Chuck Grassley

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.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. is the world's leader in innovation. Yet today, our patent system--which has allowed generations of inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs to thrive--is under attack from bad actors, also known as ``patent trolls''. Abusive patent litigation is stifling the innovation and entrepreneurship that our patent system has been designed to protect. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in the growth of this type of harmful litigation as those who exploit abusive patent litigation tactics for financial gain have taken aim at businesses operating in every sector of our economy. From Main Street to Wall Street to Silicon Valley, from start-ups to neighborhood restaurants to major retailers--businesses and consumers across the country are being harmed. Because of this abuse, innovative companies spend less time and resources on research and innovation, and often must have their talented workforce devote many man-hours to defending against baseless claims. This comes at the expense of discovering that next medical breakthrough or rolling out new technologies that will create jobs. Patent trolls prey on businesses by filing frivolous lawsuits and employing an array of heavy-handed and deceptive tactics to scare plaintiffs into settlements. These bad actors send vague and overly broad demand letters, exploit loose pleading standards that provide little substance of the alleged infringement claims, hide their identity behind shell companies, and use the threat of high cost patent litigation discovery as a weapon. This is a drag on our economy, costing an estimated $80 billion annually in direct and indirect costs. This means fewer jobs created, less innovation, and higher costs for consumers. To restore integrity to our patent system, today, along with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Leahy, and Senators Cornyn, Schumer, Lee, Hatch and Klobuchar, I am introducing the Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act, PATENT Act. This builds upon the reforms made by the America Invents Act and will promote the intellectual property rights that our Founding Fathers recognized are key to American innovation. The provisions of the PATENT Act will promote more transparency in patent ownership, establish a clear, uniform standard for pleading in patent cases, and deter abusive litigation. I would like to note some of the key provisions in the bill. The PATENT Act will require plaintiffs in a patent suit to identify each patent and each claim that is allegedly infringed, which products are infringing, and include a description of the alleged infringement. The current requirements for pleading in a patent litigation have been subject to scrutiny by the courts and amount to little more than notice pleading. By providing these congressionally enacted bright line rules across judicial jurisdictions, defendants will be able to better respond to claims and courts will be able to resolve litigation more efficiently. This legislation will place reasonable limitations on discovery by requiring courts to stay discovery pending the resolution of specific preliminary motions, including motions to dismiss and transfer venue. It also calls on the Judicial Conference to develop rules and procedures to promote efficient and effective discovery, including examining to what extent each party is entitled to ``core documentary evidence''. While current law allows for fee shifting in patent cases, the reality is that bad actors are almost never subject to fee shifting, leading to an explosion in abusive litigation. The PATENT Act provides that reasonable attorney fees will be awarded if the prevailing party in litigation makes a showing, and the court finds, that the non- prevailing party's conduct was not ``objectively reasonable,'' unless special circumstances make an award unjust. This measure will help to deter the filing of frivolous claims. The bill also provides a process for the recovery of fees from an abusive litigant. Further, the bill will help stop the widespread sending of fraudulent or materially misleading demand letters by building on existing Federal Trade Commission authority to go after those who violate Section 5 of the FTC Act in connection with patent assertion by engaging in widespread demand letter abuse. This provision has been carefully constructed so that it will not impinge upon legitimate licensing activity or expand FTC authority. We worked on the language contained in this provision with Chairman Thune and his staff, as the Commerce Committee also has jurisdiction over the FTC, and it was important to us to get their input. The bill also will help to protect small businesses, who are being targeted for doing nothing more than using products which they bought off-the-shelf, by allowing a suit against an end-user to be stayed while the manufacturer litigates the alleged infringement. This bipartisan legislation is the result of a careful and deliberative process in which we worked with many stakeholders representing almost every area of the economy, the judiciary, and the administration. Since the process started in the last Congress, we've listened and tried to be responsive to all the concerns raised from the different industries and constituencies. As a result, we have made great strides in addressing issues that have been raised along the way and getting stakeholders comfortable with the bill. So I believe the PATENT Act strikes a good balance. Our intent is to protect the rights of patent holders while addressing the problem of abusive litigation. The PATENT Act does that. As we move forward, we also intend to try to address other concerns that have been raised more recently by patent holders about the Patent and Trademark Office's IPR process. We want to make sure that the PTO processes are not being abused, and instead are being utilized as envisioned by the America Invents Act. I would like to especially thank Ranking Member Leahy for being an outstanding partner on the Judiciary Committee on all things intellectual property, Senators Cornyn and Schumer for their sustained leadership on the patent troll issue, Senator Lee for his hard work on the demand letter provision, Senator Hatch for his valuable work on the recovery provision, and Senator Klobuchar for her constructive involvement in moving the bill forward. Because of these efforts, we have a stronger bill and are closer to restoring the integrity of the patent system. I am hopeful that we can move in a deliberative and productive way through Committee so we can get to the floor in a timely manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the U.S. is the world's leader in innovation. Yet today, our patent system--which has allowed generations of inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs to thrive--is under attack from bad actors, also known as ``patent trolls''. Abusive patent litigation is stifling the innovation and entrepreneurship that our patent system has been designed to protect. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in the growth of this type of harmful litigation as those who exploit abusive patent litigation tactics for financial gain have taken aim at businesses operating in every sector of our economy. From Main Street to Wall Street to Silicon Valley, from start-ups to neighborhood restaurants to major retailers--businesses and consumers across the country are being harmed. Because of this abuse, innovative companies spend less time and resources on research and innovation, and often must have their talented workforce devote many man-hours to defending against baseless claims. This comes at the expense of discovering that next medical breakthrough or rolling out new technologies that will create jobs. Patent trolls prey on businesses by filing frivolous lawsuits and employing an array of heavy-handed and deceptive tactics to scare plaintiffs into settlements. These bad actors send vague and overly broad demand letters, exploit loose pleading standards that provide little substance of the alleged infringement claims, hide their identity behind shell companies, and use the threat of high cost patent litigation discovery as a weapon. This is a drag on our economy, costing an estimated $80 billion annually in direct and indirect costs. This means fewer jobs created, less innovation, and higher costs for consumers. To restore integrity to our patent system, today, along with Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Leahy, and Senators Cornyn, Schumer, Lee, Hatch and Klobuchar, I am introducing the Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act, PATENT Act. This builds upon the reforms made by the America Invents Act and will promote the intellectual property rights that our Founding Fathers recognized are key to American innovation. The provisions of the PATENT Act will promote more transparency in patent ownership, establish a clear, uniform standard for pleading in patent cases, and deter abusive litigation. I would like to note some of the key provisions in the bill. The PATENT Act will require plaintiffs in a patent suit to identify each patent and each claim that is allegedly infringed, which products are infringing, and include a description of the alleged infringement. The current requirements for pleading in a patent litigation have been subject to scrutiny by the courts and amount to little more than notice pleading. By providing these congressionally enacted bright line rules across judicial jurisdictions, defendants will be able to better respond to claims and courts will be able to resolve litigation more efficiently. This legislation will place reasonable limitations on discovery by requiring courts to stay discovery pending the resolution of specific preliminary motions, including motions to dismiss and transfer venue. It also calls on the Judicial Conference to develop rules and procedures to promote efficient and effective discovery, including examining to what extent each party is entitled to ``core documentary evidence''. While current law allows for fee shifting in patent cases, the reality is that bad actors are almost never subject to fee shifting, leading to an explosion in abusive litigation. The PATENT Act provides that reasonable attorney fees will be awarded if the prevailing party in litigation makes a showing, and the court finds, that the non- prevailing party's conduct was not ``objectively reasonable,'' unless special circumstances make an award unjust. This measure will help to deter the filing of frivolous claims. The bill also provides a process for the recovery of fees from an abusive litigant. Further, the bill will help stop the widespread