Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I want to discuss an unfortunate trend that has grown over the last year. Since March of 2020, the United States has been battling COVID-19. We have lost over half a million Americans because of the virus. But I am talking about another tragedy today, and that is the tragedy that I call ``war on the cops.'' Two months after the pandemic hit and sparked by the death of George Floyd, cities all across the country broke out into violent riots. Much of that violence has been directed at law enforcement, and it has taken a very serious toll. During the 2020 riots, more than 900 law enforcement officers were injured, including 277 officer injuries while defending the Federal courthouse in Portland and 60 Secret Service officers defending the White House. In September, a gunman ambushed two Los Angeles sheriff police deputies as they sat in their squad car. In January 2020, a violent mob attacked police defending the Capitol. Just last month, a young man killed a Capitol Police officer performing his duties. Police across the country are suffering from demoralization and fatigue. By the end of last summer, police officers were quitting the force in large numbers. Last August, 49 officers retired from the Portland Police Bureau in Oregon. That is more than it lost in all of 2019. By the end of last summer, 140 officers had quit the Atlanta Police Department by that point in the year. That number had been only 80 in the previous year. In Washington, DC, over 300 officers have quit since last June. Only half of those were retirements; the other half just walked away. We must consider, what does that mean for the crime in these cities? In Portland, murders increased 60 percent in 2020 from the year before. Arsons were up 95 percent. In Atlanta, murders were up 62 percent in 2020 from the year before. Aggravated assault was up by 15 percent. In Washington, DC, here, murders were up 22 percent in 2020 from the year before. So far this year, murders are up even more--33 percent so far in 2021 compared to this point last year. Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah estimates that reduced policing in dangerous neighborhoods last year caused an additional 1,200 homicides in America's largest cities. But the problem isn't just with keeping police officers on the force; there is also a problem with getting new ones as well, including in my State of Iowa. Recently, the Des Moines Police Department reported it had received half the applications it did last year. At the county level, the Polk County Sheriff's Office usually gets hundreds of applications for deputy vacancies but recently got only 50 applications. The Council Bluffs Police Department told me at one of my recent county meetings that it was having the same recruiting difficulties. This is a problem that police departments are having all over the country, with hundreds of vacancies across cities like Louisville, New York, Philadelphia, and Portland. How could this be? Well, for the last year, there has been a lot of hatred and vitriol directed at the police. If a police officer uses excessive force, he or she should suffer the consequences, but it often seems like our national media would have us believe that any use of force by police is unjustified. Even Members of Congress sometimes join this sort of demagoguery. A month ago, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted, ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.'' Back in January, Congresswoman Cori Bush tweeted, ``Defunding the police isn't radical, it's real.'' This sort of talk is dangerous for people in neighborhoods that depend heavily on police officers to keep them safe. