonuses I am proposing in this bill allow the States to keep the savings they achieve. It is my intention that this bill be essentially budget neutral to the Federal taxpayer while giving States a real incentive to achieve better outcomes. We can build better supports for people with disabilities. The term often used is a ``lifespan benefit.'' I believe that creation of a lifespan benefit, where people with disabilities receive coordinated, multidisciplinary support to achieve the maximum functional outcomes possible begins with the Medicaid program. It is my intention to prove that through this demonstration bill. I have talked to scores of people with disabilities and their families and they want to work a real job that pays a fair wage. Agencies that provide these services are committed to helping them find real jobs. It is time to change Medicaid incentives to encourage and reward that. Last week, a constituent of mine from Dubuque, Rose Carroll, visited my office with the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Rose is currently in college working on a degree in math. All Rose wants is to know that she will have the supports available to her when she needs them so that she can do all she can to participate in her community. That is exactly what this bill intends to do. It will demonstrate that States, when given the right incentives, will do all they can to make sure Rose has those supports. Back home, my friend Chris Sparks is the Executive Director of Exceptional Persons Incorporated in Waterloo, IA. Chris and his staff go out into the community every day to provide direct support services for people with disabilities. These workers provide a necessary service in order to assist people with significant intellectual and developmental disabilities to have jobs in their community. But it is a struggle every day for Chris to find workers, to train them and retain them. This bill will provide States the incentives to grow the workforce to make it easier for people like Chris Sparks to go out and provide services that allow individuals with disabilities to achieve independence. The bill I introduce today has the support of the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Association on Health and Disability, Autism Speaks, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Adult Day Services Association, the National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services, the National Association of States United for Aging and Disabilities, and the National Down Syndrome Congress. The bill also has the support of the American Network of Community Options and Resources including Iowa members: Christian Opportunity Center, Hope Haven, Opportunity Village, Hills & Dales, New Hope Village, and Exceptional Persons Incorporated. In their advisory role to Congress, the National Council on Disability provided technical assistance on the bill. This is an opportunity for us to say that outcomes matter, for us to further a conversation about setting the goal of maximum participation and using all our tools to meet it. I look forward to working with my colleagues and others to move this legislation forward in the months to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have serious concerns with the language that was tacked on to the House FISA reform bill that passed the Senate, and at the end of my remarks I am going to offer a unanimous consent request. I say that because maybe other Members of the Senate would like to be heard or would like to maybe reject my unanimous consent request, and I want to give them the privilege of knowing I am doing this. The language in the FISA bill made changes to the Federal criminal code to implement four important multilateral treaties relating to nuclear terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is good that these treaties are finally being implemented. The Senate gave its advice and consent to these treaties back in 2008. In the years since then, however, the Senate leadership repeatedly failed to bring bills to the floor that would implement them. The language which is now law omits a number of key provisions that were requested by both the Obama administration and the Bush administration. So I want my colleagues to know this has had support from both Republican and Democrat Presidents, in the present and in the past. My amendment No. 1786 restores these provisions, which are important tools to combat the gravest of threats to our national security. I am happy to note that Senator Whitehouse, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, has joined me in offering this amendment. First, the amendment adds the authority for prosecutors to seek the death penalty for these newly created crimes in appropriate cases. Under the criminal code, similar crimes already carry the possibility of the death penalty. Singling out these new offenses under this treaty, which is intended to stop terrorists from threatening us with the world's most dangerous weapons, for lesser punishment simply makes no sense. For example, section 2280 and 2281 of the code, which criminalizes various acts of violence on the high seas, already provide for the possibility of the death penalty. So it is only logical that new sections 2280a and 2281a, which criminalize acts of terrorism on the high seas related to weapons of mass destruction, should as well. The newly created offenses of nuclear terrorism, now codified in section 2332i, should as well. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of an offense for which the death penalty might be more appropriate than nuclear terrorism. Terrorists who kill Americans--especially nuclear terrorists--should be eligible for the death penalty. This shouldn't at all be controversial, and I think the support of both former President Bush and President Obama speaks to that point. Terrorists who kill Americans--especially nuclear terrorists--should be eligible for the death penalty. I can't repeat too often that this shouldn't be controversial. Second, the amendment makes these newly created criminal offenses material support predicates. In other words, the amendment would provide the government the ability to prosecute those who finance or otherwise provide material support to these terrorists. Naturally, these are complex crimes that aren't committed by just one person. They involve entire networks that need to be stopped in their tracks. This provision will help do that by making sure that those who provide materiel support to terrorists don't escape justice. Third, the amendment would add these offenses to the list of those crimes that are predicates for wiretap applications. As the law now stands, prosecutors can't request a traditional criminal wiretap against a terrorist suspected of breaking these new laws, but at the same time, they can get a wiretap to investigate a long list of less serious offenses. Again, this doesn't make sense. In fact, this is a dangerous omission. Our government needs the ability to listen in on calls of suspected nuclear terrorists. So this provision would permit prosecutors to request the authority to do so from a Federal judge. Once again, I use the term ``common sense.'' These are commonsense fixes, supported by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, fixing and harmonizing these recently created crimes with the rest of the criminal code, fixing and harmonizing these recently created crimes with the rest of the Criminal Code. They were requested by both the Obama and Bush administrations because they will help protect us from the catastrophe that could result from terrorists seeking to use the ultimate weapons against us. So I urge my colleagues to support Grassley-Whitehouse amendment No. 1786. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up and make pending Grassley-Whitehouse amendment No. 1786.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I accept the good-faith effort to listen to my point of view, even though there is a rejection, but I would like 1 minute to react to the objection. This amendment only does what both the Bush and Obama administrations asked Congress to do, to make clear that the death penalty could apply to any active nuclear terrorism. It is not enough that other criminal statutes might also apply to nuclear terrorists and might also carry the death penalty. It is quite the opposite; that terrorists who use guns and explosives to kill can face the death penalty means that nuclear terrorists certainly should as well. It does not take too much imagination to come up with a situation which, under current law, the death penalty might not clearly apply. We are all aware of the threat of cyber terrorism. If a terrorist used a computer to take over a nuclear powerplant and caused a deadly nuclear meltdown, it is not clear that his crime would be eligible for the death penalty under any other Federal Criminal Code. We simply shouldn't accept this potential gap in the law which my amendment fixes. So, once again, I am sorry there was an objection. I am not done with this. We will continue it in some other environment. I respect my colleagues, however, for objecting. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1889

