Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on a number of occasions I have had to take to the Senate floor to note my opposition to the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act. Does that mean I am against all sentencing reform? No. But there are some issues that are particularly wrong with the suggestions that have been put in bill form so far. My speeches on this issue have been necessary because there are so many misconceptions about that legislation and Federal drug sentences and prisoners. Before addressing them, I want to let my colleagues know that I do believe there are some inequities in the criminal justice system, and the Judiciary Committee will be looking at ways to address them. I will set out that part of the committee's agenda after discussing sentencing. The Smarter Sentencing Act would arbitrarily cut in half the mandatory minimum sentences which are imposed on a host of serious-- very serious--drug offenses. Those offenses include the importation, manufacture, and distribution of serious drugs, such as heroin, PCP, LSD, and meth. As an example, the Governor of Vermont devoted an entire state of the State address to the heroin epidemic. The Governor of Maryland just launched an anti-heroin initiative following the near doubling of heroin overdose deaths in that State in the 2 years between 2011 and 2013. The Smarter Sentencing Act would cut mandatory sentences in half for importing, distributing, and manufacturing heroin. It would cut the sentences for the same activities with respect to LSD, a drug that causes psychosis and suicide. It would reduce sentences for the drug trade that two of President Obama's appointees in the Drug Enforcement Administration and in the Justice Department have warned that the world's most dangerous terrorist organizations are engaged in this trade to fund their operations. It would harm the ability of prosecutors to obtain cooperation from lower level offenders to obtain intelligence regarding terrorist-planned attacks. As President Obama's own U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York has warned, ``[T]here is a growing nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism, a threat that increasingly poses a clear and present danger to our national security.'' The threat should determine the response. It would be foolhardy to meet the threat of narcoterrorism by cutting drug sentences. Under Federal sentencing law, those who are low-level offenders avoid mandatory minimum offenses. Just under half of all drug courier offenders were subject to mandatory minimum sentences, but fewer than 10 percent received mandatory minimum sentences. One reason for the difference is that offenders who cooperate in prosecuting high-level drug conspirators avoid the mandatory minimum sentences. As a Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote: [A]ny change in the mandatory minimum sentencing standard does a disservice to the brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists and criminals. Currently, the system in place allows Federal law enforcement agents to infiltrate and dismantle large-scale drug trafficking organizations and to take violent armed career criminals off of the street. In turn, this allows progression up the scale of criminal organizations from low-level subjects to higher ranking members through the effect of the mandatory minimum sentencing act. A second reason mandatory minimum sentences are not imposed on many eligible drug couriers is the so-called safety valve. Defendants can qualify if they have no or a very light criminal history. That means those who are convicted but are not violent do not serve mandatory minimum sentences. The average sentence for a Federal drug courier offender is only 39 months. The offenders who qualify for the safety valve are drug couriers and drug dealers. They are not people who are in prison for the possession of drugs. That is because drug possession does not trigger Federal mandatory minimum sentences, and it is also because, according to the sentencing commission, almost no citizen is in Federal prison for mere drug possession. Eighty-eight percent of the drug possession prisoners were apprehended along the Southwest border, and the median amount of drugs in their possession was 48 pounds. I wish to emphasize ``48 pounds.'' These, then, with 48 pounds are not low-level, casual offenders. Only 270 mere Federal drug possession cases were brought anywhere else in the country in the most recent year for which the sentencing commission has statistics. And the average sentence for drug possession for citizens is 1.3 months. That is months, not years. Most citizens convicted of Federal drug possession charges receive probation. The proponents of the bill say there are too many people in prison and that the bill would save the taxpayers money. Well, it turns out that is not true. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill, even while releasing hundreds of thousands of prisoners earlier than under current law, would increase direct spending by about $1 billion and would reduce revenues by $42 million over 10 years. The supporters of the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act do not even attempt to contest my points in opposition--and I have made these points more than once before the Senate. The supporters do not say there is not a heroin epidemic. They cannot say citizens are serving Federal mandatory minimum sentences for possession. But they do say this: Their major ploy is to paint a picture that poor, innocent, mere drug possessors are crowding our prisons. They do not argue that Obama administration officials did not warn of the link of drug crimes to terrorism and national security threats. They don't challenge the statistics from the sentencing commission or the existence of the safety valve or the effect of mandatory minimum sentences in enhancing prosecution of very serious drug offenders. They won't take on the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimates. They do cite CBO's discretionary cost savings of $3 billion, but, in the long run, entitlement spending can be more costly because entitlement spending must be paid. They don't do any of these because they simply can't. They are committed to a bill as a matter of ideology. The facts simply do not matter to the supporters. They try to change the subject. All they can do is resort to rhetoric. In fact, the supporters of that legislation are even Orwellian in their rhetoric. I mean that literally. George Orwell wrote a famous essay called ``Politics and the English Language.'' He said: ``In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.'' The arguments for the Smarter Sentencing Act are merely a weak attempt to defend the indefensible. What I have called the leniency industrial complex refers then to the people who are sentenced to drug mandatory minimum sentences as ``nonviolent.'' They use that term even though any truly nonviolent offenders would qualify for the safety valve. They gloss over the fact that even if an offender was not violent in a particular case, he may have committed a prior violent offense that would make him, in fact, a violent person. And, of course, many drug-related crimes occur through force or the threat of force, or are conducted by people in a criminal enterprise that relies on violence. The bill's supporters even refer to some drug offenders as ``nonviolent,'' and these people are serving mandatory minimum sentences for carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime. Few Americans would call someone who carries a gun while committing a drug crime nonviolent. And the leniency industrial complex wants people to think that people who are sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences are somehow low-level offenders. They neglect to mention that the true low- level offenders receive the safety valve and avoid mandatory minimum sentences and that many others avoid them by providing substantial assistance to law enforcement. Many of the cases they cite involve repeat offenders. Repeat offenders are not low level. Lenient sentences did not stop them from dealing dangerous drugs, and another lenient sentence won't stop their next drug deal. When it comes to terms such as ``low level'' and ``nonviolent,'' again quoting Orwell, the bill's supporters have their own private definition, but allow the hearer to think they mean something quite different. Their political