Q: Why are opioid addiction and overdose deaths continuing to climb in the United States?

A: This fatal cycle of abuse, dependence and overdose continues to poison families and communities, affecting all income and education levels, ages and regions of the country. It’s being referred to as the “crisis next door.” More than two million Americans will suffer from addiction to prescription or illicit synthetic opioids this year, according to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC). What’s more, the CDC estimates that there were more than 72,000 drug overdose deaths in 2017, with the biggest spike attributed to fentanyl. The Iowa Department of Public Health estimates 200 Iowans last year lost their lives from opioid misuse. The CDC says one in seven high school students reported misusing prescription opioids last year. Right now, it’s hard to see any light at the end of the tunnel. America needs to bolster our efforts to turn the tide. Congress passed the landmark Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA), which I led through committee, that boosted resources for local responders and sought to improve public awareness. CARA is the first major federal law to address drug addiction in four decades. And yet, more solutions are needed. From my leadership positions on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I have steered through a dozen more bipartisan legislative measures to add resources and strategies to help local communities respond to the crisis with data-tracking and transparency tools and improvements to treatment services. These bills align with five strategic pillars identified by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

1. obtain better data;
2. improve prescribing methods and pain treatment;
3. provide more addiction prevention, treatment and recovery services;
4. increase overdose reversers; and,
5. improve research.

Opioids are highly addictive and the illicit distribution chain makes cheap, synthetic drugs affordable and accessible. The trafficking of illicit and counterfeit pills puts Americans in harm’s way. The CDC issued a recent advisory to public health departments, law enforcement officials, medical professionals and first responders regarding the uptick in the supply and overdose deaths by fentanyl. America’s current opioid epidemic is being called the deadliest drug crisis in U.S. history. In fact, overdose deaths are the leading cause of death for Americans under age 50 years old, more than guns or car accidents.

Q: What measures are included in the dozen bipartisan measures you are co-sponsoring?

A: The addiction epidemic captures more victims in its net than those who die from overdose. In addition to the tens of thousands of overdose deaths in recent years, the public health emergency extends to children who are orphaned or neglected and placed in the foster care system. Babies are born drug-dependent. Local budgets are strained as law enforcement, first responders, treatment counselors, medical providers and criminal justice workers provide public services related to abuse, addiction and overdose. Our legislative package contains multiple measures to address these issues, including: resources for family-focused residential treatment to allow kids to stay with their parents and avoid foster care; transparency tools to require drug companies and medical device makers to disclose payments to nurse practitioners and physician assistants; more effective use of prescription drug take-back programs; keeping the Drug-Free Communities and High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas programs intact and available for local communities; measures to improve enforcement and prosecution of controlled substances; tracking tools to gain better information on prescribing data to curb illegal sales; increased access to substance use disorder treatment through telehealth technology services in Medicare; and, improved data collection and access to care to more effectively treat substance use disorders. Getting a grip on this public health emergency will require relentless focus among policymakers, prescription drug makers, prescribers, patients, treatment counselors, first responders and law enforcement. There’s no quick fix to this devastating public health crisis. During my years of public service, I’ve been asked how to solve a seemingly insurmountable problem. You take one step at a time. Getting these measures included in the opioids package moving through Congress this month is another good step in the right direction.

Q: What is the REINS Act?