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gillibrand for her leadership in this area over a long period of time, and I add my voice to the support of her amendment. She has been a great leader on the issue. As you can see, she has a lot of passion in her dogged pursuit of justice. Last year, when I spoke in favor of this measure, I made the point this was not a new issue that required further study or incremental reforms. We had been hearing promises for years and years that there would be zero tolerance and a real crackdown on military sexual assault. Last year, the National Defense Authorization Act included a lot of commonsense reforms, but it did not include any fundamental reform of the military justice system. We were told to give these new adjustments to the current system a chance to work and come back next year. At the time, I made the point that we had already tried working within the current system to no avail. I am not one to advocate for major sweeping reform if less will address the problem, but what we have been doing has not worked. Last year, after Congress passed the package of more modest reforms but not our Military Justice Improvement Act amendment, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, said: ``We have been given about a year to demonstrate both that we will treat this with the urgency it deserves and that we can turn the trend lines in a more positive direction.'' He made clear that if we didn't see real progress, he wouldn't stand in the way of more major reforms. Well, we have not seen significant movement. In terms of the number of sexual assault cases and the shocking rate of retaliation against those who report, we simply don't see progress. That is probably because the current system is part of the problem. The fact that victims of sexual assault cannot turn to an independent system to get justice, combined with the very real fear of retaliation, acts as a terrible deterrent to reporting sexual assault. If sexual assault cases are not reported, they then cannot be prosecuted. If sexual assault isn't prosecuted, it leads to predators remaining in the military and a perception that this sort of activity is going to be tolerated. By allowing this situation to continue, we are putting at risk the men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line. We are also seriously damaging military morale and readiness. Taking prosecutions out of the hands of commanders and giving them to professional prosecutors who are independent of the chain of command will help ensure impartial justice for the men and women of our Armed Forces. This would in no way take away the ability of commanders to punish troops under their command for military infractions. Commanders also can and should be held accountable for the climate under their command, but the point here is the sexual assault is a law enforcement matter, not a military one. This isn't some reform that came out of the blue either. We have an advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of Defense himself which came out in support of reforms. On September 27, 2013, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services--which goes by the acronym DACOWITS--voted overwhelmingly in support of each of the components of the Military Justice Improvement Act amendment. DACOWITS was created way back in 1951 by then-Secretary of Defense George C. Marshall. The committee is composed of civilian and retired military men and women who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces. Historically, this committee's recommendations have been very instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women. The bottom line is, this isn't some advocacy group or fly-by-night panel. It is a longstanding advisory committee handpicked by the Secretary of Defense and it supports the substance of our amendment to a tee. We have tried reforming the current system and it didn't work. When we are talking about something as serious and life-altering as sexual assault, we cannot afford to wait any longer. So I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this amendment. As we approach this from the outside, it gives me an opportunity to reiterate what I see so wrong in so many bureaucracies. We are always promised change, but as I have looked back over a couple or three decades of this problem of the culture of the various bureaucracies, nothing really happens from within. It has to happen from without. In this particular case of national defense being the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government, this change has to happen from without because it hasn't happened from within, regardless of the promises. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Eight hundred years ago on this very day, at the field of Runnymede alongside the River Thames in England, King John granted the document that came to be known as the Magna Carta--in our language, the Great Charter. This was the result of negotiations between King John and rebellious barons who objected to what they saw as violations of their customary privileges. By affixing his Great Seal to the document 800 years ago today, the King accepted limits on his power to impose his will on his subjects. It was a momentous occasion, as evidenced by the fact that four original copies of the Magna Carta remain carefully preserved, but its significance has grown over time. It is true that the original Magna Carta was only in effect for a couple months before King John then at that time got the Pope to annul it. Subsequent Kings voluntarily reissued the charter as a way of gaining the support of the barons, and portions still retain legal force in England today. While many of the specific provisions in the Magna Carta dealt with very medieval concerns, such as how heirs and widows of deceased barons should be treated, a couple clauses resonate very strongly to this very day. No free man shall be seized or imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay justice or rightful justice. In these clauses, you can see the specific right of habeas corpus that was included in the U.S. Constitution as well as a right to speedy trial by jury in the Sixth Amendment. You can also see a reference to property rights. Moreover, what comes through is the overarching theme of the Magna Carta--something very basic to U.S. governance--the rule of law or what John Adams called ``a government of laws, and not of men.'' In the 17th century, the Magna Carta was increasingly cited to criticize the King's exercise of arbitrary power in the tug-of-war for supremacy between the English Crown and the Parliament. It became a potent symbol of an inviolable liberties of Englishmen. For instance, when William Penn was put on trial in England for practicing his Quaker faith, he used the Magna Carta in his defense. He later wrote a commentary on the Magna Carta for a work printed in Philadelphia called ``The Excellent Privilege of Liberty and Property Being the Birth-Right of the Free-born Subjects of England,'' which contained the first edition of the Magna Carta printed in the New World. In this work, William Penn explained the significance of the English tradition where the ruler is bound by the law, in contrast to countries such as France, where the King was actually the law. He wrote, again quoting William Penn: In England the Law is both the measure and the bound of every Subject's duty and allegiance, each man having a Fixed Fundamental right born with him, as to freedom of his person and property in his estate, which he cannot be deprived of, but either by his consent, or some crime, for which the law has imposed such a penalty for forfeiture. It is in this environment that the English philosopher John Locke developed his theory of natural rights, which was so influential in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. The natural rights philosophy went a step further than the ancient rights of Englishmen, positing that the rights are God-given and self-evident and that the very purpose of government is to secure those rights. However, you can clearly trace the lineage of the notion of limited government and consent of the governed to the Magna Carta. In fact, the original version of the Magna Carta contained a clause limiting the ability of the King to levy certain taxes on the barons without first consulting them. I think you can clearly see that this is an early version of what we say: No taxation without representation. While that provision did not last, the custom of needing consent for taxation eventually led to the evolution of the parliamentary system and representative government. Still, it is important to note that representative government grew out of even more fundamental principles, such as the rule of law, limited government, and the notion that citizens retain rights that the government may not in any way violate. Our Founding Fathers thought that representative government was the best way to guard against tyranny and preserve the rights of citizens. But that is not sufficient, because without a strong tradition of respect for the rule of law, even duly-elected governments can descend into tyranny. Now, remember the history of Germany pre-World War II. Hitler came to power as a result of a democratic process and then proceeded to act in the very definition of tyranny. In more recent times, Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia and then stifled opposition and consolidated power to himself, essentially putting himself above the law. When Sergei Magnitsky stood up for the rule of law in Russia and exposed corruption at the highest levels in that country, he was imprisoned in appalling conditions, where he died a slow, agonizing death. By contrast, the 800-year old Anglo-American tradition of the rule of law acts as a crucial safeguard to our liberty--not only that, but it is also an essential foundation for prosperity. An organization called World Justice Project has ranked countries based on various factors that indicate how a strong the rule of law is in that particular country. The countries at the top tend to not only be ones we recognize as very free but also tend to be much more prosperous than countries ranked at the bottom of the rule of law index. Now, maybe to us in America that makes common sense. I think it is common sense. You are less likely, then, to work hard to generate wealth or invest in a business if you cannot be sure that the law will protect what you worked for. Still, we should not take this 800-year- old document and tradition for granted. It will continue to preserve our liberty and provide for our prosperity only so long as it retains the reverence it has built up over the generations. Human nature being what it is, there is still always a temptation for those in power to think they