language has to consist largely of euphemisms, question-begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness. I regret to say that the elements in the media have uncritically accepted the Orwellian rhetoric surrounding this bill. A recent New York Times editorial swallowed the ``low-level'' rhetoric whole hog. It challenged my well-supported conclusion that high-level offenders would benefit from enactment of the Smarter Sentencing Act, without even mentioning the serious crimes and drugs the bill applies to. It editorialized that my opposition to the bill ``defies . . . empirical data,'' even though my sources are the sentencing commission and the Obama administration appointees. When the Times attempted to back up its support for the bill, it linked not to any authoritative evidence but to the report of an ideological advocacy group. This is the so-called empirical data that the Times finds worthy. Why should taxpayers fund the sentencing commission if the self- proclaimed paper of record shuns its statistics in favor of those offered by lobbying groups? The Times said the Federal policymakers should rely on State experience in reforming sentences, so I would like to do that. Only 270 citizens are prosecuted for drug possession in the Federal system each year, and most receive probation. The States have many drug possession offenders in prison, so the actions they take for that class of offenders do not bear on Federal prison populations, nor do the States prosecute anyone for importation of heroin or LSD or meth or cocaine. But the Federal Government does, as my colleagues know. So State drug sentencing changes are not relevant to those prisoners as well. And it is the Federal Government, much more than the States, that uses lower level offenders to take down the most serious drug offenders. Meanwhile, I have offered to consider legislation that would lower some mandatory minimum sentences if others could be imposed or raised. For instance, the sentencing commission has identified child pornography and financial crimes such as insider trading as areas where Federal judges are particularly lenient and where no mandatory minimum sentences exist. But it is the proponents of the Smarter Sentencing Act who refuse to take me up on that good-faith offer. Their ideology does not include compromise. The White House says they want to work with this Senator on these issues, but then invites other Members of Congress, but not the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to a meeting to discuss the subject. Since then, I have had a discussion with the President inviting me to come down there and visit with him some time. But in the New York Times' Orwellian world, this Senator is a roadblock to sentencing reform. That is upside down and backward. Problems do exist in the criminal justice system. I plan to have the Judiciary Committee address some important ones. But rather than marking up ill-considered and dangerous legislation such as the so- called Smarter Sentencing Act, we will take up bills that can achieve a large measure of consensus. I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the committee's criminal justice agenda, which will show my commitment to real problem solving through consensus. The first area we will address is reform of asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture can serve a valuable purpose for law enforcement and society by helping to deprive criminals and criminal organizations of their money--money from proceeds of their crimes and the instrumentality of that crime. It also helps to compensate victims who are injured or who suffer as a result of criminals' wrongdoing. It can also return that money to law enforcement, which can use it to continue to combat serious crime and put more bad guys behind bars. But current law provides perverse incentive that have led to abuses. Law enforcement can sometimes directly benefit from property that they seize, sometimes contrary to State law. Those whose property is taken often do not have access to fair procedures or law enforcement to help them get that property back. These processes and procedures need real structural reform. Innocent property owners must be able to challenge seizures and protect their property from government abuses. I am also looking into reversing a Supreme Court decision that denies property owners the opportunity to use their very own money to hire a lawyer to help defend them against the government. Even though the administration has made some administrative changes to these practices and policies in response to widespread criticism, I believe real legislative reform is needed. I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to make those necessary changes. Second, as a way of looking at reform, I am very concerned that too many times in America equality under the law is not a reality; that the poor do not receive the same justice in many instances. For more than 50 years, the Supreme Court has ruled that indigent people accused of felonies must be afforded counsel. And for more than 40 years, starting with the decision of Argersinger v. Hamlin, the Supreme Court has found that the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution requires that Federal, State, and local governments provide counsel to indigents who are accused of misdemeanors if their convictions could potentially lead to imprisonment. I regret to say that although I am aware of instances where the Federal Government is responsible, it is particularly at the State level where the Sixth Amendment is violated numerous times on a daily basis. I cannot think of any Supreme Court decision that has ever faced such resistance in magnitude and time as that Hamlin case. Indigent misdemeanants are being pressured to waive counsel. Sometimes they are threatened with imprisonment if they seek to have counsel appointed. There are other ways the decision is violated. Then there is the question of the competence of the counsel actually appointed, given how many cases are assigned to an individual lawyer and how quickly judges resolve them. I fear some innocent people are being sentenced to prison. There are other consequences as well. We should make sure there are collateral consequences imposed on people who are guilty of domestic violence misdemeanors, for instance. We do not want collateral consequences imposed on people who did not actually commit misdemeanors. If people later get in trouble with the law, we don't want them to qualify for the safety valve because some of their previous convictions were for misdemeanors in which they did not receive the right to counsel. We don't want people to have criminal records when they seek employment when they did not have counsel who could have prevented a conviction. In some situations, a misdemeanor will automatically become a felony if the accused has committed it repeatedly. We don't want a misdemeanor conviction to render a later crime a felony if questions of innocence surround the earlier crime. Third, I want to address databases for criminal records. Those databases can serve useful purposes, such as enabling background checks, background checks on people who are being considered for a job or for volunteering to work with children. There are proposals to expand the purposes for which the databases can be used, but I am concerned about the quality and the completeness of the records in the database. If the database contains erroneous or outdated material, then the people being checked may unfairly lose out on a job or the ability to help children. There are procedures at the Federal level to challenge the information in the database if the person knows their records are inaccurate, but that is a very steep climb. The States have their own procedures for people to challenge the accuracy of criminal records, but success there may be even harder and may cost more than people can afford. Records are also sometimes not expunged, even when the law said they must be expunged. I do not want to see the arrest record turn up in a background check and deny someone the ability to work, deny the economy the benefit of that productivity, and deprive the government of tax revenue from that work because a background check turned up a record of an arrest from long ago that never resulted in a conviction. This is a widespread problem. According to press reports, when arrests are included, 32 percent of adults in this country have criminal records that are contained in databases. I am sure we can reach bipartisan agreement on legislation to address this problem in some form. There are dangerous and poorly considered proposals to change the criminal justice system that are divisive, are not based on reality, and will never become law. There are also problems in the criminal justice system that are clear, widely recognized, have serious consequences, and can be the subject of effective bipartisan legislative efforts. I will do what I can to make sure the Committee on the Judiciary devotes its energy to the second category. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senator Enzi and a few other Senators to close a tax loophole that could mean billions of dollars in tax benefits going to individuals based on work they performed illegally in the United States. The tax benefit I am referring to is the earned-income tax credit. The earned-income tax credit was established as a work incentive to help move more individuals from the welfare rolls to the payrolls. The policy behind the EITC is one I and many of my colleagues support as it is intended to foster betterment and personal responsibility by giving those on the lowest rungs of the labor pool an extra incentive to jump in and stay in the workforce rather than rely on welfare programs. It does this by providing a tax benefit to low-income individuals based on the amount of earned income they have. The earned income tax credit is refundable, so it benefits even those who don't earn enough money to have a Federal income tax liability by providing them a cash payment. In 1996 Congress as a matter of policy determined that the earned income tax credit should be ``denied to individuals not authorized to be employed in the United States.'' That is the exact language used in the title of the relevant provision that was enacted in 1996. Congress carried this policy out by requiring those claiming the earned income tax credit to provide a Social Security number for themselves, their spouse, and their children. From a policy perspective, this rule made a lot of sense to me and many of my colleagues, as it passed both the House and the Senate with broad support. Obviously, if the object of the earned income tax credit is to encourage work, it makes no sense to provide such an incentive to those who are not legally allowed to work. Why would we want to encourage individuals to break our immigration laws? What Congress didn't know at the time was that at an unknown future date, a President, with the stroke of a pen, would essentially grant millions of undocumented workers amnesty. Under the President's action, those previously working illegally in the United States will be eligible for work authorization and a Social Security number. Based on an IRS interpretation of the earned income tax credit eligibility requirements, those who obtain a Social Security number will be eligible to claim the earned income tax credit not only for future years but for previous years while they were living and working in the United States undocumented. Based on the statute of limitations, those obtaining deferred action could then go back and amend or file returns for up to 3 previous tax years to take advantage of a credit that can be worth several thousands of dollars each year. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Enzi will fix this loophole by making it clear that those granted deferred action are not eligible to claim the earned income tax credit for the years they worked in the United States as undocumented workers. This proposal is simply an extension of current policy. Those granted deferred action will still be able to claim the earned income tax credit in years going forward for work they perform legally. This proposal reflects the commonsense proposition that American taxpayers should not subsidize work they performed illegally in the United States. This bill should be a no-brainer for any of my colleagues who agree that we should not reward individuals for breaking our immigration laws and our employment laws. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senator Enzi and a few other Senators to close a tax loophole that could mean billions of dollars in tax benefits going to individuals based on work they performed illegally in the United States. The tax benefit I am referring to is the earned-income tax credit. The earned-income tax credit was established as a work incentive to help move more individuals from the welfare rolls to the payrolls. The policy behind the EITC is one I and many of my colleagues support as it is intended to foster betterment and personal responsibility by giving those on the lowest rungs of the labor pool an extra incentive to jump in and stay in the workforce rather than rely on welfare programs. It does this by providing a tax benefit to low-income individuals based on the amount of earned income they have. The earned income tax credit is refundable, so it benefits even those who don't earn enough money to have a Federal income tax liability by providing them a cash payment. In 1996 Congress as a matter of policy determined that the earned income tax credit should be ``denied to individuals not authorized to be employed in the United States.'' That is the exact language used in the title of the relevant provision that was enacted in 1996. Congress carried this policy out by requiring those claiming the earned income tax credit to provide a Social Security number for themselves, their spouse, and their children. From a policy perspective, this rule made a lot of sense to me and many of my colleagues, as it passed both the House and the Senate with broad support. Obviously, if the object of the earned income tax credit is to encourage work, it makes no sense to provide such an incentive to those who are not legally allowed to work. Why would we want to encourage individuals to break our immigration laws? What Congress didn't know at the time was that at an unknown future date, a President, with the stroke of a pen, would essentially grant millions of undocumented workers amnesty. Under the President's action, those previously working illegally in the United States will be eligible for work authorization and a Social Security number. Based on an IRS interpretation of the earned income tax credit eligibility requirements, those who obtain a Social Security number will be eligible to claim the earned income tax credit not only for future years but for previous years while they were living and working in the United States undocumented. Based on the statute of limitations, those obtaining deferred action could then go back and amend or file returns for up to 3 previous tax years to take advantage of a credit that can be worth several thousands of dollars each year. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Enzi will fix this loophole by making it clear that those granted deferred action are not eligible to claim the earned income tax credit for the years they worked in the United States as undocumented workers. This proposal is simply an extension of current policy. Those granted deferred action will still be able to claim the earned income tax credit in years going forward for work they perform legally. This proposal reflects the commonsense proposition that American taxpayers should not subsidize work they performed illegally in the United States. This bill should be a no-brainer for any of my colleagues who agree that we should not reward individuals for breaking our immigration laws and our employment laws. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on this bill before the Senate, for a few days we will continue to debate legislation to fight crime and restore dignity to its survivors. I thank the majority leader for scheduling floor action on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This important bill is authored by our assistant majority leader, Senator Cornyn of Texas. Human trafficking is a serious crime that is too often overlooked in its various forms, which include both labor trafficking and sexual servitude. It causes drastic harm to its victims. A form of modern-day slavery, human trafficking includes both adults and children, as well as noncitizens and citizens of our country. Experts tell us it is not limited to big cities or our Nation's coasts but stretches across the whole Nation, even to the rural parts of our country, including my Midwest. Indeed, it happens every day, everywhere in this country. The Judiciary Committee met 2 weeks ago to hear testimony from a victim advocate, a law enforcement official, and a sex trafficking survivor about the challenges we face in fighting human trafficking. One witness, a criminal investigator from my State of Iowa who works for our Democratic attorney general Tom Miller, told us about a 20- year-old from my State who in December was abducted and forced into sexual servitude. We have made progress in curbing human trafficking since the passage in 2000 of the Federal Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act--a measure I supported at that time--but there is still much work that remains to be done on this front. This bill before the Senate takes a creative and comprehensive approach to what is a pervasive and very troubling problem. The measure has been endorsed by over 200 groups, and it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee without a dissenting vote. The centerpiece of this bill is its creation of a new fund called the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund, which will be used to support a host of programs and services for human trafficking and child pornography survivors. The fund will be financed not by taxpayers' dollars but by fines collected from individuals convicted of human trafficking and human smuggling crimes, making it deficit neutral. If enacted, this bill will also equip law enforcement with new tools to fight trafficking. For example, it would make it easier for State law enforcement officials to wiretap human trafficking suspects without Federal approval. It also would expand the categories of persons who can be prosecuted for human trafficking. In addition, it clarifies that child pornography is a form of human trafficking. This bill takes an extremely thoughtful and comprehensive approach, tackling not only the supply of human trafficking victims but also the demand for these victims. Tackling the problem on both fronts is something the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service tells us is absolutely necessary if we are to successfully curb human trafficking. If enacted, this bill will ensure that both the trafficker and the buyer will be prosecuted for their crimes. We had an open and productive markup of this bill. I offered an amendment, which was accepted by voice vote, clarifying that Federal grant resources can be used to meet the housing needs of trafficking victims and offer training on the effects of sex trafficking to those who serve runaway, homeless, and at-risk youth. This amendment also updates the reauthorization language for the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to ensure that child trafficking is specifically mentioned as a form of Internet-related child exploitation. Finally, this amendment would require the Interagency Task Force to monitor and combat trafficking to identify best practices to prevent human trafficking. Senator Blumenthal from the State of Connecticut also offered an amendment based on a bill he and Senator Kirk filed earlier this year, which was accepted in committee by a voice vote. Their bill, S. 575, known as the HERO Act, provides authorization for a program at the Department of Homeland Security that trains wounded warriors to assist in the effort to locate missing children. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill now before if Senate. I commend Senator Cornyn, the lead sponsor of this measure, for his efforts to refine the bill and build such a substantial, very bipartisan coalition supporting it. I hope we will show the same bipartisan cooperation and support on the floor as we consider amendments. I look forward to a vote on this bill as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of S. 178 from various organizations.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I also take this opportunity to thank the organizations Rights4Girls, Shared Hope International, the Polaris Project, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, among many other supporters of the bill, for their effort in assisting in our refinement of this legislation so it could move forward in this manner. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members of the Judiciary Committee be granted floor privileges throughout the consideration of S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act: Tristan Dunford, Matt Piant, Arielle Giordano, Christopher Boden, and Mary Futcher.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on two nominees charged with important responsibilities in the enforcement of our Nation's intellectual property laws. The first is Daniel Marti, who is nominated to become Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in the Executive Office of the President. The second is Michelle Lee, who is nominated to become the next Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The United States is a world leader in the innovation of cutting-edge technologies and products that improve our daily lives. Importantly, the United States' economy, indeed every industry, relies heavily on intellectual property. Because intellectual property rights are critical to the Nation's economic well-being, we need strong and capable leaders at the helm of the offices that deal with patents, trademarks and copyrights. And because the top positions at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator have been vacant for quite some time, I am pleased that we are able to fill them today with two highly qualified candidates. Mr. Marti and Ms. Lee have proven track records in the field of intellectual property law and are well respected by the intellectual property community. Their experience and expertise are of the caliber required for their respective positions. I believe they are excellent candidates for these positions, and I will support their nominations.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, many of my colleagues know I have been fighting for years to end the abuse of the H-1B visa program and help disadvantaged U.S. workers who are harmed by that program. Today I wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to a recent incident that highlights how some employers are potentially using legal avenues to import foreign workers, lay off qualified Americans, and then export jobs overseas. I was shocked by the heartless manner in which U.S. workers were injured in the case I am about to describe. First, I wish to remind my colleagues about how the H-1B program is supposed to work. Under the terms of the H-1B program, U.S. employers may import into the United States each year up to 65,000 so-called specialty occupation workers. The jobs being filled must be a job for which a bachelor's degree is necessary. Even though the annual cap is 65,000, the actual number of foreign workers being imported is much more because of numerous exemptions. In fiscal year 2012, for example, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved a total of 262,569 H-1B petitions--way above the legal limit of 65,000 or I should say the supposed limit of 65,000. About 60 percent of H-1B workers come to fill computer-related occupations. Every year the list of the top 10 H-1B employers is dominated by foreign-based companies offering information technology or IT consulting services to the clients. Under the law, H-1B employers are also required to: No. 1, pay the workers the greater of the prevailing wage for that job in that area or the wage the employer pays to similarly qualified U.S. workers doing the same job and at the same time--or the No. 2 condition--provide working conditions that will not adversely affect other similarly employed U.S. workers. Additionally, H-1B employers may not displace a U.S. worker within the period beginning 90 days before and ending 90 days after the date of filing any H-1B petition by that employer. Now I will describe what the program lacks. Most people believe employers try to recruit Americans before they petition for H-1B workers. Yet under the law, not all employers are required to prove to the Department of Labor that they tried to find an American to fill the job first. That is right. American workers do not get the first chance at these jobs in the United States, and if there is an equally or even better qualified U.S. worker, the company does not have to offer him or her that job. I have pushed for changes in the legislation in that law. In fact, I offered several pro-U.S. worker amendments during consideration of the immigration bill in 2013. Every amendment I offered was defeated. The majority at that time--meaning the Democratic majority, and it was a bipartisan majority that helped defeat it--defeated these pro-American worker amendments. They pushed through S. 744, the 2013 immigration bill, without this significant, much needed change. Let me describe to my colleagues the appalling instance referenced above. I have described what the H-1B law was and how, during the immigration debate of 2013, I tried to amend it and improve it, and I wasn't successful. I started my remarks tonight by talking about the abuse of H-1B, the law not being followed, overseas companies bringing workers in here for an American company to employ, and then in turn these jobs are going to be shipped overseas. So now I wish to describe this appalling incident I referenced earlier. Last August, Southern California Edison started laying off 400 American workers from its IT department. The company replaced them with foreign H-1B workers. According to the company, 100 additional American workers who will also be replaced by H-1B workers will leave supposedly voluntarily. According to Computerworld, the final major batch of layoffs is scheduled for March 6 or March 7. The foreign workers who are replacing the American workers at Edison are employees of two overseas-based IT consulting companies that are also two of the largest users of H-1B visas. In 2013 one of the two companies paid the largest immigration fine in U.S. history. That company paid $34 million in a civil settlement after allegations of systemic visa fraud and abuse. The jobs being filled by H-1B workers are manifestly not jobs for which Americans are unavailable. I say that because the jobs are currently filled by skilled American workers. It is disturbing that not only have these American workers been laid off, but also some of them have reportedly had to train their very own replacements. A columnist for the Los Angeles Times writes that by laying off hundreds of its American IT staff and replacing them with relatively low-wage foreign contract workers, Edison stands to save as much as 40 percent in wage costs per laid-off worker. One laid-off Edison worker told the columnist that company supervisors told a group of workers last year: ``We can get four Indian guys far cheaper than the price of you.'' Worse yet, most of the 500 jobs that had been held by Americans will eventually just move overseas. According to the Los Angeles Times, Edison admits that eventually about 70 percent of the work will shift overseas permanently. Edison describes the 400 layoffs as a ``transition'' to the foreign IT consulting companies that ``will lead to enhancements that deliver faster and more efficient tools and applications for services that customers rely on.'' Then it adds further: ``[T]hrough outsourcing, [Edison's] information technology organization will adopt a proven business strategy commonly and successfully used by top U.S. companies that [Edison] benchmarks against.'' With respect to replacing American workers with H-1B workers, Edison says the company ``is not hiring H-1B workers to replace displaced employees.'' Edison's cynical defense is built upon a very shameless exploitation of a loophole in the H-1B laws. That loophole says that technically Edison isn't the H-1B workers' employer; the two foreign consulting companies are. The H-1B workers are just contracted out for extended, potentially multiyear periods from the foreign consulting companies to the American company, Edison. Thus, Edison argues that it is not subject to the requirements under the immigration laws that I spoke of earlier. They argue that because they are not the employer who petitioned directly for the H-1B workers, they--Edison--don't have to abide by the working condition requirements or the 90-day rule. The condemnation of this attack on American workers has been very quick and, quite frankly, bipartisan. On February 10 over 300 members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers rallied in Irvine, CA, in support of their fellow Edison employees. Several Members of Congress have expressed concern about the situation. On February 17 the Economic Policy Institute sent a letter to the Secretary of Labor asking him to investigate the Edison layoffs. Specifically, the institute asked the Secretary of Labor to determine whether Edison, the foreign consulting companies, or any of the parties involved in these layoffs violated the requirements that the hiring of H-1B workers not ``adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers comparably employed.'' I echo the request of the Economic Policy Institute. The prohibition on adversely affecting U.S. workers can reasonably be applied to situations, such as in the Edison case, where the H-1B workers are contractors at a worksite rather than employees. I also draw your attention to a powerful February 16 Los Angeles Times editorial entitled ``End H-1B visa program's abuse.'' The Los Angeles Times calls Edison's action ``part of a years-long trend among companies of misusing H-1B visas to undercut wages and offshore high- paying American jobs.'' The Los Angeles Times concludes that the H-1B program, although perhaps well-intentioned, is ``broken'' and that ``Congress needs to fix it.'' And, of course, I could not agree more, as evidenced by all the amendments I offered in 2013 on the immigration bill. This situation with Southern California Edison is not new. It is happening time and time again. American workers are losing out because the law is not strong enough to protect them, so it needs to be fixed. Any proposal to reform the H-1B program must include substantially increased protections for U.S. workers such as I have proposed many times in the past. These protections must at a minimum include the requirement that companies first recruit here at home before they import more foreign workers. We also need to reform the H-1B wage requirements so that U.S. workers' wages would no longer be undercut by H-1B workers' wages. There also needs to be more oversight of the program, including random audits of those who use the program. Tightening the law to ensure that U.S. workers have the first opportunity at high-paying, high-skilled jobs in this country is a no- brainer. Yet there is so much opposition to this philosophy. I just cannot believe the opposition. As I stated earlier, the majority in the last Congress--and that happened to be a bipartisan majority--pushed for changes to the H-1B program but voted against every single amendment I offered to ensure that U.S. workers were given priority. Now there is a lot of fanfare and a lot of talk about a high-skilled bill that has been reintroduced in the Senate that would increase the annual number of H-1B visas. The sponsors of the bill claim it will ``boost our competitiveness in the global economy.'' This bill only makes the problems worse. It doesn't plug the loopholes. It doesn't make sure American workers are put before foreign workers. It doesn't ensure that employers don't use the program to pay cheaper wages, which then in turn disadvantages U.S. workers. The H-1B program could be a very worthwhile program. According to the original intent, I obviously would support it because we want workers to do the jobs that need to be done in America, but it should first be people who are already here. Our employment-based immigration programs could have served and could again serve a valuable purpose if used properly. However, they are being misused and abused. They are failing the American worker. Reforms are needed to put integrity back into the programs and to ensure that American workers and students are given every chance to fill vacant jobs in this country. So I am putting my colleagues on notice that I am committed to this effort. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I don't intend on allowing legislation to move through this body without reforms to the H-1B program that protect American workers. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a measure that would help us make progress in the fight against domestic human trafficking, a terrible crime. This legislation, titled the Combating Human Trafficking Act of 2015, has three objectives. First, it would encourage federal agencies to devote existing grant resources to initiatives that are designed to protect runaway and homeless youth from human traffickers. Second, it would update the authorizing language for the cyber tipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to ensure that the statute specifically references ``child sex trafficking.'' Third, and finally, this legislation would help ensure that trafficking victims' housing needs are met and equip Congress with more information on the best practices to combat human trafficking. The first title of this measure is based on legislation introduced by U.S. Congressman Joseph Heck of Nevada in January. It is titled the Enhancing Services for Runaway and Homeless Victims of Youth Trafficking Act of 2015. Similar language passed the House on January 26 by a unanimous voice vote. This part of the bill would improve the support provided specifically to runaway and homeless youth who are trafficking victims. This title also would enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to devote existing grant resources to training grantees' personnel on the effects of human trafficking on runaway and homeless youth. Finally, this title would allow the HHS Secretary to provide street-based services to such victims. The second title of the bill, based on a measure introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, would amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act to ensure that the phrase ``child sex trafficking'' is incorporated into the statutory language that authorizes the cyber tipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Nearly identical language already passed the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year. The final title of this legislation is known as the Human Trafficking Prevention, Intervention and Recovery Act of 2015, after a bill introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Kristi Noem of South Dakota. It would charge the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking with several duties, such as identifying best practices and strategies to combat human trafficking and cataloging the anti-trafficking activities of various State and Federal agencies. This task force, which was created under the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, must provide a report within one year of its review and findings, under the legislation. The third title of this legislation also calls for the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress on governmental and law enforcement efforts to combat domestic human trafficking. This title also recognizes that minors who are trafficking victims in the United States are in desperate need of housing. It would ensure that certain grants, which are available from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, can be used for initiatives to assist trafficking victims with their housing needs. Shelters and facilities that are seeking to expand or develop services to trafficking survivors would be eligible to apply for these grant funds, under this title of the legislation. Nearly identical language passed the House last month. I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important legislation. I also want to extend my appreciation to my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, who has agreed to join me as an original cosponsor of this measure.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President and Members of the Senate, as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have mentioned publicly that I am open to certain Federal sentencing, or prison, reforms, and I have tried to make it very clear that I am very opposed to others. Today I wish to address the realities of drug sentencing in the Federal criminal justice system. I do so because there are many myths that surround this topic. The myth is that there are thousands of low-level drug offenders, such as people smoking marijuana, in Federal prison for very long terms. This is supposed to mean a waste of Federal tax dollars, overcrowding, and unfairness to people who should not be in prison. These myths are often used to justify lenient and, frankly, dangerous sentencing proposals in the U.S. Senate. One of those proposals is the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act. It is time to set the record straight, and that is why I am here. It is important to know how many people are in Federal prison for drug possession, who they are, and why they are in prison. Then it will be clear why it is unwise to make wholesale, one-way lenient changes in drug sentencing. In fiscal year 2013, the most recent year we have statistics, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission there were 2,332 drug possession cases in the Federal prison. Almost 94 percent involved marijuana, more than 86 percent were against noncitizens, and 88 percent of the cases arose along the southwest border, so it is clear why so many noncitizens were charged. Federal drug possessors were rarely prosecuted for small quantities. The median amount of drug possession in these southwest border cases, which are 88 percent of the Federal drug possession cases, was about 48 pounds. Understand, we are not talking about a few ounces of possession of marijuana. The average is 48 pounds. Can you imagine being in possession of 48 pounds of illegal drugs? These are not low-level, casual offenders by any stretch of the imagination. Moreover, well over 90 percent of the drug possession cases are along the southwest border. So more than 80 percent of all Federal drug possession cases were brought in the State of Arizona. In that district, the U.S. attorney will agree to charge a drug trafficker with only drug possession if the offender is a first-time offender who acted only as a courier. Again, the median quantity of the amount of possession is 48 pounds, and many who actually committed trafficking there are charged only with mere drug possession. Since 88 percent of all Federal drug possession cases derive from the southwest border, only 270 simple drug possession cases arose anywhere else in the United States. Get this, please. The odds of an American being subject to a Federal prosecution for drug possession in any given year are less than 1 in 1 million. It is also imperative to remember that mandatory minimum sentences are not an issue in these cases. The average Federal sentence for drug possession is 5 months; that is, only 5 months--I say that for emphasis--not the years of imprisonment some of the proponents of lenient sentencing would have us believe. The brevity of Federal drug possession sentences is emphasized by how in the vast majority of these cases the median amount of drugs at issue was 48 pounds. In the 270 cases not along the border, the median amount of drugs the offender possessed was only 4 grams. The average sentence was 1.3 months. Most of those convicted were sentenced to probation. There is no basis whatsoever to advocate change in Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws based on drug possession cases since they are not subject to such mandatory minimums. Anyone who raises drug possession as an argument against Federal mandatory minimum sentences is using a stalking horse to lower sentences for much more serious offenders. There is no separate Federal offense for what is called possession with intent to distribute. Those who possessed with that intent are treated the same as those who distribute. We need to look at drug distribution sentences in the Federal system as well. Drug trafficking cases are sometimes subject to mandatory minimum sentences. For instance, just under half of all drug courier offenders were subject to mandatory minimum sentences, but under 10 percent were subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the time of their sentencing. There are two main reasons so few of these offenders are actually sentenced to a mandatory minimum. The first is they may fall within the safety valve Congress has enacted to prevent mandatory minimum sentences from applying to low-level, first-time drug offenders or, second, they may have provided substantial assistance to prosecutors in fingering high-level offenders in a drug conspiracy. That is an intended goal of current Federal sentencing policy, to put pressure on defendants to cooperate in exchange for a lower sentence so evidence against more responsible criminals can be attained. As a result, even for drug couriers the average sentence is 39 months. That seems to be an appropriate level. We are not sending huge numbers of nonviolent