A: Article I of the U.S. Constitution assigns authority to Congress to write the laws of the land. This foundational cornerstone reflects the brilliance of the founders’ enduring wisdom: to ensure the laws governing the people of the United States are enacted “of, by and for the people.” By granting this power exclusively into the hands of representatives elected by the people, the American people are empowered to hold their lawmakers accountable for the laws they pass — or don’t pass — at the ballot box. Unfortunately, a decades-long erosion of this lawmaking authority has diminished the ability of the people to influence the lawmaking process and arguably fostered more litigation in the courts. For many years, Congress has delegated excessive discretion to the federal bureaucracy to write the rules and regulations implementing laws governing daily life and the economy. It’s a slippery slope that weakens the people’s voice and emboldens an unelected bureaucracy to embark on a path of regulatory overreach. Farmers know it doesn’t do a lot of good to lock the barn door after the horse gets out, but that doesn’t mean you give up on ever getting the horse back. As a U.S. Senator, it’s my constitutional responsibility to uphold the Constitution. And one way to restore lawmaking authority to Congress is to rein in runaway regulations. I’m a cosponsor of legislation that would require Congress to affirm “major rules” proposed by the executive branch before they can be enforced on the American people. Specifically, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act would apply to any federal rule or regulation that may result in an annual economic impact of $100 million or more; present a major increase in costs or prices for American consumers; or pose significant adverse effect on the U.S. economy. So if the Army Corps of Engineers, the USDA or the EPA promulgate sweeping rules that negatively affect the businesses and livelihoods of working Americans, the REINS Act would return the final say to Congress, thereby giving citizens a bigger say in the process. It would strengthen a check on the executive branch and boost the power of the ballot box by restoring accountability and transparency to the byzantine rule-making process.

Q: Do you think the REINS Act will fix executive overreach?

A: Passage of the REINS Act would be a good start to rein in executive overreach, restore limited government and fortify the authority vested in Congress to write laws. Although it won’t prevent Congress from delegating too much authority to the executive branch, it would be a good tool to have in the shed when a federal regulation runs away from congressional intent. The sprawling federal bureaucracy is often referred to as an alphabet soup of federal agencies. With acronyms that include the IRS, FDA, USDA, FBI, EPA and ICE, these government agencies spend your hard-earned tax dollars to implement policies and programs designed to uphold public safety and operate public services for the public good. From clean air and clean water to aviation and food safety, the federal bureaucracy issues countless rules that impact the livelihoods and way of life for farmers, business owners and communities across the country. The REINS Act would strengthen the constitutional framework by requiring “major rules” to be approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. It would reassert the authority and accountability of elected members of Congress by requiring a bicameral seal of approval for rules that present the greatest regulatory burden on the economy and the American people. As a guardian for good government and as a taxpayer watchdog, I will continue working to build bipartisan consensus and conduct oversight that restores public confidence in the rule of law and our institutions of government.

Q: How would your price transparency amendment change prescription drug advertising?

A: The U.S. Senate adopted a bipartisan amendment I co-sponsored with Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois that would improve information available to consumers about their prescription medicines. Right now Americans who watch television are exposed to countless messages promoting brand name prescription drugs in direct-to-consumer advertising. In fact, the average American TV viewer watches up to nine drug ads every day. The pharmaceutical companies spend $6 billion annually to tell consumers there’s a drug on the market to relieve what ails them. Our amendment simply asks the drug companies to include the price of the drug along with the uses of the drug, the side effects of the drug, and information already provided about where to get help if you can’t afford the drug. Consumers already have the right to know the side effects of a drug advertised on television, and they ought to know how much it will cost. Our Senate-passed amendment directs the Department of Health and Human Services to issue price disclosure regulations for direct-to-consumer advertisements by the pharmaceutical industry.

Q: Why do you want to see prescription drug ads on television include pricing information?

A: At nearly every one of my county meetings across Iowa, the cost of health care and prescription drugs comes up. Iowans are concerned about affordable health care, including what they pay for the medicines that treat their chronic conditions and saves lives of their loved ones. Putting consumers in the driver’s seat will help drive down the cost of medicine. That’s why I have long supported health savings accounts. It encourages consumers to spend health dollars wisely. Requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose the price of the drug they are advertising will help consumers make more informed decisions when they discuss medical treatments with their health care providers. Price transparency will empower patients to make informed cost comparisons when they choose and pay for their prescription medicine. There’s plenty of sticker shock at the pharmacy counter. Requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose cost information in their advertising also will foster more robust competition in the drug industry that will lead to lower costs for consumers who increasingly face higher out-of-pocket expenses. As an outspoken champion for transparency and good government, I will continue working to spread sunshine laws for the public good. From cameras in the courts to whistleblower protections, there’s no question that transparency cures wrongdoing and informs the citizenry. Americans know that it’s not easy to reach consensus on health care reform. Price transparency for prescription medicine strikes a bipartisan chord that has won the support of the AARP, doctors, insurance companies, hospitals, and the Trump administration. The pharmaceutical industry spends money to get the most bang for the buck when it advertises brand name drugs for arthritis, fibromyalgia, blood clots, psoriasis, high blood pressure, heart conditions and more. That’s good for business. Our amendment aims to help consumers get more bang for their buck and a better value when they fill their prescription medicines. That’s good for the people’s business.