are above the law. For instance, in the famous Frost interviews after he resigned the Presidency over the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon was asked about the legal limits of what a President can do. Nixon answered: ``If the President does it, that means it's not illegal.'' He could not have been more wrong from the standpoint of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental principles on which it is founded, going all the way back to the Magna Carta. Still the danger does not just come from megalomaniacs and others who seek to use power for their own purposes. Those entrusted with power who would act outside the law, even when they think it is good for their people as they see it, end up eroding the bulwark of liberty that is the rule of law. Ever since the Progressive Era, there has been a powerful school of thought that our system of divided and limited government is somehow inefficient, that we should have evolved beyond the need for limits on governmental power, and that power concentrated in the right hands can be used to help people. This is a temptation for every President and one I fear the current President is particularly susceptible to. In fact, modern Presidents have tools at their disposal that go far beyond anything envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. The Constitution says that the role of the President is not to write laws, but to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' We now have a massive administrative state made up of departments and agencies to which Congress has delegated enormous power and that make regulations with the force of law. Moreover, these agencies have the power to enforce their own regulations and the primary role in interpreting their regulation in individual cases. Thus, they exercise legislative, executive, and judicial power all in the one. But this concentration of power in executive branch agencies creates a strong temptation for Presidents to use it to implement their agenda irrespective of Congress or the law of the land. I have been very critical of President Obama for a number of actions that I think exceed his legal authority, from using the Clean Water Act to try to regulate land use decisions in virtually every county in our country to forcing States to adopt his preferred education policies in order to get funding and waivers to granting a massive amnesty from our immigration laws, which even he previously admitted he did not have the legal authority to do. I think these are bad policies. But even those who see these as short-term policy victories should be very wary of the long-term consequences of anything that erodes our tradition of respect for the rule of law. Now, as I finish, it took 800 years to build up, and once it is eroded it will not be easy to restore. It is vital that Presidents exercise restraint out of respect for the rule of law. Congress should also work to reclaim much of the power it has delegated to the executive branch in order to reduce the temptation and the opportunity for abuse of executive power. It is not just up to elected officials. Our ancient tradition of the rule of law draws its authority from the fact that generations have demanded that their leaders adhere to the rule of law. As such, this 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta is an occasion for Americans to remember our heritage and to rededicate ourselves to this bedrock of liberty, the rule of law. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015, a bill that extends the Section 568 antitrust exemption for higher education institutions. I am pleased that Senator Leahy and Senator Lee are cosponsoring this bill. The Section 568 exemption enables colleges and universities to collaborate on need-blind financial aid policies. It allows these institutions to collaborate on a common formula for calculating a family's ability to pay for college, by permitting certain specific activities. The exemption was enacted in 1994, and since then has been reauthorized by Congress on three occasions. In addition, a 2006 GAO report found that the activities permitted by Section 568 did not result in harm to competition. Our bill would provide a 7-year extension for this exemption, and also remove one of the four previously permitted activities under the exemption that no school has ever used. By allowing financial aid professionals to work together in these ways, Section 568 provides increased access to higher education to low-income students, while preventing needless litigation over the development of principles for determining financial need. I am proud to introduce this important, bipartisan bill, which will ensure these benefits remain available for students and will encourage access to higher education for years to come. I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Lee, for their support of this effort. 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 introduce the Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015, a bill that extends the Section 568 antitrust exemption for higher education institutions. I am pleased that Senator Leahy and Senator Lee are cosponsoring this bill. The Section 568 exemption enables colleges and universities to collaborate on need-blind financial aid policies. It allows these institutions to collaborate on a common formula for calculating a family's ability to pay for college, by permitting certain specific activities. The exemption was enacted in 1994, and since then has been reauthorized by Congress on three occasions. In addition, a 2006 GAO report found that the activities permitted by Section 568 did not result in harm to competition. Our bill would provide a 7-year extension for this exemption, and also remove one of the four previously permitted activities under the exemption that no school has ever used. By allowing financial aid professionals to work together in these ways, Section 568 provides increased access to higher education to low-income students, while preventing needless litigation over the development of principles for determining financial need. I am proud to introduce this important, bipartisan bill, which will ensure these benefits remain available for students and will encourage access to higher education for years to come. I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Lee, for their support of this effort. 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 recognize C. Edward ``Ed'' Brown, FACHE, on his election to the American Medical Group Association's Policy Hall of Fame. Ed has a long track record in Iowa and Washington as a leading advocate in health care policy reform. He also served in numerous leadership roles at the American Medical Group Association, chairing its public policy committee for 4 years and serving as chairman of its board. Mr. Brown has had a distinguished career in health care in Iowa, where he has served for the last 21 years as chief executive officer of the Iowa Clinic, a multispecialty group practice in Des Moines. The Iowa Clinic is the largest physician-owned multispecialty group in central Iowa, with nearly 200 physicians and health care providers practicing in 40 specialties. The clinic serves a population area of 1.1 million, averaging 400,000 patient visits each year. Ed has a long list of achievements in delivering cutting edge, quality-focused health care to the benefit of Iowans, and his achievements include the Iowa Clinic's adoption of electronic medical records and information technology systems. He holds a bachelor's degree in nursing from the University of Evansville and a master's degree in health administration from Washington University in St. Louis. Also, he is a fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives, with more than 30 years of experience in executive and senior levels of health care management. As an advocate for multispecialty medical groups and AMGA, Ed has been a leader in promoting a model of care delivery and an organization that represents some of the Nation's highest quality and most prestigious health care delivery systems. It is wonderful to see someone with such a distinguished health care record in Iowa recognized at the national level as a dedicated leader who is committed to improving health care at such an important time for our Nation's health care delivery system. Ed's voice has been an invaluable contribution to the health care debate in this country, and I congratulate him on this deserved recognition for his countless achievements in the public policy realm.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden's work on this bill, and agree that this bill provides accountability and transparency. On immigration, I have expressed concerns every step of the way about the executive branch negotiating changes to immigration laws through trade agreements. Even before I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee--in fact, when I was chairman and ranking member of the Finance committee--I opposed previous administrations' attempts to include immigration provisions in trade agreements. Because of that, I demanded that the Judiciary Committee be consulted on anything related to immigration. That has been done, and that has helped stop the administration in recent years from including provisions in trade agreements requiring changes to the immigration laws. During consideration of this bill in the Finance Committee this year, I asked USTR Ambassador Froman about this issue, and specifically if they were including anything on immigration in the next agreement, specifically the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He gave us assurances that they were not. Ambassador Froman was clear that other countries are making offers to each other in the area of temporary entry, but that the U.S. has decided not to do so. Nevertheless, Chairman Hatch and I wrote him a letter after he testified, and he wrote back with more assurances. Ambassador Froman acknowledged that there is a chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement on the temporary entry of persons, but that this chapter only includes ``good governance provisions on transparency with respect to visa processing and cooperation on border security.'' He also said that this chapter includes commitments of other Trans-Pacific Partnership parties to make information on requirements for temporary entry publicly available. The U.S. already is very transparent about its visa application processes and eligibility requirements, and already processes visas as expeditiously as possible. When the committee took up the bill, Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden, at my request, included language in the accompanying report that would make it very clear that Congress will not tolerate changes to immigration laws, policies, or practices. This language is very strong and sends a signal to negotiators that trade agreements will not pass if they require changes to our immigration system, prevent us from changing our immigration laws or policies or even just repeat commitments we may have unfortunately made in previous trade agreements. I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's attention to this issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to explain why I support a short- term reauthorization of the national security authorities that expire on June 1, and why I will not vote for cloture on the latest version of the USA FREEDOM Act at this time. These authorities need to be reauthorized and reformed in a way that appropriately balances national security with the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. I am hopeful that during the next few weeks we can do a better job of doing just that. I start with the premise that these are important national security tools that shouldn't be permitted to expire. If that were to happen, there is little doubt that the country would be placed at greater risk of terrorist attack, at a time when we can least afford it. This isn't exaggeration or hyperbole. We have recently witnessed the emergence of ISIS, a terrorist organization that controls large swaths of Iraq and Syria, including, as of just days ago, the capital of the largest province in Iraq. ISIS is beheading Americans and burning its captives alive for propaganda value. And fueled in part by black market oil sales, ISIS reportedly has at least $2 billion. The organization isn't just sitting on that money. Members of ISIS and related groups are actively recruiting would-be terrorists from around the world to come to Syria. They are inspiring attacks, often using social media, in the West, from Paris, to Sydney, to Ottawa, and even here in the United States, in places like New York City, Ohio, and Garland, TX. Director Comey has reported that the FBI has investigations of perhaps thousands of people in various stages of radicalization in all 50 States. So this isn't the time to let these various authorities expire. This isn't the time to terminate the government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance of so-called ``lone wolf' terrorists--people who are inspired by groups like ISIS but don't have direct contact with them. And this isn't the time to end the government's ability to seek roving wiretaps against terrorists. After all, this is a tool that prosecutors have used in criminal investigations since the mid-1980s. Most of all, this isn't the time to sunset the government's ability to acquire records from businesses like hotels, car rental agencies, and supply companies, under section 215, in a targeted fashion. These kinds of records are routinely obtained by prosecutors in criminal investigations, though the use of grand jury subpoenas. It makes no sense for the government to be able to collect these records to investigate bank fraud, insider trading and public corruption, but not to help keep the country safe from terrorists. While we must reauthorize these authorities, however, it is equally important that we reform them. But we don't yet have a reform bill that I am satisfied with. The American people have made clear that they want the government to stop indiscriminately collecting their telephone metadata in bulk under section 215. They also want more transparency from the government and from the private sector about how section 215 and other national security authorities are being used. They want real reform. I want to be clear that I emphatically agree with these goals. They can be achieved responsibly, and doing so will restore an important measure of trust in our intelligence community. I agree with these reforms because the civil liberties implications of the collection of this type of bulk telephone metadata are concerning. This is especially so, given the scope and nature of the metadata collected through this program. Now, there haven't been any cases of this metadata being intentionally abused for political or other ends. That is good. I recognize that the overwhelming majority of those who work in the intelligence community are law-abiding American heroes to whom we owe a great debt for helping to keep us safe. But other national security authorities have been abused. Unfortunately, to paraphrase James Madison, all men aren't angels. I've been critical, for example, of the Department of Justice's handling of the so-called LOVEINT cases uncovered by the NSA's Inspector General. Given human nature, then, the mere potential for abuse makes the status quo concerning the bulk collection of telephone metadata under section 215 unsustainable, especially when measured against the real yet modest intelligence value the program has provided. The USA FREEDOM Act would in some ways reauthorize and reform section 215 along these lines. It would end the bulk collection of telephone metadata in 6 months, and transition the program to a system where the phone companies hold the data for targeted searching by the government. But the bill's serious flaws cause me to believe that we can do better. Let me discuss just a few. First, while the system to which the bill would transition the program sounds promising, it does not exist at present, and may well not exist in 6 months. Intelligence community leaders don't know for sure how long it will take to build. They don't know for sure how fast it will be able to return search results to the government. They don't know for sure whether the phone companies will voluntarily keep the metadata for later searching by the government. On this score, then, this bill feels like a leap into the dark when we can least afford it. While we need certainty that the bulk collection of telephone metadata under section 215 will end, we also need more certainty that the new system proposed will work and be effective. Second, the bill contains reforms to the FISA Court that are unneeded and risky. I am strongly in favor of reforming the court to make clear that it can appoint a traditional amicus, or a friend of the court, to help it get the law right. This is a well understood legal concept. But this bill goes further--potentially dangerously so. Under certain circumstances, the bill directs the FISA Court to name a panel of outside experts who would, in the words of the New York Times, ``challenge the government's pleadings'' before the court. Especially when the bill already ends the kind of dragnet intelligence collection under section 215 that affects so many innocent Americans, this is wholly unnecessary. And for this reason, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts sent a letter alerting Congress to its concerns that this outside advocate could ``impede the court's work'' by delaying the process and chilling the government's candor. In addition, this proposed advocate is contrary to our legal traditions, in which judges routinely make similar decisions on an ex parte basis, hearing only from the government. Mobsters don't get a public defender when the government seeks to wiretap their phones. Crooked bankers don't get a public defender when the government seeks a search warrant for their offices. There is no need to give ISIS a public defender when the government seeks to spy on its terrorists to keep the country safe. Third, the bill also contains language that amends the federal criminal code to implement a series of important and widely-supported treaties aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism and proliferation. However, the bill doesn't authorize the death penalty for nuclear terrorists. Nor does it permit the government to request authorization from a judge to wiretap the telephones of these terrorists or allow those who provide them material support to be prosecuted. These common- sense provisions were requested by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, but for unknown reasons they were omitted from the bill. In fact, Senator Whitehouse and I have introduced separate legislation, the Nuclear Terrorism Conventions Implementation and Safety of Maritime Navigation Act of 2015, which would implement these treaties with these provisions included. Recently, I have been heartened that there is a bipartisan group of members of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees who share these and other concerns. We have been discussing an alternative reform bill that would also end the bulk collection of telephone metadata under section 215. But it would also do a better job of ensuring that our national security is still protected. So I support a short, temporary reauthorization with the hope that an alternative reform bill can be crafted that addresses the core reform goals of the American people and that appropriately balances national security with the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. There is work ahead, but it is important that we get this reform right.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, free trade is very important to our country and to our future economic prosperity. Anyone who does not believe that is in denial, in my opinion. We live in a global economy and we need to lead on the issue of free trade. We must not make excuses and cower away from the opportunity in front of us. The trade promotion authority legislation we are considering is a critical tool for the advancement of our economic interest throughout the world. This legislation is also proof that Congress and the administration can work together to increase economic opportunity for Americans across all 50 States. Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden have worked for months to get us to this point. I commend them for this effort and I look forward to working with them to finish this process. We know that 80 percent of the purchasing power in the world is located outside the United States, along with 95 percent of the world's consumers. As the middle class expands in regions such as Asia, we have to make sure our businesses and workers have the ability to take advantage of the opportunity that growth presents. Some estimates predict the middle class in Asia is going to swell from half a billion people to over 3 billion people in just the next 15 years. Are we going to sit on the sidelines while other countries gain preferential access to those consumers? Governor Branstad of Iowa, recognizing the benefits of trade, sent a letter to me this week outlining his support for trade promotion authority. The letter was signed by 74 other Iowans who represent businesses and associations that also believe it is critical that Congress pass TPA. The letter states: Quite simply, international trade is important to Iowa's businesses, workers and farmers. A vote for leveling the playing field in international trade is a vote for Iowa. I couldn't agree more with Governor Branstad on that point. Last year, U.S. exports equaled $2.35 trillion and supported nearly 12 million jobs. Can any of us imagine our unemployment rate without trade supporting 12 million jobs? In Iowa alone, 448,000 jobs are dependent on trade, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And those jobs pay 18 percent higher wages on average because they are tied to trade. Americans know the benefits of trade. And we know that American businesses and workers are some of the most efficient and productive in the world. We just need to make sure they have the opportunity to succeed. That is why we are considering this bill--to expand economic opportunities for American businesses and workers. Free-trade agreements that lower trade barriers in other countries can do an amazing thing--they can stimulate our economy through exports without requiring additional spending. During testimony to the Senate Finance Committee, Trade Representative Froman pointed out that the U.S. is already an open marketplace with tariffs that average just 1.6 percent, some of the lowest in the world. Yet at the same time, our companies face very high tariffs in other markets. Some agricultural products face tariffs up to 400 percent, machinery can be up to 50 percent. We cannot let the status quo on trade, where we have an open marketplace while our businesses face extremely high tariffs, continue. Trade agreements set the stage for long-term opportunity. The citizens in Iowa who may benefit the most from more trade with Pacific rim countries are probably still in school. We can help their future today. Iowa exported $15.1 billion in 2014. That represents a 135 percent increase compared to a decade earlier. $9 billion, or 60 percent of the exports went to TPP countries under current trade rules. Imagine what is possible just in Iowa if we reduce barriers in that region. Roughly, $3.6 billion worth of machinery assembled by Iowa workers alone was exported last year. The goal of the legislation before us is to increase that number. According to the Department of Agriculture, fiscal years 2010-2014 represent the strongest 5 years of agricultural exports in the history of our country. We exported $675 billion worth of agricultural goods during that period. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would create more opportunities for our farmers and ranchers in a region of the world that represents 39 percent of global GDP. You heard me correctly, we have a chance to give our farmers, ranchers, and businesses better access to markets that represent over one-third of global GDP. And while I support and believe in the immense benefits of free trade, I also oppose countries tilting the field in their favor through actions like undervaluing their currency. An undervalued currency makes export goods cheaper from the country with the cheaper currency and also makes it harder for consumers in that country to purchase foreign goods, like our agricultural products. I support addressing currency manipulation in our trade agreements. I have watched administrations of both parties put their heads in the sand on this issue. Everyone opposes currency manipulation, yet little ever gets done. This TPA bill represents the modern realties we face from the global economy that need to be addressed by our trade negotiators. The bill includes clear negotiating objectives for standards on sanitary and phytosanitary regulations that must be science-based. Having science-based standards will help limit disruptions to U.S. agricultural exports and even open up some new markets for our producers. Negotiating objectives are offered related to digital trade in goods and cross-border dataflows that are new and unique issues for the time we now live in. Clear guidance from Congress is also given for localization barriers and intellectual property rights. More transparency and consultations are also required of the administration. This is a good bill that we need to pass so we can finish the free trade agreements we have been working on for years. The Trans-Pacific Partnership and other trade agreements like the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, known as TTIP offer tremendous opportunity for our country and my home State of Iowa. Throughout the world, there are an estimated 260 preferential trade agreements, the United States is only involved in 20 of them. We must embrace our role in the world as the competitive economic powerhouse that we are. America is a country that leads, we have a chance to enter into a trade agreement that will set new rules and standards for one-third of the global economy. Getting TPA through Congress and completing more free trade agreements in the future can unleash economic prosperity that leads to more jobs, more economic growth, and more opportunity for our workers. I will end by asking what our alternative is for future competiveness. Other countries are working on preferential agreements. Are we going to sit idly while other countries enter into strategic agreements? Should we let China start setting the rules of trade throughout the world? Should we allow other countries to continue blocking our agricultural products with nonscientific excuses? Should we watch the growing middle class in Asia get their food and products from other countries without trying to compete for their business? The status quo on trade guarantees us a future with less economic opportunity compared to passing TPA and new trade agreements. That is why we must pass TPA and then pass new trade agreements to help ensure America has a brighter economic future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, a bill that would establish within the judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. This bill will help ensure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy. The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. The job of the Inspector General is to be the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs. That is why, during my many years in Congress, I have worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Inspectors General throughout the Federal government. I have come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers, to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. When that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action. During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated nearly $7 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal judiciary. To put this in context, the Small Business Administration and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received a similar or less amount than the judiciary. Yet both of these entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, I cannot see why the Judiciary wouldn't deserve the same assistance. But there is an additional reason why the Judiciary needs an Inspector General. The fact remains that the current practice of self- regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. I would point out to my colleagues two recent events here in the Senate that support this conclusion. In the past 6 years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Who did he obstruct? Who did he lie to? He did this to his fellow judges, who were assembled to investigate the allegations of his obscene and criminal behavior. But it took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements to his colleagues as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him. In the second case, the Senate found former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. guilty on multiple articles of impeachment, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. Once again, this Judge's misbehavior came to light through a Federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge. What's more, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status that would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.'' This bill would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. In addition, the bill establishes whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional checks and balances. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They are supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. Whistleblower protections for judiciary branch employees will help keep the judiciary accountable. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only help ensure continued public confidence in our Federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, a bill that would establish within the judicial branch an Office of Inspector General to assist the Judiciary with its ethical obligations as well as to ensure taxpayer dollars are not lost to waste, fraud, or abuse. This bill will help ensure that our Federal judicial system remains free of corruption, bias, and hypocrisy. The facts demonstrate that the institution of the Inspector General has been crucial in detecting, exposing and deterring problems within our government. The job of the Inspector General is to be the first line of defense against fraud, waste and abuse. In collaboration with whistleblowers, Inspectors General have been extremely effective in their efforts to expose and help correct these wrongs. That is why, during my many years in Congress, I have worked hard to strengthen the oversight role of Inspectors General throughout the Federal government. I have come to rely on IGs and whistleblowers, to ensure that our tax dollars are spent according to the letter and spirit of the law. When that doesn't happen, we in Congress need to know about it and take corrective action. During the past fiscal year, Congress appropriated nearly $7 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal judiciary. To put this in context, the Small Business Administration and the Corporation for National and Community Service each received a similar or less amount than the judiciary. Yet both of these entities have an Office of Inspector General. If we in Congress believed that these entities could use an Inspector General, I cannot see why the Judiciary wouldn't deserve the same assistance. But there is an additional reason why the Judiciary needs an Inspector General. The fact remains that the current practice of self- regulation of judges with respect to ethics and the judicial code of conduct has time and time again proven inadequate. I would point out to my colleagues two recent events here in the Senate that support this conclusion. In the past 6 years, the Senate received articles of impeachment for not one but two Federal judges. In the first case, former Judge Samuel B. Kent, although charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Who did he obstruct? Who did he lie to? He did this to his fellow judges, who were assembled to investigate the allegations of his obscene and criminal behavior. But it took a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice to uncover his false statements to his colleagues as well as substantiate the horrendous claims made against him. In the second case, the Senate found former Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. guilty on multiple articles of impeachment, including accepting money from attorneys who had a case pending before him in his court and committing perjury by falsifying his name on bankruptcy filings. Once again, this Judge's misbehavior came to light through a Federal criminal investigation, after which another judicial committee had to be organized to investigate their fellow judge. What's more, in each case the disgraced judge tried to game the system in order to retain his $174,000 salary. Rather than resign their commissions, each first tried to claim disability status that would allow each to continue to receive payment, even if in prison. Then both played chicken with Congress daring us to strip them of their pay by impeaching and convicting them. I am pleased that we put our foot down and said ``No.'' This bill would establish an Office of Inspector General for the judicial branch. The IG's responsibilities would include conducting investigations of possible judicial misconduct, investigating waste fraud and abuse, and recommending changes in laws and regulations governing the federal judiciary. The bill would require the IG to provide the Chief Justice and Congress with an annual report on its activities, as well as refer matters that may constitute a criminal violation to the Department of Justice. In addition, the bill establishes whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees. Ensuring a fair and independent judiciary is critical to our Constitutional checks and balances. Judges are supposed to maintain impartiality. They are supposed to be free from conflicts of interest. An independent watchdog for the federal judiciary will help its members comply with the ethics rules and promote credibility within the judicial branch of government. Whistleblower protections for judiciary branch employees will help keep the judiciary accountable. The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act will not only help ensure continued public confidence in our Federal courts and keep them beyond reproach, it will strengthen our judicial branch. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, while reading through the pages of the Wall Street Journal last week, I was overcome with a sense of deja vu. As many of my colleagues have heard me speak on the Senate floor many times each year over the last several years about ethanol and about misconceptions about that, these misconceptions showed up in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last week. Once again, in this case it happens to be chain restaurants and chicken producers teaming up to smear home-grown biofuel producers at the expense of energy independence and cleaner air. It seems as if every couple of years food producers and grocery manufacturers team up with Big Oil to try to undermine the extremely successful Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Here is a little history for everyone. In 2008, it was the big food producers led by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, because, presumably, in our economy, in our society, grocery manufacturers have more prestige than Big Oil. In 2010 and 2012, it was global integrated meat producers, led by Smithfield Foods and the American Meat Institute, presumably because they have more prestige than Big Oil. The opinion piece I am referring to in the Wall Street Journal this time was written by the head of the National Chicken Council and the National Council of Chain Restaurants. And under these circumstances, compared to the other two instances I cited, there is really no difference. They have prestige that Big Oil doesn't have. This article makes many of the same erroneous and intellectually dishonest claims we have heard dozens of times before, and I am going to take this opportunity to do a simple fact-check of some of the most egregious claims. First, these two authors claim that since 2005, when the renewable fuel standard was first adopted, costs of vital food commodities, including corn, grains, oilseeds, poultry, meat, eggs and dairy have risen dramatically. This is pure myth. The fact is consumer food prices have increased by an annual rate of 2.68 percent since 2005. In contrast, food prices increased by an average of 3.47 percent in the 25 years leading up to passage of the renewable fuel standard in 2005. Prices for chicken breasts have been nearly flat over the past 7 years, averaging $3.43 per pound in 2007 and just 3 pennies more, to $3.46 per pound, in 2014. Corn prices are expected to average $3.50 per bushel this year, according to the Department of Agriculture. This would be the lowest price in nearly 10 years and 17 percent below the average price of $4.20 a bushel in 2007 when the renewable fuel standard was enacted. That is a fact. With ethanol production at record levels today, corn prices are lower now than they were in 2007. But I don't know how many times over the last several years I have listened to this business about ethanol causing corn prices to go up and food prices would go up. And food prices went up. But when corn is $3.50, we don't see food prices come down. It has been proven time and again by the EPA, by the USDA, and others: There is no correlation between corn prices or ethanol production and retail food inflation or food prices. Once again, that is just a simple fact. Second, these authors claim that as a result of the renewable fuel standard, corn is being ``diverted'' from livestock feed to ethanol. Again, this claim is pure falsehood. Corn used for ethanol has come from the significant increase in corn production since 2005. In 2005, American farmers produced 11.1 billion bushels of corn. In 2014, they produced 14.1 billion bushels of corn. Why? Because the market responds and the farmers respond to the increased use of corn, and they will meet it whether it is for biofuels or anything else. Here is something very significant: One-third of the corn used for ethanol production is returned to the market as animal feed. The amount of corn and corn coproducts available for feed use is larger today than at any time in history. So it is hardly being diverted. But time after time, a prestigious newspaper such as the Wall Street Journal continues to tell the people of this country that 40 percent of corn production goes to make ethanol. They are right--40 percent goes to the ethanol plant. But out of a 56-pound bushel of corn, 18 pounds is left over for animal feed--and very efficient animal feed, let me say, badly in need and welcomed by farmers. In fact, some of it is even exported. But does the Wall Street Journal ever make that clear, that it isn't 40 percent of corn that is used for ethanol; it is 26 percent or 27 percent that is used for ethanol? So, just as I said, corn is not being diverted. The same can be said for their misleading claim that ethanol production has contributed to global food scarcity. In the 15 years prior to the enactment of the renewable fuel standard in 2005, U.S. corn exports averaged 1.8 billion bushels per year. In the 10 years since the renewable fuel standard's passage, corn exports have averaged yet more--not a whole lot more but 1.84 billion bushels. So with 14.33 billion gallons of corn ethanol, corn exports