sending of fraudulent or materially misleading demand letters by building on existing Federal Trade Commission authority to go after those who violate Section 5 of the FTC Act in connection with patent assertion by engaging in widespread demand letter abuse. This provision has been carefully constructed so that it will not impinge upon legitimate licensing activity or expand FTC authority. We worked on the language contained in this provision with Chairman Thune and his staff, as the Commerce Committee also has jurisdiction over the FTC, and it was important to us to get their input. The bill also will help to protect small businesses, who are being targeted for doing nothing more than using products which they bought off-the-shelf, by allowing a suit against an end-user to be stayed while the manufacturer litigates the alleged infringement. This bipartisan legislation is the result of a careful and deliberative process in which we worked with many stakeholders representing almost every area of the economy, the judiciary, and the administration. Since the process started in the last Congress, we've listened and tried to be responsive to all the concerns raised from the different industries and constituencies. As a result, we have made great strides in addressing issues that have been raised along the way and getting stakeholders comfortable with the bill. So I believe the PATENT Act strikes a good balance. Our intent is to protect the rights of patent holders while addressing the problem of abusive litigation. The PATENT Act does that. As we move forward, we also intend to try to address other concerns that have been raised more recently by patent holders about the Patent and Trademark Office's IPR process. We want to make sure that the PTO processes are not being abused, and instead are being utilized as envisioned by the America Invents Act. I would like to especially thank Ranking Member Leahy for being an outstanding partner on the Judiciary Committee on all things intellectual property, Senators Cornyn and Schumer for their sustained leadership on the patent troll issue, Senator Lee for his hard work on the demand letter provision, Senator Hatch for his valuable work on the recovery provision, and Senator Klobuchar for her constructive involvement in moving the bill forward. Because of these efforts, we have a stronger bill and are closer to restoring the integrity of the patent system. I am hopeful that we can move in a deliberative and productive way through Committee so we can get to the floor in a timely manner. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill I am introducing today with my colleagues from North Carolina, Senators Tillis and Burr, related to criminal gangs. Our bill would reform our immigration laws to protect the homeland and the public's safety by ensuring that criminal gang members are not eligible for deportation relief and are swiftly removed from the country. Under current immigration laws, alien gang members are generally not deportable or inadmissible based on their gang membership, and they are eligible for various benefits and forms of relief. Just this month, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, admitted it erred in granting deferred deportation to a known gang member who is now charged with four counts of 1st degree murder in North Carolina. In response to a letter Senator Tillis and I sent them, USCIS stated that Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez's request for deferred deportation under President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, executive order ``should not have been approved'' based on its procedures and protocols. This individual was placed in the removal process in March 2012, following drug charges, but was shielded from removal by USCIS even though the agency knew of his gang membership. After having received DACA, Mr. Rangel-Hernandez allegedly murdered four people. Secretary Johnson testified today before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said, ``If you are a member of a gang, a known member of a criminal gang, you should not receive DACA. You should be considered priority for removal.'' The Secretary said that Rangel-Hernandez should not have been approved for DACA, and that there was a lapse in the background checks for this applicant. The Rangel-Hernandez case shows that USCIS is not doing a thorough job reviewing the individuals who it allows to stay in this country under the President's deferred action program. It remains unclear whether USCIS has a zero tolerance policy for criminals and criminal gang members applying for DACA, or any other immigration benefit or form of relief from removal. It is unclear how many individuals have received DACA that shouldn't have. So far, since 2013, 282 individuals who are known gang members or criminals have had their DACA benefit terminated. The review of all cases, as ordered by Secretary Johnson, is ongoing, so that number could climb. In April 2015, nearly 1,000 gang members and associates from 239 different gangs were arrested in 282 cities across the U.S. during Project Wildfire, a 6-week operation led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's, ICE, Homeland Security Investigations. Of those arrested, 199 were foreign nationals from 18 countries in South and Central America, Asia, Africa, Europe and the Caribbean. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director expressed concern about criminal gangs and said, ``Criminal gangs inflict violence and fear upon our communities, and without the attention of law enforcement, these groups can spread like a cancer.'' Despite the concern about violent criminal gangs, ICE arrests are down. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, ``arrests peaked in 2012, then dropped by more than 25 percent in 2013, and continued to decline in 2014.'' Furthermore, under the Fourth Circuit's decision in Holder v. Martinez, former gang members may argue that their status as a former gang member similarly entitles them to remain in the United States. This ruling has opened the door to violent gang members renouncing their membership as a ruse to stay in the country. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice didn't appeal the ruling, signaling support for gang members to remain in the country. The Grassley-Tillis-Burr bill seeks to ensure that alien gang members are not provided a safe haven in the United States. It defines a criminal alien gang, renders them inadmissible and deportable, and requires the government to detain them while awaiting deportation. The bill also prohibits criminal alien gang members from gaining U.S. immigration benefits such as asylum, Temporary Protected Status, Special Immigrant Juvenile visas, deferred action or parole, with limited exceptions for law enforcement purposes. Lastly, the bill provides an expedited removal process for terrorists, criminal aliens and gang members. I hope my colleagues will agree that our immigration laws, and the administration's policies, must be reformed so that those who pose a threat to the public are not allowed to remain in the United States and take advantage of the benefits we provide.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill I am introducing today with my colleagues from North Carolina, Senators Tillis and Burr, related to criminal gangs. Our bill would reform our immigration laws to protect the homeland and the public's safety by ensuring that criminal gang members are not eligible for deportation relief and are swiftly removed from the country. Under current immigration laws, alien gang members are generally not deportable or inadmissible based on their gang membership, and they are eligible for various benefits and forms of relief. Just this month, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, admitted it erred in granting deferred deportation to a known gang member who is now charged with four counts of 1st degree murder in North Carolina. In response to a letter Senator Tillis and I sent them, USCIS stated that Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez's request for deferred deportation under President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, executive order ``should not have been approved'' based on its procedures and protocols. This individual was placed in the removal process in March 2012, following drug charges, but was shielded from removal by USCIS even though the agency knew of his gang membership. After having received DACA, Mr. Rangel-Hernandez allegedly murdered four people. Secretary Johnson testified today before the Senate Judiciary Committee and said, ``If you are a member of a gang, a known member of a criminal gang, you should not receive DACA. You should be considered priority for removal.'' The Secretary said that Rangel-Hernandez should not have been approved for DACA, and that there was a lapse in the background checks for this applicant. The Rangel-Hernandez case shows that USCIS is not doing a thorough job reviewing the individuals who it allows to stay in this country under the President's deferred action program. It remains unclear whether USCIS has a zero tolerance policy for criminals and criminal gang members applying for DACA, or any other immigration benefit or form of relief from removal. It is unclear how many individuals have received DACA that shouldn't have. So far, since 2013, 282 individuals who are known gang members or criminals have had their DACA benefit terminated. The review of all cases, as ordered by Secretary Johnson, is ongoing, so that number could climb. In April 2015, nearly 1,000 gang members and associates from 239 different gangs were arrested in 282 cities across the U.S. during Project Wildfire, a 6-week operation led by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's, ICE, Homeland Security Investigations. Of those arrested, 199 were foreign nationals from 18 countries in South and Central America, Asia, Africa, Europe and the Caribbean. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director expressed concern about criminal gangs and said, ``Criminal gangs inflict violence and fear upon our communities, and without the attention of law enforcement, these groups can spread like a cancer.'' Despite the concern about violent criminal gangs, ICE arrests are down. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, ``arrests peaked in 2012, then dropped by more than 25 percent in 2013, and continued to decline in 2014.'' Furthermore, under the Fourth Circuit's decision in Holder v. Martinez, former gang members may argue that their status as a former gang member similarly entitles them to remain in the United States. This ruling has opened the door to violent gang members renouncing their membership as a ruse to stay in the country. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice didn't appeal the ruling, signaling support for gang members to remain in the country. The Grassley-Tillis-Burr bill seeks to ensure that alien gang members are not provided a safe haven in the United States. It defines a criminal alien gang, renders them inadmissible and deportable, and requires the government to detain them while awaiting deportation. The bill also prohibits criminal alien gang members from gaining U.S. immigration benefits such as asylum, Temporary Protected Status, Special Immigrant Juvenile visas, deferred action or parole, with limited exceptions for law enforcement purposes. Lastly, the bill provides an expedited removal process for terrorists, criminal aliens and gang members. I hope my colleagues will agree that our immigration laws, and the administration's policies, must be reformed so that those who pose a threat to the public are not allowed to remain in the United States and take advantage of the benefits we provide.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am objecting to consideration of the nomination of Brodi Fontenot to be Chief Financial Officer of the Treasury Department. In May 2014, I found out about questionable hiring practices at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN. The problem occurred after the agency posted job requirements for openings in the enforcement division. Eligible candidates were disqualified for a criterion that was never in the original job posting: a law degree. This is illegal under Federal hiring guidelines. In the process, FinCEN rejected qualified veterans who applied for the positions. Instead, FinCEN hired three former Federal prosecutors for the positions. Veterans preference doesn't guarantee veterans a job, but it does give them extra consideration for jobs for which they are qualified. The unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans is significantly higher than the rate for the general population. These men and women are extremely capable. They have an array of job skills to offer in the workplace. It is inexcusable for FinCEN or any other Federal agency to reject qualified veterans who faithfully served our country. Our veterans deserve better from the Obama administration. As part of my investigation, I requested all emails sent between the Treasury Department and FinCEN pertaining to this issue. To date, I have received a total of four emails. The Treasury Department has tried to convince me that no other relevant emails exist, but I am still not convinced. Their search was limited to only the 8 months when the vacancy announcements were open. This excluded any email communications that took place in preparation for posting the announcements or during 2014 when problems with the announcements were found. As a result, I placed a hold on the former Assistant Secretary for Management at the Treasury Department who was nominated to be Deputy Secretary at HUD. Instead of simply providing the requested documents so that I could release the hold, former Majority Leader Reid ignored what was done to veterans and pushed through the nomination over my objections. In January 2015, I requested any emails sent between FinCEN and main Treasury using alternate email and handheld devices, as well as any email messages that were printed and saved by FinCEN but no longer retained in the electronic email system. The response from the Treasury Department outlined the Federal Government's records retention regulations but did not include any of the requested documents. This is unacceptable. Therefore, I am objecting to consideration of Mr. Fontenot's nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today the Senate takes up the nomination of the 83rd Attorney General. We all know the former Democratic leadership could have processed this nomination during last year's lame duck. But in the limited time we had, they chose to concentrate on confirming a number of judges and getting a losing vote on NSA reform. Ms. Lynch, at that time, wasn't high on the priority of the Democratic majority, but now I am pleased that the Senate was finally able to come to an agreement on the sex trafficking legislation, so we can turn to the Lynch nomination. I voted against Ms. Lynch's nomination in committee and will oppose her nomination again when it is time to vote this afternoon. I will spend a few minutes now explaining my reasons to my colleagues. This nomination comes at a pivotal time for the Department of Justice and our country. The next Attorney General will face some very difficult challenges--from combatting cybercrime, to protecting our children from exploitation, to helping fight the war on terror. But beyond that, the new Attorney General has a mess to clean up. The Justice Department has been plagued the last few years by decisionmaking driven by politics--pure politics. Some of these I have mentioned before, but I would like to give just a few examples. The Department's own inspector general listed this as one of the top management challenges for the Department of Justice: ``Restoring Confidence in the Integrity, Fairness, and Accountability of the Department.'' That is quite a major management challenge the Department faces. This inspector general cited several examples, including the Department's falsely denying basic facts in the Fast and Furious controversy. The inspector general concluded this ``resulted in an erosion of trust in the Department.'' In that fiasco, our government knowingly allowed firearms to fall into the hands of international gun traffickers, and, I am sorry to say, it led to the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Then how did the Department respond to all this obviously wrong action on their part? They denied, they spun, and they hid the facts from Congress. And if you hide the facts from the American Congress, you are hiding the facts from the American people. They bullied and intimidated whistleblowers, members of the press, and, you might say, anyone who had the audacity to investigate and help us uncover the truth. But Fast and Furious isn't the Department's only major failing under the Holder tenure. It has also failed to hold another government agency accountable, the Internal Revenue Service. We watched with dismay as that powerful agency was weaponized and turned against individual citizens who spoke out in defense of faith, freedom, and our Constitution. What was the Department's reaction to the targeting of citizens based on their political beliefs? They appointed a campaign donor to lead an investigation that hasn't gone anywhere, and then, after that, the Department called it a day. Meanwhile, the Department's top litigator, the Nation's Solicitor General, is arguing in case after case for breathtaking expansions of Federal power. I said this before, but it bears repeating: Had the Department prevailed in just some of the arguments it pressed before the Supreme Court in the last several years--and I will give five examples: One, there would be essentially no limit on what the Federal Government could order States to do as a condition for receiving Federal money. Two, the Environmental Protection Agency could fine homeowners $75,000 a day for not complying with an order and then turn around and deny that homeowner any right to challenge the order or those fines in court when the order is issued. Three, the Federal Government could review decisions by religious organizations regarding who can serve as a minister of a particular religion. Four, the Federal Government could ban books that expressly advocate for the election or the defeat of political candidates. And five, lastly, the way this Solicitor General argued, as I said, would bring the most massive expansion of Federal power in the history of the country. The Fourth Amendment wouldn't have anything to say about the police attaching a GPS device to a citizen's car without a warrant and constantly tracking their every movement for months or years. Now, I have given five reasons of expansion of the Federal Government. These positions aren't in any way mainstream positions. At the end of the day, the common thread that binds all of these challenges together is a Department of Justice which has become deeply politicized. But that is what happens when the Attorney General of the United States views himself--and these are his own words--as the President's ``wingman.'' Because of all the politicized decisions we have witnessed over the last few years, I have said from the very beginning of this process that what we need more than anything else out of our new Attorney General is independence. Ever since she was nominated, it was my sincere hope that Ms. Lynch would demonstrate that sort of independence. It was my hope that she would make clear that, while she serves at the pleasure of the President, she is accountable to the American people, because the job of Attorney General is defined by a duty to defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law. The job is not simply to defend the President and his policies. I voted for Attorney General Holder despite some reservations and misgivings, but I have come to regret that vote because of the political way he has led the Department. I realize that the quickest way to end his tenure as Attorney General is to confirm Ms. Lynch, but, as I have said, the question for me from the start has been whether Ms. Lynch will make a clean break from the Holder policies and take the Department in a new direction. Some of my Democratic colleagues have said that no one has raised any objection to Ms. Lynch's nomination. This, of course, is inaccurate. No one disputes that she has an impressive legal background. It was her testimony before the committee that caused concerns for many Senators, including me. After thoroughly reviewing that testimony, I concluded that she won't lead the Department in a different direction. That is very unfortunate. After 6 years of Attorney General Holder's leadership, the Department desperately needs a change of direction. I would like to remind my Democratic colleagues that it was not too long ago that a majority of Democrats voted against Judge Mukasey for Attorney General--not based on his records but instead based upon his testimony before the committee. In fact, then-Senator Obama had this to say about Judge Mukasey: ``While his legal credentials are strong, his views on two critical and related matters are, in my view, disqualifying.'' I asked Ms. Lynch about her views on Fast and Furious, on the IRS scandal, and other ways the Department has been politicized. She did not demonstrate that she would do things differently. Instead, she gave nonanswers. She was eloquent and polished but nonresponsive. The bottom line is that Ms. Lynch does not seem