Q: Why did you write a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking how the man accused of murdering Mollie Tibbetts got from Mexico to Iowa and was in Iowa illegally for up to seven years?

A: The letter I sent to U.S. Secretary of Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen seeks answers on a number of issues that concern Iowans, including myself, about the consequences of insufficient border security. Many constituents find it wholly unacceptable that the federal government has not adequately enforced our immigration laws. The failure to do so allows individuals to break our laws, enter the country and go undetected for years. As a U.S. Senator, it is my duty to advocate on behalf of Iowans who deserve better protections from their federal government.

The fundamental responsibility of the federal government is national security. That includes border security. The protection of American citizens and the sovereignty of the United States of America depends on effective, enforceable and accountable border security. Getting answers from the Department of Homeland Security will clarify specific weaknesses in our immigration laws that have been brushed aside time and again. For reasons of national security, it is the responsibility of the federal government to know who is coming and who is going when they enter and exit the country. Lax enforcement allows people to stay long beyond expired visas, for example.

Congress has been punting on immigration reform and border security for far too long. In the last Congress, I co-sponsored legislation with Senators Joni Ernst, Ben Sasse and Deb Fischer following the tragic killing in 2016 of Iowan Sarah Root by an illegal immigrant. When her alleged killer was released from custody, he presumably fled the country and remains at large. Our bill would require the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to take custody of immigrants who have been charged with a crime resulting in death or serious bodily injury. It also would require ICE to make reasonable efforts to keep crime victims and their families updated with relevant information on the case.

We need better, stronger, more effective border security. Congress needs to enact reforms that increase personnel, boost technology, modernize infrastructure, strengthen interior enforcement and mandate the E-verify system.

Although there seems to be broad agreement that our immigration system is broken, there’s entrenched disagreement how to fix it. As one of Iowa’s U.S. Senators, it’s my duty to get answers and fix flaws in our immigration system that are failing to protect the safety and security of American citizens.

Q: How do Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protect our borders?

A: The men and women who serve in these federal agencies protect the homeland by enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. They put themselves in harm’s way to stop illicit drug flows, human trafficking operations and transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. Keeping out criminals and terrorists ought to be a non-controversial priority for the federal government. And yet, misguided efforts to dismantle these agencies ignore the vital roles they serve to rescue sexually exploited children and victims of human trafficking; seize narcotics and synthetic drugs poisoning and killing Americans; and, keep terrorists and criminals from entering the country and infiltrating our communities. Conducting oversight is a vital function of the legislative branch that I use to make sure the laws are adequately enforced and as Congress intended. That includes accountable enforcement of the refugee program. I recently wrote a letter to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Department of State to get details regarding an Iraqi national who was granted refugee status to live in the United States despite his ties to terrorist organizations. The U.S. government must execute thorough vetting of refugees and asylum seekers to ensure America’s welcome mat isn’t infiltrated by those who pose harm to U.S. citizens. When a member of a foreign terrorist organization pulls the wool over the eyes of the U.S. federal government to gain refugee status, we have a serious problem. I am seeking details on how this individual was afforded refugee protection in 2014; and years later arrested by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. Identifying and plugging gaps in the enforcement of our immigration laws are essential to securing our borders and protecting the safety of American citizens.

Q: How will the FDA’s recent decision to approve a generic version for EpiPen help consumers?