are slightly higher than they were prior to the renewable fuel standard. Another fact-check: The authors of the opinion piece also claim that corn ethanol has resulted in a significant increase in the volatility of food costs, which has left prices higher, they say. So I looked into the average food inflation going back to 1970. During the 1970s, food inflation averaged 7.8 percent. In the 1980s, it was 4.6 percent. In the 1990s, it was 2.8 percent. In the 2000s, it was 2.9 percent. So far this decade, it has been 2.2 percent--or the lowest rate of increase at the same time that we are producing record amounts of corn ethanol. Finally, these two writers for the chain restaurants and for the chicken people claim that the increases in feed cost have affected the American production of beef, pork, and chicken. They state that production had increased consistently over the past 30 years but has now leveled off due to the higher cost of feed. Again, this is nowhere near reality. Let's check the facts. The reality is that the Department of Agriculture is projecting red meat and poultry production of 95.2 billion pounds this year--up 10 percent from 2005. More growth is yet expected. The Department of Agriculture projects a production record of red meat and poultry in 2016, with 96.8 billion pounds--up 12 percent from 2005. Just a few years ago, when corn prices had peaked at more than $7.50 a bushel, grocers, food producers, and restaurants were claiming--as I said once before but let me emphasize--that food inflation would approach 10 percent because of the renewable fuel standard. They warned then that they would be forced to pass those higher costs on to consumers immediately. As I have hinted before, today the price of corn is $3.50--less than half of what it was; in fact, $1 below the cost of production. With lower corn prices, have consumers seen a dramatic reduction in retail food prices? In other words, are the benefits of lower grain prices being passed on to the consumer by Big Food? Obviously not. Ask any person shopping in the grocery stores. Corn prices have come down by more than half in the past 2\1/2\ years, so why are food producers holding prices steady or even increasing them? We accuse Big Oil of gouging. Isn't it about time, with $3.50 corn, that we accuse Big Food of price gouging? The fact is, domestic renewable fuel producers are feeding and fueling the world at the same time. The 14.3 billion gallons of ethanol that was produced in the United States could more than displace the gasoline refined from all of the oil imported from Saudi Arabia. And where would we rather get our energy from--volatile parts of the Middle East or producers right here in the United States? And I say that not only for ethanol; I say that for oil, I say that for coal, I say that for nuclear, and I say that for all sorts of alternative energy. We should be proud of our Nation's farmers and biofuel producers. Efficiencies gained have allowed farmers to produce ever-increasing yields, with greater environmental stewardship, including using less water and less fertilizer. Ethanol production has also seen efficiency gains. These are facts: In 1982, 1 bushel of corn produced about 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Today's ethanol plants are producing more than 2.8 billion gallons of ethanol. We have a plant in Ida County, IA, that can get almost 3 gallons of ethanol from 1 bushel of corn. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, if ethanol yields per bushel had remained at the 1997 levels, it would have required 343 million bushels--or 7 percent more--of corn to produce the same amount of fuel last year. That corn would have required the use of 2.2 million additional acres--or approximately half the State of New Jersey--just to keep up when we had the more inefficient production of ethanol. Homegrown biofuels are extending our fuel supply and lowering prices at the pump for consumers. Biofuels account for 10 percent of our transportation fuel today. This economic activity supports American farmers, rural economies, and keeps the money at home rather than sending it abroad. In recent years, our national security and economic well-being have been too dependent on oil imports--and from where? From tinhorn dictators and regimes that are always trying to harm Americans. We don't need to put a Navy fleet in harm's way to protect shipping lanes from the Middle East when we have biofuels that come right out of the Midwest of the United States. Our country needs a true ``all of the above'' energy policy, as we all talk about, and biofuels are an important component of that policy. Do you know what is really wrong with people who sometimes talk about ``all of the above,'' the way I see it, from different segments of energy? There are people who say they are for ``all of the above,'' but they are for none of the below the ground. And then there are people who say they are for ``all of the above,'' but they are for all below the ground but not the things that come from above the ground, such as solar energy producing corn that produces ethanol, as an example, or wind. In 2005 and again in 2007, the Federal Government made a commitment to homegrown renewable energy when Congress passed the renewable fuel standard. The policy is working. I intend to defend all attacks against this successful program, whether they come from Big Oil, the EPA, Big Food, Big Restaurant, or others. Secondly, I tried to do some fact-checking by Mr. Brown and Mr. Green, who wrote that article, and I am not very good at saying exactly whether they ought to have one Pinocchio or four, but they ought to look at having a Pinocchio because they are wrong on so many instances. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week, I introduced a bipartisan resolution to commemorate National Police Week, which this year began on Monday, May 10, and ends on Saturday, May 16. Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 32 others have joined me as original cosponsors of this measure. The theme of this year's Police Week is ``Honoring Courage, Saluting Sacrifice.'' Police Week is dedicated to the brave men and women in blue who selflessly protect and serve our communities every day, every week, in every community all across the country. The week affords an opportunity to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while striving to make our neighborhoods safer and more secure. Events are scheduled in Washington, DC, this week not only to remember those officers who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty but also to honor outstanding acts of bravery and service by many others. Tens of thousands of police officers, as well as their friends and family members, will gather in our Nation's Capital for these events, which include a candlelight vigil and a Police Unity Tour arrival ceremony, among other events. On this day, the 34th Annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service takes place here on the Capitol grounds. This solemn service offers an opportunity for all of us to pay our respects to fallen officers and their families, communities, and law enforcement agencies that have been permanently altered because these officers paid the ultimate sacrifice. We owe these brave men and women our utmost respect and gratitude as we honor them on this important day. A report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund showed a 9-percent increase in the number of officers killed in the line of duty in 2014 compared to the previous year's fatalities. Gunfire was the leading cause of death among law enforcement officers last year, and ambushes were the leading circumstance of officer fatalities in these deaths, according to this report. The number of firearms-related deaths in 2014 represents a 24-percent increase over the previous year. This is the fifth consecutive year that ambushes have been the No. 1 cause of felonious deaths of law enforcement officers, according to the National Sheriffs' Association. In my home State of Iowa, there have been nearly 200 line-of-duty deaths over many years. The fallen include numerous law enforcement personnel who were shot and killed or struck by vehicles while on duty. At the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, the names of these Iowans and approximately 20,000 other men and women who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history are carved in the memorial's wall. Regrettably, 273 new names will be added to the rolls this week to depict the loss of a loved one who did not return home safely at the end of his or her duty. Already, in 2015, we have witnessed 44 tragic deaths and senseless murders of our law enforcement protectors and our guardians of the peace. Just this past weekend, we all heard on television that Hattiesburg, MS, Police Department Officers Benjamin Deen and Liquori Tate were quickly and violently murdered during a traffic stop that was anything but routine. Our hearts go out to their families and the families of all who have lost their loved ones in the line of duty. The men and women of law enforcement go to work shift after shift, frequently missing celebrations of birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays because they believe in serving something greater than themselves. The work of law enforcement is not a job; it is a calling to these people. That calling and those officers' devotion to duty merits our utmost respect and gratitude. As I conclude, I call on all Americans this week to pause and contemplate the safety and security we all enjoy. We all must recognize that such peace is the result of sacrifices made by brave men and women of law enforcement. I also wish to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for their overwhelming support of this year's resolution designating National Police Week, which this week passed the full Senate by unanimous consent. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. No.