willing to commit to a new, independent way of running the Department. That surprised me very much. Based on everything we were told, I expected Ms. Lynch to demonstrate a bit more independence from the President. I am confident that if she had done so, she would have garnered more support. As I said when the committee voted on her nomination, to illustrate this point, we need to look no further than the confirmation of Secretary Carter to the Department of Defense earlier this year. When he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Carter demonstrated the type of independent streak that many of us were hoping we would see in Ms. Lynch. Most of the media reporting on the two nominations seemed to agree. Headlines regarding the Carter nomination in the New York Times and the Washington Post commended his shift from the President's policies with headlines such as ``Defense nominee Carter casts himself as an independent voice,'' which was in the Washington Post, and in the New York Times, ``In Ashton Carter, Nominee for Defense Secretary, a Change in Direction.'' But on the Lynch nomination, those same newspapers highlighted that she defended the President's policies on immigration and surveillance with headlines such as ``Lynch Defends Obama's Immigration Action,'' which was in the New York Times, and from the Huffington Post, ``Loretta Lynch Defends Obama's Immigration Actions.'' Secretary Carter was confirmed with 93 votes. Only five Senators voted against Secretary Carter's nomination. That lopsided vote was a reflection of his testimony before the Senate, which demonstrated a willingness to be an independent voice within the administration. Unfortunately, Ms. Lynch did not demonstrate the same type of independence. I sincerely hope Ms. Lynch proves me wrong and is willing to stand up to the President and say no when the duty of office demands it. But based upon my review of her record, I cannot support the nomination. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we have commemorated National Crime Victims' Rights Week every April since 1981. This year it takes place from April 19 through April 25. This week is dedicated to remembering victims of crime, building awareness, and advocating for victims' rights. It is also an opportunity to pay tribute to the millions of Americans and thousands of Iowans who fall victim to senseless acts of crime each year. On Monday I introduced a bipartisan resolution commemorating National Crime Victims' Rights Week, and I am happy that my colleagues have joined me by unanimously passing this resolution this morning. The theme for this week, ``Engaging Communities. Empowering Victims,'' recognizes the importance of offering the support necessary to help crime survivors heal. During this week we also remember the contributions of the countless crisis hotline volunteers and staff, victims' rights attorneys, medical professionals, and emergency responders who provide critical assistance to survivors of crime every hour, every day in communities across the United States. The Judiciary Committee has worked to strengthen Federal laws and direct resources to efforts to prevent crime from occurring in the first place. And, although we still have a way to go to ensure that all crime survivors are treated with appropriate fairness and respect in the criminal justice system, I am proud that we have made important strides toward this goal. An important issue for many crime victims is restitution. It is an issue that would be addressed by the ``Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act,'' a bill introduced by Senator Hatch that has my strong support. The Judiciary Committee, of which I serve as chairman, reported this bill on February 5. If enacted, the measure, which passed the full Senate by a vote of 98-0 on February 11, would reverse a Supreme Court decision that limits the amount of restitution that victims of child pornography can recover from any one perpetrator. It would ensure that victims can recover a minimum amount of damages for certain child pornography offenses, and it also would make any single perpetrator potentially responsible for the full damages that result from an offense involving multiple perpetrators. Americans also deserve to know that we are doing everything possible to prevent sexual assault, especially in our most acclaimed institutions of society, including college campuses and our Nation's military. In fact, a zero tolerance standard needs to be set at the highest levels of the Federal government. Take, for example, the lack of accountability within some of our Nation's Federal law enforcement entities. In the last few years, a string of sex scandals involving prostitutes being solicited by public servants working for the FBI, Secret Service and, most recently, the Drug Enforcement Administration reflect an embarrassing lack of ethics and moral code of conduct by Federal agents hired to flush out illicit criminal activity at home and abroad. It should go without saying that this type of conduct by Federal law enforcement personnel--on or off the clock--cannot be tolerated. This behavior telegraphs the wrong message about acceptable sexual conduct to society and contributes to the demand for the human sex trade around the world. I supported the enactment of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and earlier this year I chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on human trafficking, where witnesses discussed the consequences of sex trafficking for both child and adult victims. The witnesses at this hearing, which took place on February 24, 2015, also testified in support of several measures that would help us further combat the various forms of human trafficking in the United States. One of these measures is the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act which is now pending on the Senate floor, and of which I am a cosponsor. It is vitally important that we pass this legislation, which would authorize much needed services to victims of child pornography as well as labor and sex trafficking. The bill also equips law enforcement with new tools for prosecuting human trafficking offenses and recognizes that the production of child pornography is a form of human trafficking. Also, earlier this year, I introduced the Combating Human Trafficking Act. Among other things, the bill would clarify that Federal grant resources can be used to meet the housing needs of human trafficking victims and offer training on the effects of sex trafficking to those who offer services to runaway, homeless, and at-risk youth. I led the Judiciary Committee in supporting the inclusion of this legislation as an amendment to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act during committee consideration of that bill. The committee accepted the measure by voice vote on February 26. The committee reported the bill to the Senate floor by a vote of 19-0. I am grateful we have been able to reach an agreement that will finally allow a vote on this very important legislation, and I look forward to casting my vote in favor of this bill. Our next challenge should be to address the two broken systems of justice found on our college campuses and within our military institutions. First, a flawed reporting system on college campuses requires a stronger set of tools that would help survivors of sexual assault as well as protect the rights of the accused. That is why I have cosponsored the ``Campus Accountability and Safety Act'' with Senator McCaskill. It would establish new campus resources and support services for students, including: a requirement that colleges designate a confidential advisor for survivors of sexual violence; new transparency and reporting requirements; coordination between colleges and local law enforcement; and protections for due process rights of survivors and the accused. It would also increase financial penalties for colleges found not in compliance with the new standards. Cases of sexual assault, which too often go unreported on college campuses and in our own communities, require sustained, collective attention by policymakers, law enforcement, advocates, and survivors. Every student who heads off to a college campus in America deserves to know that there is a system in place to secure justice and due process for the victim and the accused. Likewise, every young man and woman who serves his or her country in uniform deserves to know that sexual assault is a crime and will be treated and prosecuted as such. In the last Congress, I cosponsored the bipartisan ``Military Justice Improvement Act'' with Senator Gillibrand. The bill would empower enlisted soldiers and sailors to come forward and report a sexual crime. It would create an independent system of justice within the ranks of the military. It would remove the chain of command from prosecutorial decisions regarding sexual assault. The fear of retaliation and retribution in the military has been a reality for too many survivors of sexual assault. The current system has created an environment that emboldens predators instead of empowering victims. Barring access to fair and impartial justice pours salt in the wounds of those who have suffered immeasurable indignity and harm while serving their country in uniform. I will continue working to advance bipartisan measures through Congress to send a clear message. Sexual assault is a crime. The sooner our culture and systems of justice on college campuses and in the Nation's military work together to deter, prosecute, and stop sexual violence, the safer our society will be for America's sons and daughters growing up in the 21st century. In closing, crime victims and survivors in the United States deserve our assistance in helping them cope with the often devastating consequences of crime. That is why it is so important that we support the mission and goals of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for joining me in supporting passage of this resolution. Amendment No. 273, as Modified Mr. President, for the leader, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up amendment No. 273 with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ individuals who are not eligible to work in the United States. Identity theft and counterfeit documents have made a mockery of this law. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents. This is why Congress created a pilot program, known as the Basic Pilot program, to help employers verify the work eligibility of its new hires. This program has allowed employers to check records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. It was successful, and in 2003, Congress made the program available in all 50 States. Now known as E-Verify, this nationwide program is free for employers and accessible via the internet. This program has been a valuable tool for those who want to hire a legal workforce. Employers like it. In fact, according to Westat, a private statistical survey research corporation that conducted a survey last year, 97 percent of employers found E-Verify user-friendly, and 92 percent said the program was effective. Employers also reported that ``E-Verify takes the guess work out of determining the validity of documents, provides immediate results, offers reassurance that the company is not hiring unauthorized workers, and helps them to show a good faith effort to comply with the law.'' So, today, along with several colleagues, I am introducing legislation to permanently authorize and expand the E-Verify program. My bill, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act, will ensure that employers can rely on this program while holding them accountable for their hiring practices. My bill would make E-Verify a staple in every workplace. It would pave the way to modify and simplify the I-9 process required today. It would increase penalties on employers who hire people unauthorized to work in the country. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within three years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary visas. As Congress considers the reauthorization of E-Verify this year, I hope my bill will be a starting point for discussion. We need to enhance and expand the program so that our immigration laws are being upheld. I hope my colleagues will consider joining me in making E- Verify a permanent part of our immigration laws.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1986, Congress made it unlawful for employers to knowingly hire or employ individuals who are not eligible to work in the United States. Identity theft and counterfeit documents have made a mockery of this law. Under current law, if the documents provided by an employee reasonably appear on their face to be genuine, the employer has met its obligation to review the worker's documents. This is why Congress created a pilot program, known as the Basic Pilot program, to help employers verify the work eligibility of its new hires. This program has allowed employers to check records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. It was successful, and in 2003, Congress made the program available in all 50 States. Now known as E-Verify, this nationwide program is free for employers and accessible via the internet. This program has been a valuable tool for those who want to hire a legal workforce. Employers like it. In fact, according to Westat, a private statistical survey research corporation that conducted a survey last year, 97 percent of employers found E-Verify user-friendly, and 92 percent said the program was effective. Employers also reported that ``E-Verify takes the guess work out of determining the validity of documents, provides immediate results, offers reassurance that the company is not hiring unauthorized workers, and helps them to show a good faith effort to comply with the law.'' So, today, along with several colleagues, I am introducing legislation to permanently authorize and expand the E-Verify program. My bill, the Accountability Through Electronic Verification Act, will ensure that employers can rely on this program while holding them accountable for their hiring practices. My bill would make E-Verify a staple in every workplace. It would pave the way to modify and simplify the I-9 process required today. It would increase penalties on employers who hire people unauthorized to work in the country. Employers would be required to check the status of current employees within three years, and would allow employers to run a check prior to offering a job, saving that employer valuable time and resources. Employers will also be required to re-check those workers whose authorization is about to expire, such as those who come to the United States on temporary visas. As Congress considers the reauthorization of E-Verify this year, I hope my bill will be a starting point for discussion. We need to enhance and expand the program so that our immigration laws are being upheld. I hope my colleagues will consider joining me in making E- Verify a permanent part of our immigration laws.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have 15 minutes?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tonight, the Senate will vote on the nomination of George Hanks to be a district judge for the Southern District of Texas. If confirmed, Judge Hanks will be the President's 309th judicial nominee confirmed since this President took office. By comparison, at the same point in his Presidency, President Bush had only 273 judicial nominees confirmed. Despite some of the complaints that we are hearing from my colleagues on the other side, we are moving judicial nominees at about the same pace as we did at this point in President Bush's Presidency. One difference, of course, is how the Senate handled the judicial nominees that were reported out of the committee during the lameduck session. Historically, the Senate doesn't confirm judges at the end of a Congress if those judges are reported out of committee during a lameduck. The reason for this, of course, is so the newly elected Members have an opportunity for their voices to be heard. For instance, that is what happened in 2006 when the Senate returned 13 judicial nominees to the President. Those nominees were then renominated in 2007 and eventually confirmed in the new Congress, but the Senate Democrats did not follow tradition last year. Instead of following standard practice, Senate Democrats confirmed 11 judicial nominees who were reported out of committee during the lameduck session. Had they followed standard practice, we would have voted on those nominees at the beginning of this year, just as the committee did with the nominees that were resubmitted in 2007. At the end of the day, when we include the 11 district court nominees who were confirmed at the end of last year, we are at about the same pace that the Democratically led Senate was in 2007 during the Bush administration. This is further confirmed when you compare the committee's work this year to 2007. In 2007, at this point in the Congress, the committee had held three nominee hearings for a total of 10 judges. As of right now, the Judiciary Committee has already held 4 nomination hearings for a total of 10 nominees. These nominees include six judges and four executive nominees, including both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General nominees. The bottom line is the Senate Judiciary Committee is treating the President's nominees extremely fairly. He has had dozens more nominees confirmed than President Bush did at this point in his Presidency. I expect another one will be confirmed tonight, and I congratulate Judge Hanks on his pending nomination and urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.

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

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the ability of Congress to be a check on the actions of the executive branch is being endangered. One of the tools that we in Congress have created to help the government identify and correct its mistakes is being obstructed. That tool is the vital work of inspectors general. Inspectors general work in nearly 80 Federal agencies. They perform audits, conduct investigations, and issue public reports of their findings and recommendations. They combat waste, fraud, and abuse. Their work is being frustrated, and that is why I am here. To keep an eye on what is happening inside a government agency, the inspector general must be able to access the agency's records. This is exactly what the law calls for. The Inspector General Act of 1978 directs that all inspectors general have a right to access all records, documents, and other materials. ``All'' is not the same as ``some.'' If the inspector general deems a document necessary to do his job, then the agency should turn it over immediately--immediately. But the clear command of that law is being ignored far too often. Agencies partially comply or refuse to turn over materials after a lengthy review and screening process by lawyers for the agency. That is a step not included in the IG law. The examples range from the Environmental Protection Agency to the FBI, and can you believe it, even to the Peace Corps. The excuses vary, but the pattern is very clear. For example, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General is reviewing the Department's use of the material witness statute. That statute authorizes detaining certain witnesses for testimony before a grand jury. The inspector general was looking into allegations that the civil rights and the civil liberties of certain material witnesses may have been abused. This is just the kind of issue that Congress relies on inspectors general to investigate. If the problems are found, the inspector general helps our government identify the problem and helps Department leadership fix these problems. Naturally, the inspector general needed to review the grand jury testimony to decide if the value of that testimony was reasonable, given the burden imposed on the witnesses. Three U.S. attorneys offices and the Department's National Security Division provided the inspector general with the grand jury information concerning material witnesses, but the FBI refused to cooperate. The FBI claimed the grand jury testimony could not be shared with the inspector general. This FBI decision to withhold information was a brandnew practice, beginning sometime in 2010. The law was not changed in 2010 so the FBI could do it. The FBI claimed it had the right to refuse to provide the inspector general information in over a dozen other categories as well. Remember, the law says the inspector general shall have access to all--not some--records, documents, and other materials that they deem necessary to conduct their investigations. Yet the FBI says its attorneys will review material first and then decide what it would and would not release to the inspector general. It even gets worse. The FBI claimed it needed the approval of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General to provide the information to the inspector general. This is exactly upside down. Under the law, an inspector general must be independent. Agencies cannot be trusted to investigate themselves. If an inspector general had to ask for permission from senior leadership, he would not be truly independent. The Inspector General Act of 1978 does allow the Attorney General, not the FBI, to prohibit the inspector general from carrying out or completing an investigation but only in certain limited circumstances. When that extraordinary step is taken, it must be