A: The announcement is music to the ears for consumers and taxpayers who picked up the tab for the escalating price of a popular, brand name allergy drug that rose more than 400 percent over a decade, 2006–2016. During the Obama administration, Iowans contacted my office regarding hair-raising sticker shock for the anti-allergy EpiPen device, the most widely prescribed epinephrine auto-injector in the United States. Patients at risk for severe allergic reactions to insect bites, bee stings, foods, medications, latex or other triggers depend on around-the-clock access to the brand name prescription drug for life-saving emergency treatment. Based on their concerns about the cost of EpiPens, I started digging for answers. Through my oversight work, I discovered that Mylan, the EpiPen distributor, classified its popular anti-allergy drug as a generic instead of as a brand name product in the Medicaid Rebate program. That incorrect classification allowed it to issue smaller rebates to government programs. The Health and Human Services Inspector General found that the misclassification may have resulted in taxpayers overpaying for the drug by as much as $1.3 billion over 10 years. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I’m working on legislative reforms to plug loopholes that allow pharmaceutical companies to game the system and keep drug prices artificially high. I’ll continue my work to strengthen competition for prescription medications, hold the government and pharmaceutical companies accountable and increase transparency in drug pricing. I’m glad the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August issued its stamp of approval for the first generic version of the most widely prescribed epinephrine auto-injector. The announcement comes just as the new school year is set to begin for tens of millions of students. Parents across the country are stocking up on anti-allergy devices to ensure kids are protected at school, carpools and elsewhere. Policymakers and regulators must continue to focus on improving market-based competition. That includes thwarting efforts by pharmaceutical manufacturers who try to unlawfully extend their monopoly over certain drugs by delaying generic entry and access to pharmacy store shelves.

Q: What are your concerns about proposed mergers in the pharmaceutical supply chain?

A: From my chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have long championed robust and rigorous enforcement of the nation’s anti-trust laws to ensure the free marketplace is working effectively. America’s system of free enterprise has made the United States into the biggest, most productive economy in the world. Consolidation and vertical integration in the agriculture, telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries has been a growing concern for me and my constituents. That’s why I have called upon the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to thoroughly scrutinize proposed buy-outs and mergers and overall industry consolidation to ensure America’s farmers, consumers and patients aren’t dealt an unfair hand in the aftermath of a transaction. Consider the proposed merger between Cigna Corporation with Express Scripts Holding Company and CVS Health Corporation with Aetna, Incorporated. According to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, if these two mergers are approved, just four entities would capture 71 percent of all Medicare Part D enrollees and 86 percent of stand-alone drug plan enrollees. American consumers already swallow substantial increases in drug prices across the board. As a federal lawmaker, I work to enact policies that will foster innovation in the U.S. health care delivery system to drive down drug prices and deliver better patient outcomes. Vertical integration isn’t necessarily a bad thing and can often lead to innovation, increased efficiencies and consumer benefits. But if left unchecked, it may also lead to increased barriers that hinder efficiencies and competition. As one of Iowa’s U.S. senators, I pay special attention to the potential impact on underserved, rural areas. I’ve asked the Antitrust Division at DOJ to carefully examine these proposed mergers and the FTC to assess overall pharmaceutical supply chain consolidation. The last thing consumers can afford is paying even higher prices when they go to fill their prescriptions.

Q: How does clean energy help Iowa’s economy?