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. Marshals Service performs many important functions. Marshals protect Federal judges, they transport Federal prisoners, and they apprehend fugitives. The marshals operate the Witness Security Program, and they manage the Asset Forfeiture Program. The work is vital and sometimes even dangerous. Given the important nature of the work, it is all the more essential that its leaders carry out their mission with integrity and openness. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that there are serious questions about the leadership of the Marshals Service. The growing number of allegations brought to my office by whistleblowers is very alarming. It suggests there may be a pattern of mismanagement. In several letters to the Justice Department, I have asked about multiple personnel actions allegedly driven by favoritism rather than merit. The first example involves the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, Stacia Hylton. In September 2011, Director Hylton sent an email from her personal email address to Kimberly Beal. At the time, Beal was the Deputy Assistant Director of the Asset Forfeiture Division. The email included the resume of an applicant for a highly paid contractor position. Beal apparently went to unusual lengths to ensure that the applicant, who knew Director Hylton in college, was hired. Emails indicate that Ms. Beal inserted herself into the hiring process even though a contractor representative told her the applicant was unqualified. She directed subordinates to remain silent about the applicant's lack of qualifications. Ms. Beal traveled to Boston to interview the applicant in person. According to the whistleblower, she did not travel to interview other candidates for similar positions. After the contractor hired the applicant, Director Hylton placed Ms. Beal in the position of Acting Assistant Director of the Asset Forfeiture Division--a position she now holds permanently. In yet another example, an Assistant Director reportedly directed subordinates to offer a lucrative contract position to a person with whom she allegedly had a personal relationship. Gamesmanship of this sort undermines the confidence of dedicated Marshals Service employees in their leaders. I could go on and on with examples such as these that have been pouring into my office. Another problem area is the alleged mismanagement of the Assets Forfeiture Fund. The law requires that proceeds generated from asset sales be used to operate the Asset Forfeiture Program, compensate victims, and support law enforcement. Yet, it appears that some in leadership use the funds to feather their own nests. Money is spent on the ``best of the best'' in office furnishings and decorations instead of what is really needed to enhance law enforcement. In one example, the fund was used to purchase a $22,000 conference table. In another example, the fund was used to buy 57 square feet of top-of-the-line granite for the Asset Forfeiture Training Academy in Houston. The Marshals Service claims it cannot even figure out how much the granite cost. Whistleblowers say the official who approved it told the supplier that ``cost was not a factor.'' And that official has dismissed concerns about wasteful spending of asset forfeiture money on the grounds that it does not come from appropriated funds. That is not responsible leadership. All money collected through the power of government needs to be spent carefully. Every dollar wasted on unnecessary luxuries in Marshals Services offices is a dollar that cannot be used to support real law enforcement priorities as the law requires. The proceeds of asset forfeitures should not be a slush fund for the personal whims of unaccountable bureaucrats. How has the Justice Department responded to these allegations? When I asked the Department to explain the efforts to have Director Hylton's favorite candidate hired by a contractor, the Department told me that Director Hylton ``did not recommend'' the applicant ``for any position.'' And the words ``did not recommend for any position'' is a quote. The Marshals Service says it consulted with its Office of General Counsel before the Department sent its letter denying any improper hiring practices. That is disturbing because the Office of General Counsel has known about these allegations since December 2013. Still, the Justice Department told me that no one did anything wrong. Someone in the Marshals Service General Counsel's Office had an obligation to speak up before the Justice Department issued a false denial. They should have known better. About 3 weeks later, the Department retracted its earlier denial. In a second response, the Department attached additional evidence that, in its words, ``appears to be inconsistent with representations'' that it had previously made. That evidence was an email chain showing that then-Deputy Assistant Beal had, in fact, received the applicant's resume from Director Hylton's personal email address. She then forwarded it to other senior leadership, stating that the ``Director . . . highly recommends'' the applicant. That evidence directly contradicts the denial that the Department initially sent to the Judiciary Committee. You would think the Department would insist on an independent inquiry after being misled like that. Unfortunately, the Department is still allowing the Marshals Service to investigate itself. Justice Department headquarters is not doing its job when it fails to supervise components within DOJ. There needs to be better supervision and a truly independent inquiry to get to the bottom of these allegations. Finally, I recognize the courageous whistleblowers who are bringing these shortcomings to Congress's attention. As often happens, many of these whistleblowers have faced retaliation for just speaking up, just telling the truth, just helping Congress do its constitutional responsibilities. But they have been retaliated against, and even today they fear more retaliation will come. Multiple whistleblowers allege that senior leaders submit FOIA requests to seek information on employees who may have made protected disclosures. How sneaky. This is not the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act. Multiple whistleblowers also allege that since receiving my letters, managers within the U.S. Marshals Service have been on the hunt for the identities of those who have made protected disclosures to my office. This behavior is absolutely unacceptable and contrary to the intent of whistleblower protection legislation. Maybe instead of spending time targeting the people who are trying to bring wrongdoing to light, the marshals should focus on providing full and accurate answers to my questions. The work of the Marshals Service is vital. The men and women doing that work deserve not just our gratitude but our support as well. That support includes demanding responsible and accountable leadership from the Marshals Service. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2015. Senator Whitehouse is joining me in this effort. This measure would improve our Nation's response to juvenile offenders in the criminal justice system. For the last 40 or so years, the Federal Government, through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, or JJDPA, has provided guidelines and resources to help States serve troubled adolescents. This 1974 law provides juvenile justice dollars to States and sets four core requirements for States that choose to accept these Federal funds. The law also created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at the Justice Department. A centerpiece of the current statute is its standards for the treatment of at-risk youth who come into contact with our criminal justice system. But these standards have not been updated since 2002, and the law's authorization has expired. Since Congress last extended the law more than a dozen years ago, evidence has emerged that some of the JJDPA's provisions need to be improved or strengthened to reflect the latest research on adolescent development. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have made this law's renewal a priority. The bill I am introducing would extend the statute for 5 years and update its provisions to reflect the latest research on what works with troubled adolescents. The bill also would continue Congress's commitment to help State and local jurisdictions improve their juvenile justice systems through a program of formula grants. At the same time, the bill would improve the oversight and accountability of this grant program in several key ways. Such accountability measures are vitally needed to ensure the grant program's integrity. The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from whistleblowers last week that the Justice Department is failing to hold participating States accountable for meeting the JJDPA's four core requirements. After I wrote several letters concerning these whistleblower allegations, the Justice Department admitted to having a flawed compliance monitoring policy in place since 1997. This policy allowed States to receive JJDPA formula grants in violation of the law's funding requirements. Witnesses at last week's Senate Judiciary hearing recounted violations of law, mismanagement, and waste of limited juvenile justice grant funds, in addition to retaliation against whistleblowers. This is an injustice not only to the taxpayers but also to the youth who face inadequate juvenile justice systems. It is also an injustice to the children who end up in the justice system as a result of poor experience in the foster care system. Shortcomings in the juvenile justice system will not be solved overnight. But I look forward to taking the lead on legislation in the 114th Congress that will make measurable improvements. In closing, numerous organizations have worked with us on the development of this bill, and I thank them for their contributions. I also thank Senator Whitehouse for his cosponsorship of the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.