done in writing to the inspector general, and the inspector general must forward that written notice to the Congress. The FBI would have us believe that instead of written notice being required to block an IG investigation, it needs written permission to comply with an investigation. This is simply not how the law is designed to work. After this controversy took place, Congress took action. We essentially bolded and underlined the provision in the Inspector General Act that ensures access to documents. We didn't literally do that, but this year's Justice Department appropriation declares that no funds shall be used to deny the inspector general timely access to all records. The new law also directed the inspector general to report to Congress within 5 days whenever there was a failure to comply with this requirement. Since February of this year, we have already received four of those reports that the FBI is still refusing to comply, regardless of the actions Congress took on the appropriations bill last year. One notice said the FBI was withholding evidence in two whistleblower cases. I have written to the FBI twice about these notices and just received a reply from the FBI Wednesday. Unfortunately, the FBI ignores most of the questions I asked and simply reasserts their original position. That tells me the FBI thinks they are above the law. It has an obligation to comply not only with the Inspector General Act but also with restrictions Congress placed on its appropriations. That means FBI employees cannot legally be spending their time withholding and reviewing documents before providing those same documents to the inspector general. We must stay vigilant and we must insist all government agencies, including the FBI, work with the inspectors general, not against them. I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for standing up for inspectors general. I also urge them to follow through and help make sure the funding restrictions they put in place are obeyed. As I noted earlier, the problem is not confined to the FBI or to the Department of Justice, similar attempts to limit the work of an inspector general have occurred at the EPA and the Peace Corps. Just last year, 47 inspectors general signed a letter to the Congress warning of these problems across government. We all lose when inspectors general are delayed or prevented in doing their work. In every agency where IG's work, they help agency management become aware of problems and opportunities to improve government service. We must support the work of inspectors general and remind government agencies that blocking their investigations is not acceptable.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, remember that 212 Republicans and 180 Democrats supported H.R. 2. The decision to extend CHIP for 2 years with the current payment rate was part of the House bipartisan agreement. This amendment seeks to rewrite that amendment. This amendment is not a vote to show who really cares more about children's health because H.R. 2 extends the CHIP program for 2 years. Everyone who supports the underlying bill is supporting children's health. If my colleagues oppose this amendment, they are no less a supporter of children's health than the 392 Members of the House who supported H.R. 2, including 180 Democrats and Leader Pelosi. Are my colleagues really saying that Leader Pelosi didn't care enough about kids in forging this agreement? Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am a supporter of the Children's Health Insurance Program having participated in the initial creation of CHIP in 1997 and the reauthorization started in 2007. And while I am a supporter of children's health, this is not a CHIP vote in a vacuum. This vote is in the context of the underlying bill and cannot be ignored. An overwhelming majority of the House supported H.R. 2. 392 Members of the House vote for H.R. 2; 212 Republicans and 180 Democrats supported the bill. That is a sign of bipartisanship that is, on a major issue, extremely rare in the House. The decision to extend CHIP for 2 years with the current payment rate was a part of the House bipartisan agreement. It is an agreement between House Republicans and House Democrats. This amendment seeks to rewrite that agreement. So let's talk for a moment about what this amendment is not. This amendment is not a vote to show who cares more about children's health. H.R. 2 extends the CHIP program for 2 years. Everyone who supports the underlying bill is supporting children's health. Mr. President, 392 members of the House voted for this bill which extends CHIP for 2 years. If you oppose this amendment, you are no less a supporter of children's health than the 392 Members of the House who supported H.R. 2 including 180 Democrats and Leader Pelosi. Are you really saying Leader Pelosi didn't care enough about kids in forging this agreement? Again, no one should accuse anyone who votes against this amendment as being insufficiently supportive of children's health. I have also heard it said that Congress only authorizes 2 years now, there is little chance Congress will authorize two more years in 2017. That is a prediction, and as we all know, Congress can be hard to predict some times. In two years, we will be back to consider CHIP. We will also be back to consider therapy caps, rural hospital programs, home visiting, the special diabetes program, and community health center funding, to name a few programs extended in this bill. The House agreement intentionally aligned these programs to be considered in tandem in 2017. This amendment pulls one very specific provision out of that compromise. I have no concerns that CHIP can stand without the SGR. What we need to do is spend the next two years thinking about the future of health care coverage for children. MAC-PAC has done some very good work examining what CHIP provides for children that is different than the private market. The pediatricians are in town this week for a conference, and as they will tell you, kids are not just little adults. Benefits and services need to be tailored to make sure that kids grow into healthy productive adults. This is something we need to settle in the next two years. It is something we can and should do. Voting against this amendment does nothing to jeopardize that process. We have a choice here. We can pass the House bill without changes or we can amend its bill and send it back to the House. I urge Senators to support the agreement and vote against this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week marked the 10th anniversary of Sunshine Week, an initiative that has become a nationwide effort to promote openness and transparency in government. As Justice Brandeis wrote in 1913, ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is what Sunshine Week is all about--shining a bright light to provide accountability and ensuring the public's right to know what its government is doing. James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 51, that ``if men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' This passage has been quoted and used time and again for different purposes--sometimes correctly, other times incorrectly. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind its context. Of course men aren't angels. Rather, we are all ambitious, and ``ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'' Thus, Madison described the Framers' challenge of forming a government administered by man as how to ``enable the government to control the governed; and . . . oblige it to control itself.'' Madison went on to explain the need for the government structure we all know and live under now with proper checks and balances. Because of this structure, which is the best in the world, we celebrate Sunshine Week and continue to ensure the public can hold its government accountable. There is perhaps no better tool that Americans have to help ensure that open government and transparency prevail than the Freedom of Information Act. Enacted almost five decades ago, FOIA gives the public the right to government information, opening wide the curtains on the public's business and helping to ensure that government officials remain accountable. Unfortunately, as Madison explained so long ago, when ambition seeks to counteract ambition there are challenges to allowing sunlight to disinfect the ``culture of obfuscation'' that permeates certain corners of the Federal Government. When this happens, FOIA's effectiveness is undermined, and the public becomes even more skeptical of government. This sort of government behavior and secrecy knows no partisan boundaries. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have failed to provide the level of transparency that Federal laws require and which the American public so rightly deserves. But efforts to change the government's attitude toward openness and transparency should know no such partisan boundaries either. Currently, there is bipartisan work underway in both the Senate and House to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. These reforms are aimed at improving citizens' ability to access government information. The Senate Judiciary Committee has passed the FOIA Improvement Act of 2015, a bill I have cosponsored, and I am hopeful it will pass the Senate very soon. The FOIA Improvement Act would codify a ``presumption of openness'' standard, which will help to ensure that agencies proactively disclose more information to the public. The bill also makes it easier for the public to request documents from the government, while bringing about meaningful improvements to the FOIA process. Improvements in technology--and even improvements to our laws--will only go so far, however. Those who are entrusted with conducting the people's business and who serve as stewards of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, should operate under an instinct of openness rather than reflexive secrecy. Anyone who has watched the news recently could tell you that this year's Sunshine Week couldn't have fallen at a more appropriate--yet very concerning--time for our Nation. Even within the past few weeks, Americans have learned of more actions and inactions at the Federal level that helped keep the shutters closed on the public's access to government business. It is impossible to discuss the current state of government transparency without acknowledging former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email account located on a private server in her home to conduct official State Department business. Last week, an article in Politico by Dan Metcalfe--who served more than 25 years as the Director of the Department of Justice's Office of Information and Privacy--called Secretary Clinton's argument that she complied with Federal recordkeeping