drug offenders to Federal prison under lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. I want to make it very clear, this is the biggest sentencing myth of them all. When Federal drug sentencing is discussed, we need then to keep in mind the facts. There are hardly any nonviolent drug-offending Americans in Federal prison for mere drug possession. The quantities of drugs underlying the vast majority of Federal possession cases are high and sentences are fair. For drug courier distribution cases, only 10 percent of offenders are subject to mandatory minimum sentences at the time of sentencing. I hope you will be on notice and be on guard. Don't let anyone tell you Federal mandatory minimum sentences are putting large numbers of nonviolent offenders in jail for long periods of time at great taxpayer expense. Don't let anyone tell you such offenders are the reason for the increase in Federal drug prisoners over the years. Don't let anyone tell you harsh mandatory sentences for low-level nonviolent offenders are decimating various communities. Apart from the clear evidence from the Sentencing Commission regarding Federal drug offenders, I want to draw attention to the responses to questions from witnesses before our Judiciary Committee just this month. Testifying before the committee, Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr., stated: ``Federal mandatory minimum sentences have struck terror into the hearts of career criminals . . . and have provided longer periods of respite from the impoverished and crime-riddled communities that can least afford their return.'' The sheriff said he feared the effect in his inner-city community of changing Federal drug mandatory minimum sentences. I have told my colleagues I am going to be open to lowering some Federal mandatory minimum sentences but only where specific situations may warrant that and if we can add or raise new ones for such offenses as arms export control violations, financial crimes, and child pornography possessions. Those three categories do not have to be extremely long sentences under present law, but too many judges are systematically sentencing these offenders to probation. Especially when the Supreme Court has taken away any other means of making sure judges do not let these offenders walk, mandatory minimum sentences are the only way Congress can require these offenders serve any time at all. I am trying to inform my Senate colleagues through the use of facts. In doing that, by looking at the facts, we will not make unwise and dangerous changes to our Federal sentencing laws. I ask my colleagues to stick to the facts and avoid repeating myths. I pointed out those myths. It is a myth to say sentences for drug possession and nonviolent offenders justify the Smarter Sentencing Act. That bill does not apply to possession at all. Many drug offenses necessarily involve violence. Drug conspiracies operate with the threat or the use of force. Whatever the offense charged, if the offender has a history of violent crime, he is a violent offender, and the sentence will and should reflect that fact. It is a myth to say the Smarter Sentencing Act would save money. All it would do is shift costs from incarceration to the victims who bear the cost of the crimes that earlier released offenders would commit. That is one of the reasons the bill is dangerous. The Congressional Budget Office also says it would add billions of dollars in mandatory spending, regardless of what upfront discretionary savings there may be. I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact the Smarter Sentencing Act would cut sentences for a range of heroin offenses, including importation and dealing, while the entire Nation is in the midst of a heroin epidemic and a rising number of deaths from heroin overdoses. I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact from the heads of the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency and Federal police organizations that mandatory minimum sentences spur cooperation from defendants and enable the successful prosecution of high-level drug criminals who cause most of the tremendous harm. That includes cooperation from defendants charged with narcoterrorism. I would ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act would cut in half the mandatory minimum sentences Congress put in place for distributing drugs to benefit terrorists or terrorist organizations. It would cut in half the mandatory minimum sentences for members of Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS or Hezbollah who deal drugs that fund terrorism. That would mean less cooperation to bring charges of narcoterrorism, get terrorists off the streets, and obtain intelligence to help prevent future attacks. As President Obama's U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York has remarked, ``[T]here is a growing nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism, a threat that increasingly poses a clear and present danger to our national security. So I ask my colleagues to get this: It is a fact that the so-called Smarter Sentencing Act is dangerous not only because of its effect on increased crime and victimization but on national security as well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a measure that would help us make progress in the fight against domestic human trafficking, a terrible crime. This legislation, titled the Combating Human Trafficking Act of 2015, has three objectives. First, it would encourage federal agencies to devote existing grant resources to initiatives that are designed to protect runaway and homeless youth from human traffickers. Second, it would update the authorizing language for the cyber tipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to ensure that the statute specifically references ``child sex trafficking.'' Third, and finally, this legislation would help ensure that trafficking victims' housing needs are met and equip Congress with more information on the best practices to combat human trafficking. The first title of this measure is based on legislation introduced by U.S. Congressman Joseph Heck of Nevada in January. It is titled the Enhancing Services for Runaway and Homeless Victims of Youth Trafficking Act of 2015. Similar language passed the House on January 26 by a unanimous voice vote. This part of the bill would improve the support provided specifically to runaway and homeless youth who are trafficking victims. This title also would enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to devote existing grant resources to training grantees' personnel on the effects of human trafficking on runaway and homeless youth. Finally, this title would allow the HHS Secretary to provide street-based services to such victims. The second title of the bill, based on a measure introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, would amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act to ensure that the phrase ``child sex trafficking'' is incorporated into the statutory language that authorizes the cyber tipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Nearly identical language already passed the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year. The final title of this legislation is known as the Human Trafficking Prevention, Intervention and Recovery Act of 2015, after a bill introduced by U.S. Congresswoman Kristi Noem of South Dakota. It would charge the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking with several duties, such as identifying best practices and strategies to combat human trafficking and cataloging the anti-trafficking activities of various State and Federal agencies. This task force, which was created under the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, must provide a report within one year of its review and findings, under the legislation. The third title of this legislation also calls for the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress on governmental and law enforcement efforts to combat domestic human trafficking. This title also recognizes that minors who are trafficking victims in the United States are in desperate need of housing. It would ensure that certain grants, which are available from the U.S. Department of Justice under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, can be used for initiatives to assist trafficking victims with their housing needs. Shelters and facilities that are seeking to expand or develop services to trafficking survivors would be eligible to apply for these grant funds, under this title of the legislation. Nearly identical language passed the House last month. I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important legislation. I also want to extend my appreciation to my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, who has agreed to join me as an original cosponsor of this measure.