A: Renewable energy helps diversify Iowa’s economy and adds value to our state’s rich, natural resources. One recent study counted more than 30,000 Iowans employed in clean energy. That’s a lot of paychecks that are providing for families and boosting economic vitality on Main Streets across the state. The lion’s share of clean energy jobs employs workers in construction and manufacturing. Consider one sector of Iowa’s clean energy economy. Iowa has 11 factories open for business to supply the growing demand for clean energy generated by wind power. A wind turbine technician is the state’s fastest-growing job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, these skilled workers earn a median hourly wage of $30.64. Iowa’s network of community colleges is providing a career pipeline for job-seekers, from the classroom to the wind energy workforce within one to two years. The U.S. wind energy industry currently employs 105,000 workers across the country with 8,000 wind-related jobs in Iowa. Our top notch training programs prepare graduates to land a job with a company of their choosing. A full-time employee earns the annual equivalent of $63,731. In addition, wind companies make lease payments to landowners, providing another cash crop for farmers, adding up to $20-$25 million each year. And wind energy broadens the tax base, pumping additional revenue to cities and counties to help fund essential public services, such as road maintenance, schools, libraries, law enforcement and first-responders. The wind farms that dot Iowa’s landscape in the 21st century reflect how innovation and enterprise continue to define the pioneering spirit of America. The average height of modern day “windmills” (turbine towers) reach 270 feet above ground. One turbine produces enough capacity to power approximately 750 homes. The sky’s the limit in Iowa to continue growing wind farms and harnessing this natural resource to create jobs and provide affordable, sustainable, clean energy for generations to come.

Q: Is the United States getting closer to achieving energy independence?

A: As the father of the wind energy tax credit and champion for renewable fuels, I’ve worked to advance America’s energy independence for many years. Energy independence affects U.S. national security and influences strategic geopolitical decisions involving diplomacy, defense and foreign policy. With the world’s largest economy, the United States depends on reliable, affordable sources of energy to stay competitive. Fostering homegrown renewable energy sources strengthens U.S. energy independence, diversifies our domestic energy portfolio, creates jobs in Rural America and improves what I call an “all-the-above” energy policy. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the United States is on track to export more energy products than it imports by 2022. That hasn’t happened since 1953. Advanced technologies and innovation are growing the U.S. energy boom in natural gas and oil production, paving the way for the United States to become the world’s leading exporter of liquid natural gas within a few years. What’s more, the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that renewable energy, such as wind and solar farms, will lead new U.S. power generation alongside natural gas. Already Iowa leads the nation for its share of energy produced by wind, reaching nearly 37 percent in 2017. The state’s largest utility is set to generate 90 percent of its electricity from wind within a few years. The federal tax credit I wrote in 1992 helped diversify the energy landscape, allowing the wind industry to grow, innovate and flourish so that the tax credit is now able to be phased out. I’ll continue working to champion alternative sources of energy at every opportunity, including homegrown, clean-burning biofuels that are more important than ever to Iowa’s farm economy.

A senior member and former chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley was named a U.S. Wind Champion for the 115th Congress.

Q: How does the Flores v. Reno agreement apply to detention policy at the southern border?

A: For three decades, enforcement of immigration laws affecting unaccompanied minors entering the United States illegally was governed by an agreement first issued by the U.S. District Court in Central California. This agreement effectively set detention standards for “safe and sanitary” facilities housing migrant children and imposes a 20-day limit of federal detention to encourage placement with parents, foster families, legal guardians or other adult relatives. During the Obama administration, a federal court in California dramatically expanded the Flores settlement and applied it for the first time to children apprehended with their parents at the border. Even the Obama administration opposed this interpretation of Flores.

This interpretation triggered the controversial “catch and release” program by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security that resulted in tens of thousands of families crossing our southern border. The 2015 ruling was upheld by the Ninth Circuit, effectively creating a Hobson’s choice for federal authorities tasked with enforcing immigration laws. Either separate parents and children by releasing only the children after 20 days or keep families together and release them all into the United States. The Trump administration launched a “zero tolerance” policy in April at the southern border following surges in illegal border crossings. The Attorney General directed federal prosecutors to step up enforcement of longstanding immigration laws and prosecute all those who enter the country illegally. Because of the Flores agreement, the administration’s decision to prosecute all illegal entry created unsustainable consequences. More than 2,500 illegal immigrant children were separated from their parents. Nearly one-third remain in government custody. Congress deserves ample blame for failing to fix the Flores settlement through legislation.

Q: How would you amend the Flores settlement to improve immigration enforcement?