laws ``laughable.'' Mr. Metcalfe says that ``in this case, which is truly unprecedented, no matter what Secretary Clinton would have one believe, she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it--perhaps forever.'' At minimum, he says, ``it was a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better.'' In an attempt to appease the increasing demand for answers, Secretary Clinton said she used a personal email account to conduct official government business simply for reasons of ``convenience.'' While that may be so, I fear it is indicative of a broader fundamental disconnect between the letter and spirit of our Nation's transparency laws and the actions and attitudes of its officials. Let's be clear. Transparency shouldn't be a question of convenience. And the public's right to know shouldn't be curtailed simply because the release of certain information might be rather inconvenient for an agency, its leadership or an administration. Conducting government business on private email undermines public trust and is detrimental to good government. That is why I have reiterated a request I made to the State Department in 2013 for records and communications relating to the agency's questionable use of the ``special government employee'' designation for a top aide to Secretary Clinton. This designation may have facilitated even more government business being conducted over private email, and we need to know exactly how these practices may be undermining FOIA. I have also worked to shine light on the current Labor Secretary's use of private email to conduct official business while serving at the Justice Department, and on allegations of the improper use of unofficial email addresses at the Treasury Department. In our increasingly digital world, we must remain vigilant in ensuring that government officials are conducting business through the appropriate channels. President Obama gave me high hopes at the start of his administration for a ``new era of open Government''--one where transparency is the rule, as opposed to the exception. On his first day in office, the President issued a memorandum to his administration, proclaiming that ``the Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.'' He has even proclaimed that his is ``the most transparent administration in history.'' Yet, time and again, we see examples of this administration operating under a ``do as I say, not as I do'' approach to transparency. Last week, administration officials proclaimed in USA TODAY that ``increasingly, government agencies are operating with a `default to open' approach.'' They added that ``the administration also continues to make important strides in improving the Freedom of Information Act process.'' The very next day was National Freedom of Information Day. How did the Obama administration celebrate its commitment to transparency? It announced its intention to remove a Federal regulation from the books that for 30 years has subjected the White House Office of Administration to FOIA requests. And just for good measure, the administration said that this official change in policy will not be subject to public comment. But this is by no means the first time the administration has shirked its commitment to transparency. From negotiating new regulations behind closed doors, to arguing an illogically narrow interpretation of FOIA before the DC Circuit--an interpretation the court said would have left FOIA requesters in limbo for months or even years--the Obama administration seems determined to say one thing while doing another. Clearly, there is room for improvement. But thankfully, when the government refuses to let the sunlight in, courageous citizens have stepped up to throw open the shutters. Each year, Sunshine Week provides an excellent opportunity to highlight the bravery and contribution of whistleblowers--private citizens and government employees who come forward to expose wrongdoing. Whistleblowers are a critical component of ensuring that our government remains accountable to the people that it serves. For years, I have worked with fellow lawmakers to ensure that whistleblowers have the kind of protections they need to be able to shine a light on waste, fraud, and abuse--without fear of retribution. Part of this effort has been through rigorous congressional oversight of agency compliance with laws like the Whistleblower Protection Act. This also involves rooting out areas for improvement. Earlier this month, the Senate Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing to examine the urgent need for increased whistleblower protections at the FBI, where--unlike every other Federal agency--employees are not protected from retaliation for uncovering and reporting wrongdoings to their direct supervisors. People who are courageous enough to open wide the curtains on waste, fraud, and abuse should not have to fear for their livelihood; they should be honored for exposing the truth. To help advance this effort, I--along with a bipartisan group of Senators--recently launched the Whistleblower Protection Caucus. The caucus will serve as a resource for the latest information on whistleblower developments and will foster bipartisan discussion on the treatment of whistleblowers. Agency inspectors general, likewise, play a crucial role in bringing information about government actions--or inactions--out into the public light. It is important that their jobs not be undermined by the very agencies within which they operate. I am continually frustrated by the stories I hear of an agency stonewalling an inspector general's attempt to uncover the truth. In August 2014, 47 inspectors general from across the Federal government wrote to Congress about agency refusals to provide access to documents and information critical to their investigative efforts. I am particularly troubled by recent reports from the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General that the FBI is failing to provide it with timely access to records. Not only is the FBI dragging its feet in turning over key documents, it is erecting barriers to access that are in direct contradiction with Federal law. If agencies are willing to go to such lengths to prevent disclosure, we have all the more reason to recognize and support the efforts of those who--often at great risk--seek to peel back the curtains. Sunshine Week continues to be a reflection of the tireless efforts of whistleblowers, government watchdogs, investigative journalists, and average Americans from across the country who are steadfast in their pursuit of a more transparent and accountable government. They are doing their part. We need to do ours. Let's build upon this 10th anniversary of Sunshine Week to engage in the discussions and work together toward the solutions that will truly usher in a new era of openness.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize an exceptional Iowan who has been devoted to the State and to our agricultural heritage. After serving as president of Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area since 2001, Don Short has announced his retirement. Don Short was raised in Winthrop, IA, where he took over the family farm. From early on, Don has dedicated his efforts to farming and agricultural policy. He was employed with Moews Seed Company, a family owned business since 1927 that specializes in corn seed production. Afterward, Don worked for DuPont Seed Company. Don's experiences in agriculture have provided him the insight necessary to lead the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area. For 15 years, he has been able to protect and promote natural, cultural, and historic areas. He spearheaded efforts to maintain and strengthen the Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area and has been a dogged advocate on its behalf. He is a farmer whose desire is to keep agricultural heritage alive through partnerships, such as historic sites, tourist attractions, and businesses that bring economic benefits to Iowa. I want to congratulate Don Short on his retirement and his success over the years. Silos and Smokestacks will no doubt miss his daily contributions; however, he plans on remaining a consultant on a parttime basis. I thank him for his unwavering commitment to improving agricultural policies and making Iowa a better place.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week is Sunshine Week, when we affirm the public's right to know how their government is run. Sunshine Week, which began as Sunshine Sunday in 2002, emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the spirit of government transparency, we are pleased to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2015. This important piece of bipartisan legislation furthers the public's access to court proceedings by permitting federal judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what happens inside our courts. Our judicial system remains a mystery to too many people across the country. That doesn't need to continue. Letting the sun shine in on Federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. Granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all. For decades, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, all 50 States and the District of Columbia now allow some news coverage of proceedings. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Leahy, will greatly improve public access to federal courts by letting federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. The bill prohibits the televising of jurors. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party. We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our States have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this week is Sunshine Week, when we affirm the public's right to know how their government is run. Sunshine Week, which began as Sunshine Sunday in 2002, emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the spirit of government transparency, we are pleased to introduce the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2015. This important piece of bipartisan legislation furthers the public's access to court proceedings by permitting federal judges at all federal court levels to open their courtrooms to television cameras and radio broadcasts. Openness in our courts improves the public's understanding of what happens inside our courts. Our judicial system remains a mystery to too many people across the country. That doesn't need to continue. Letting the sun shine in on Federal courtrooms will give Americans an opportunity to better understand the judicial process. Courts are the bedrock of the American justice system. Granting the public greater access to an already public proceeding will inspire greater faith in and appreciation for our judges who pledge equal and impartial justice for all. For decades, States such as my home State of Iowa have allowed cameras in their courtrooms with great results. As a matter of fact, all 50 States and the District of Columbia now allow some news coverage of proceedings. The bill I am introducing today, along with Senator Schumer and a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, including Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Leahy, will greatly improve public access to federal courts by letting federal judges open their courtrooms to television cameras and other forms of electronic media. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act is full of provisions that ensure that the introduction of cameras and other broadcasting devices into courtrooms goes as smoothly as it has at the state level. First, the presence of the cameras Federal trial and appellate courts is at the sole discretion of the judges--it is not mandatory. The bill also provides a mechanism for Congress to study the effects of this legislation on our judiciary before making this change permanent through a 3-year sunset provision. The bill protects the privacy and safety of non-party witnesses by giving them the right to have their faces and voices obscured. The bill prohibits the televising of jurors. Finally, it includes a provision to protect the due process rights of each party. We need to open the doors and let the light shine in on the Federal Judiciary. This bill improves public access to and therefore understanding of our Federal courts. It has safety provisions to ensure that the cameras won't interfere with the proceedings or with the safety or due process of anyone involved in the cases. Our States have allowed news coverage of their courtrooms for decades. It is time we join them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we have had competing claims about who is really at fault. I think the answer to that question is becoming unquestionably undeniable to any fair observer. Actions speak louder than words and there is no denying the actions of the minority party, which, before this Congress, was the majority party in the Senate for 8 years. Even in the minority, they are up to their old tricks of blocking amendments and grinding the Senate to a halt. Given the distortion of the Senate rules during those 8 years, it is no wonder the American public, and perhaps even some Senators, are confused about how the Senate rules are supposed to work. So I wish to take a few moments to talk about a procedure in the Senate called the cloture motion. With cloture, the Senate is actually voting on the question: Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close? The proper use of cloture is when the Senate has had time for debate and consideration of amendments and it seems as though the Senate is getting bogged down. If a cloture vote fails, then that means the Senate has decided, as a body, to keep on considering a particular piece of legislation. This is a crucial point and one that was routinely distorted under the previous majority, and they did it for partisan ends. A vote against cloture is a vote to continue considering a bill until at least 60 Senators are satisfied they have had their say and are ready to vote a bill up or down, yea or nay. It is not always clear when the Senate has reached that point, so the bill can sometimes require several cloture votes. Under the previous majority leadership--and now that group happens to be the Senate minority--we saw unprecedented abuses of Senate rules to block Senators from participating in the deliberative process. This included the repeated abuse of the cloture rule. In order to shield his Members from having to take tough votes, the previous majority leader routinely moved to shut down all consideration of a bill even before any debate took place and even before any amendments could be considered. As I stated, cloture is supposed to be used after the Senate has considered a measure for a period of time and a preponderance of the Senate thinks it has deliberated enough, and not do it to end consideration of a bill before it has begun, as the previous majority leadership did for several years prior to this year. Let's contrast how our majority leader, Senator McConnell, has been running the Senate. He has not tried to block minority amendments, as was done to us when we were in the minority. In fact, we have already had more than twice as many amendment votes as all of last year. As the manager of this bill, I have been running an open amendment process, and I am not afraid to have votes on amendments of all kinds. In fact, if you are fortunate enough to be elected to represent your State as a U.S. Senator, it seems to me you have an obligation to the people of your State to offer amendments on issues that are important to your State. The American people saw that we were serious about restoring the Senate tradition of having an open amendment process with the very first major bill we took up in this new Congress. Supporters of the Keystone Pipeline bill had the 60 votes to end debate, but we didn't try to ram through the bill without consideration of amendments. We had a full, open amendment process as we are supposed to have in the U.S. Senate, because it is a deliberative and amending body. There were more than a few ``gotcha'' types of amendments from the other side, but that is OK because that is how the Senate is supposed to operate. There was also an opportunity, for the first time in a very long time, for Senators to get votes on substantive issues that are important to the people of their individual States. That should be a big deal for every Senator, but it was not a very big deal the way the Senate was run previous to this year. When Senators are blocked from participating in the legislative process, the people they represent are disenfranchised. We were not elected to serve our party leadership, but to represent our State, and that is why it was so disappointing under the previous majority to see Senators repeatedly voting in lockstep with their party leadership to block amendments and end debate before it started. I think it is pretty clear from the last election that that strategy backfired in a very major way. Yet the same leaders, now in the minority, are up to their old tricks. The previous Senate leadership routinely used a tactic called filling the tree, where a former majority leader used his right of first recognition to call up his amendments and thus block out amendments from other Senators of both political parties. When the Senate is considering a number of amendments at once, it then requires unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to call up a new amendment, and that is a way to prevent other Senators from then offering their amendments. If you don't get unanimous consent to take down an amendment to make room for your amendment, you don't get the chance to offer your amendment, and usually that was blocked, and that is why there were only 18 rollcall votes on amendments all last year, compared to this year. The last time I counted, so far this year we had 43 votes. Elections are supposed to have consequences, and the consequences of the last election are that the new majority decided the Senate ought to operate as a deliberative and amending body where every Senator can participate, so Majority Leader McConnell has not filled the amendment tree. We have substantive amendments pending as we speak. Nevertheless, the minority leadership has been objecting to even setting aside the pending amendment or proceeding to a vote on pending amendments just as when they used the procedure of filling the amendment tree. After reporting the human trafficking bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, they have decided there is one provision they don't like, so after 3 days of consideration last week the bill has not moved forward. It looks as though the same trick is going on right now. Since there is an open amendment process--and that is the way Senator McConnell runs the Senate--we have naturally suggested that they offer an amendment if they don't like something in this bill. They have refused to do so, and instead are holding up the entire bill from being amended and finally passed. So after opening the bill up to amendments and having considered the bill for a week, the majority leader has now filed cloture. I want to be clear what this means. Again, a vote against cloture is a vote to continue debate and consider amendments. I have voted against ending debate many times in recent years out of principle when Senators were being denied their right to offer amendments. No one can say this is the case right now on this human trafficking bill. We have had a week of debate, and it is the minority party that is blocking amendments. Remember that many Members of the now minority party, when they were in the majority, were adamant that a vote against cloture is a filibuster and that it is illegitimate to filibuster. I say to my colleagues, if they truly believe filibusters are wrong and it was not just cynical political posturing, then you had better vote for cloture tomorrow. I will also note that a couple of Senators sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' letter at the beginning of this Congress calling again for what they term the ``talking filibuster.'' By this, those Senators mean that if you vote against ending debate, you should be prepared to talk nonstop on the Senate floor. Under their proposal, as soon as there are no Senators talking on the Senate floor, the Senate would move to a final vote. The problem with this idea under the previous leadership was that amendments were routinely blocked so it meant Senators would have to talk nonstop to preserve their right to offer an amendment with no guarantee they would ever get the chance. That is not the issue this time. We have allowed an open amendment process, and it is the minority party that is blocking amendments. So I would say to all the advocates of the so-called talking filibuster, if you do vote against cloture, you are saying you want to debate this bill more before a vote is taken. In that case, you better put your money where your mouth is. To all of my colleagues who support this so-called filibuster and vote against this cloture motion, I expect to see you come down to the Senate floor and talk nonstop. You can use the time to explain to the American people why you object to moving forward with this very important bipartisan legislation to combat sex trafficking. Then when you are ready to move forward with the vote, let us know. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2015, at 4 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining Federal Improper Payments and the Death Master File.''