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that any time during the quorum calls be equally divided.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for moving ahead on S. 295, which we call the Amy and Vicky Act. The need for this bill arises because of the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision last year in Paroline v. United States. The Court at that time limited the recovery that a victim of a child pornography offense could receive, even as additional wrongdoers saw her image as it was repeatedly posted on the Internet. Rather than making the offender provide restitution for all the harms caused by the repeated viewings, the Supreme Court limited the recovery against any one defendant to the relative harm that defendant caused. This bill will expand the categories of loss for which the victim could recover. It would reverse, then, the Supreme Court by permitting the victim to recover up to the full loss from any one defendant, subject to a minimum amount, depending upon the defendant's conduct. No longer, then, would the victim receive restitution from each defendant limited to that defendant's own actions. Each defendant would be jointly and severally liable for the victim's entire loss. The bill sets up a contribution procedure for those defendants, which then would make the victim whole. Of course, that is the main point. The choice is between the convicted child pornography offender being held responsible for the full loss and the innocent victim not receiving full compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that the victim could not receive all her restitution from any one single defendant, even as her damage suffered was compounded. This bill appropriately rejects that. I hope it is not the last time this Congress overturns a Supreme Court decision. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, as I was in the last Congress. I was pleased that the first legislation the Judiciary Committee took up when I became chairman was this bipartisan child pornography bill, and I am glad to have shepherded that bill through the committee so that the Senate at this time can take it up as one of its first legislative items. We should all commend, as I do, Senator Hatch for his work on this very important piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, 2 days ago ABC ran a story on its ``Nightline'' program that brought to light issues with the immigrant investor program. This program is also known as EB-5. This immigration program was created by Congress in 1990. It was created to stimulate the U.S. economy through job creation and capital investment by foreign investors. In 1992 Congress further added the regional center component that allows participants to pool dollars for foreign investors. The story on ``Nightline'' detailed how visas and green cards are for sale for more than $500,000. It also highlighted how spies and terrorists can use the program to enter the country, risking our national security and undermining the real intent of the program. For the past few years, whistleblowers have come to me about the fraud, abuse, and national security problems with that program. A December 2013 audit of the EB-5 program conducted by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General substantiated several of these concerns. The OIG report concluded that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is unable to demonstrate the benefits of foreign investment into the U.S. economy--in other words, questioning whether the original intent of the program was being accomplished. Specifically, the Office of the Inspector General found that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services could not validate whether the EB- 5 program actually created 49,000 jobs. In addition, a 2013 internal memorandum from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations noted that ``the nature of indirect job growth is problematic.'' Allow me, please, to discuss the fraud issues related to the program. The EB-5 program requires a foreign national to invest $1 million in order to obtain a visa. However, there is a lower threshold for projects that are in high unemployment or rural areas. Investors have exploited this loophole. As noted in press reports, some metropolitan areas are drawing their own maps or gerrymandering in order to meet this low threshold. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ignores the problem and doesn't question it. Additionally, there are serious concerns that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not adequately verify the documentation and the source of funds from investors. Adjudicators do not thoroughly check how an investor has received $500,000 and whether the funds are even legitimate. Finally, I wish to elaborate what is probably more important, the national security concerns. Remember, the Federal Government's No. 1 responsibility is the national security of this country. In regard to those national security concerns, in 2012, several agencies came together to draft a forensic assessment of financial flows relating to the EB-5 Regional Center Program, and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis produced an intelligence report of the program's vulnerabilities. The same ICE memorandum that highlighted its issues with regional centers also identified seven main areas of vulnerability within the EB-5 program. I won't go into all seven of them, but I wish to use four as an example. No. 1, export-sensitive technology and economic espionage; No. 2, use by foreign government agents and espionage; No. 3, use by terrorists; and, No. 4, illicit financing and money laundering. Let me make it very clear that this ICE memorandum identified seven areas of vulnerability and I just gave us four dealing with sensitive technology and economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and espionage, use by terrorists, and illicit financing and money laundering. I know I repeated that, but the EB-5 program is being undercut by people who don't mind hurting the national security of our country. So to be repetitive on an important point, there are numerous national security concerns. That is why, in my September 2014 ``Dear Colleague'' letter, I invited my colleagues--all of them--to review classified information on this program. Today I renew this invitation and urge Senators and those staff who have clearances to view these documents to do so in the Office of Senate Security. I will be sending another copy of that ``Dear Colleague'' letter, which contains the document numbers to access the material at the Office of Senate Security. Summing up, we have whistleblower allegations supported by documentation. We have findings by the Office of the Inspector General. We have classified information about attempts to exploit the vulnerabilities of the program and, finally, we have numerous press reports that highlight the fraud and the abuse. So I think it is time Congress asks whether this program is worth the national security risks posed and whether this program can be fixed to accomplish the goals that were set out in 1990. The EB-5 program will require reauthorization by the end of fiscal year 2015 and I want my colleagues to know that I will be demanding reform before this is done, or in conjunction with any renewal. I do believe that if changes are made, the EB-5 program could benefit the U.S. economy as originally intended by Congress in 1990. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2015, at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a subcommittee hearing entitled ``Getting it Right on Data Breach and Notification Legislation in the 114th Congress''.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2016.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Who's the Boss? The `Joint Employer' Standard and Business Ownership.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on February 5, 2015, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 5, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.