A: As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I used our annual oversight hearing of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to examine the administration’s family separation and reunification efforts. No one disputes that every child, no matter the circumstances, must be treated humanely and receive quality care. Unfortunately, the “catch and release” policies telegraphed a dangerous opportunity for criminal wrongdoers. No child should be taken advantage of or exploited by smugglers, traffickers or others seeking to make money at a child’s expense. According to the administration, border patrol authorities counted a 314 percent increase in adults and children fraudulently claiming to be a family unit in the previous five months. Congress can fix the Flores settlement through legislation that repeals the time limitations governing accompanied illegal immigrant children in federal custody and puts into statute the high humane standards we expect families to be treated with during detention in family residential centers. Under the “catch and release” policy, families are released into the United States and asked to appear for a future court hearing. It’s typically scheduled on average 700 days after their release. And there’s no guarantee they will show up. On the other hand, families who are detained typically resolve their cases before an immigration judge within 40 days. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and I also used the hearing in July to examine the treatment of families and children in federal custody. We’ve asked the inspectors general of the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services to open investigations into allegations of physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse. Any person taken into custody by federal immigration authorities should be treated with human decency and dignity and receive basic standards of quality care. Through congressional oversight and legislation, I will work to make sure no person who is detained by federal immigration authorities suffers abuse and indignities while in custody. And I will continue working for a long term solution to our broken immigration system, including reforms to secure our borders, create a lasting solution for young immigrants brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own, improve the electronic employee verification system, end the diversity visa lottery and limit chain migration. It’s a tall order. Until Congress stops using immigration as a tool to score political points, the road to a resolution will remain rocky.

Q: What is the Commodity Credit Corporation?

A: The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is a government-owned and operated bank first created to support farm income and prices during the Great Depression. Organized under the umbrella of the USDA, the CCC Charter Act was enacted by Congress as a financing backstop to help farmers produce and market their commodities through loans, purchases and payments and to develop new domestic and foreign markets. It’s also authorized to leverage and make sales to foreign governments and donate food to relief agencies. The Trump administration recently announced plans to boost farm aid using the CCC that includes direct aid to farmers and expanding purchases of surplus farm commodities for food banks and anti-hunger programs. The details aren’t yet finalized, but payments may start in September or October and producers will apply at their local Farm Service Agency for immediate, temporary assistance.

I understand the urgency and why so many Iowans share their anxiety at my county meetings. A downturn in the farm economy has a ripple effect across the entire state economy. The impact reaches lenders and landowners, factory workers who earn a living making tractors, implement dealers, and seed and fertilizer suppliers who sell goods and services to Iowa’s 80,000-plus farmers. The local tax base and merchants on Main Street also take a hit when farm commodity prices and exports drop. The bottom line is clear. Lost exports means lost income. Farmers need market access with our trade partners to stay prosperous, pay their bills, put next year’s crop in the ground, expand and upgrade their livestock operations and grow vitality in local communities.

Q: What’s your take on the administration’s plan to provide up to $12 billion in short-term farm aid?

A: First, I’ve said for months that if actions taken by the federal government to strike better trade agreements result in economic hardship for certain Americans, the federal government has a responsibility to mitigate the damage. What’s more, I have said repeatedly that American agriculture will get hit hard by retaliatory action when trade negotiations start heating up. Earlier this year, I wrote a letter with the entire Iowa delegation to remind the president about the importance of free and fair trade to Iowa’s economy. Iowa is the second largest farm exporting state in the country. We exported $10 billion worth of products in 2015. Just consider that China last year imported 31 percent of U.S. soybeans. As I predicted, escalating trade tensions underway between the United States and key trade partners, including China and Mexico, are extracting a heavy toll on American agriculture, especially soybean, corn and pork producers. Every third row of soybeans grown in Iowa is exported. Shutting off one-third of a farmer’s revenue stream is not sustainable. As a lifelong family farmer, I share the overwhelming sentiments of farmers in Iowa who want to earn their livelihoods through the marketplace. Grain and livestock producers want prosperity from their productivity. That means having the ability to compete for every sale in every market. The farm safety net functions as a safety valve to weather natural market cycles and mitigate natural disasters. No amount of money from the Federal Treasury can offset long-term prosperity and opportunity from the free marketplace. Negotiating better trade deals and fixing unfair trade agreements on behalf of America’s workers, farmers and consumers is a good thing. However, farmers can’t afford to shoulder the brunt of a retaliatory tariff-driven trade war. Although the short-term farm aid package will help mitigate lower prices and loss of sales, America’s farmers and ranchers will be better off in the long-term with free and fair trade to help feed the world. At the end of the day, farmers want trade, not aid.

