The article is on par with what passes for journalism these days. Facts are stated and quotes quoted. But there is no in-depth reporting. Again standard fare. For example: Grassley says: "...you have every right to fear," but no one evidently takes time to ask him "Fear what?" The final paragraph is a bit obtuse, closing with a whimper. There is also very little in the way of discovery or explanation, i.e., what exactly, or even remotely, does the provision mean. What would be included in this counseling. I know quite a bit about the provision, but I certainly wouldn't have gleaned much from this article, beyond the fact that Grassley seems to know less about the issue than the reporter who wrote this.