Q: What is OPEC?

A: The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, commonly known as OPEC, launched in 1960 by founding members Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Nearly six decades later, the international, 15-member organization accounts for more than 73 percent of the world’s crude oil reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. OPEC’s mission is to “coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets, in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers, and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.” For nearly two decades, OPEC has engaged in efforts to control the supply of oil, often resulting in price increases for consumers. Most recently, OPEC and its allies, including Russia, cut production by about 1.8 billion barrels per day. This move triggered an international price swing, lifting prices to more than $80 a barrel at the start of summer.

Q: What is Congress doing to stop price fixing?

A: For starters, the United States has been working for many years to develop a domestic, all-of-the-above energy strategy to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. This is best for the U.S. economy, including consumers and taxpayers, as well as national security. U.S. producers have tapped into new oil reserves, with the largest in Texas and North Dakota, using advanced technologies, including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. In fact, oil and natural gas exports are setting new records. U.S. oil production recently hit a record-setting 11 million barrels per day, according to preliminary estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Our U.S. energy policy also fosters development of alternative energy resources such as solar, wind and nuclear power, as well as renewable biofuels. Biofuels help displace foreign oil and give consumers more choices at the pump. However, America is not yet fully energy independent. In 2017, the U.S. imported 3.4 million barrels a day from OPEC countries. American consumers shouldn’t be at the mercy of OPEC at the pump. That’s why I’m working to cut OPEC’s stranglehold on consumers.

OPEC’s coordinated efforts to influence the global supply of oil have gone on for too long. For nearly two decades, I have been advocating to hold OPEC to account through legislative efforts. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I recently reintroduced the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, also known as NOPEC. This bipartisan and bicameral legislation would amend the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and allow the United States government to take action against price fixing by foreign governments. It would allow the Department of Justice to bring lawsuits against oil cartel members for antitrust violations. It would clarify that neither sovereign immunity nor the “Act of State” doctrine prevents a court from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments for engaging in the illegal pricing, production and distribution of petroleum products.

This bill has a long history. It was first introduced in 2000 and has been reintroduced numerous times, earning overwhelming support in both the House of Representatives and Senate. Once again, we are putting OPEC on notice. Our bipartisan NOPEC legislation certainly will get the president’s attention and send a signal that the United States will not tolerate OPEC’s flagrant antitrust violations.

Q: Why did Congress write the Inspector General Act of 1978?

A: Enacted 40 years ago, the federal law established an independent arm within federal agencies to conduct audits and investigations to prevent and detect fraud and abuse. The inspectors general are tasked with a mission to promote “economy, efficiency and effectiveness” and to inform Congress about problems in the administration of government programs and services. The size and scope of the executive branch spans across a sprawling federal bureaucracy that administers the lion’s share of the federal government’s $4 trillion budget. That’s an awful lot of tax dollars to account for, particularly since wrongdoers belly-up to the federal trough any chance they get. That’s why our system of checks and balances is so vital. The size of the executive branch is far bigger than the legislative branch. A few years ago, one study estimated the executive branch in one way or another employs nine million people. Congress has 535 members. Even if I had eyes in the back of my head, I wouldn’t be able to scrutinize every nook and cranny of the federal bureaucracy single-handedly. The 1978 law added a key tool to help Congress perform oversight duties of the executive branch, a job the Supreme Court has recognized is fundamental to our system of checks and balances. The Inspector General Act serves as an arsenal for accountability within the executive branch. Specifically, inspectors general have resources and authorities designed to keep federal agencies honest and on their toes, including criminal investigators, auditors and forensics capabilities. The Offices of Inspectors General (IG) are designed to stay immune from the bureaucratic hierarchy and partisan influence. And yet, too frequently, federal agencies have an allergic reaction to independent review and stymie efforts to provide information and access to agency records. To prevent embarrassing or fraudulent information from seeing the light of day, an agency under investigation will embark on a bewildering effort to deny records, resulting in wasteful delays to undermine the IG. So, Congress wrote and passed a new law to say we meant what we said the first time: IGs are entitled to “all records” to conduct their work. As an outspoken supporter for whistleblowers, I’ve also worked to empower the brave souls who come forward to report wrongdoing so that they understand their rights. Congress also requires each IG to have a “whistleblower ombudsman” who works on their behalf to make sure they understand laws that protect them from retaliation for reporting waste, fraud and abuse. Just this summer, the president signed into law new measures that put even more teeth into the ombudsman responsibilities to improve protection programs for whistleblowers across the federal government. With national security at stake and $4 trillion flowing from federal coffers, we can’t afford to mute the voices of those who witness misconduct while working in the trenches of the federal bureaucracy. Without a doubt, I will keep turning up the volume on government accountability.

Q: What do you know about a $10,000 toilet seat lid at the Air Force?

A: American humorist Mark Twain once wrote “truth is stranger than fiction.” Unfortunately, the bookkeeping mess at the Department of Defense (DoD) is no laughing matter. After decades of relentless oversight work that started with an over-priced $640 toilet seat, I’ve continued to flush out tales of cost-overruns and spare parts rip-offs riddling the DoD. Through six presidencies and a dozen Secretaries of Defense, wasteful spending runs rampant at the Pentagon. Every defense dollar lost to waste, fraud and abuse weakens military readiness. That’s why I’ve worked to secure curbs on government charge cards by DoD employees. I’ve worked with internal auditors to clean up sloppy bookkeeping. I’ve worked to put the squeeze on overpriced spare parts, only to find contractors inflate overhead and management fees. That means taxpayers are stuck with the same overpriced tab. And now, 30 years after the overpriced toilet seat took flight, I’ve discovered that sticker shock for toilet parts in the sky has gained higher altitude. Instead of spending $640 for a toilet seat, the Air Force recently listed $10,000 for a toilet seat lid. Talk about a lavish lavatory that needs to put a lid on spending. Skyway robbery comes to mind. The Air Force tells the media it’s no longer spending $10,000 for a toilet seat lid. I’ve asked the DoD Inspector General to confirm when the Air Force stopped buying them and how many were purchased at that price. Flushing out wasteful spending at the Pentagon continues to reveal systemic fiscal mismanagement that flushes precious tax dollars down the drain. The ability to plunge waste from the Pentagon’s spending pipeline is clogged up by antiquated accounting systems and disrespect for taxpayer money.

In 1990, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officer Act requiring all departments to present a financial statement to an inspector general. The Pentagon is the only federal agency that has failed to comply. The DoD Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer says a clean audit for the Pentagon is at least a decade away. The broken data collection system prevents the Pentagon from being audit-ready. And yet, tens of millions of dollars are squandered for incomplete audits and tens of billions of dollars are spent every year to fix the accounting system. I’m working with other lawmakers on the Senate Budget Committee to have the Government Accountability Office investigate why billions and billions have been spent to modernize DoD accounting systems in the last quarter century with nothing to show for it. Why is the Pentagon able to acquire the most advanced military systems in the world, but fails to install a world class accounting system that’s able to win a war on wasteful spending? With so much at stake, I’m not giving up on my mission to fix fiscal accountability at the Pentagon and wipe out the culture of indifference toward the American people’s money.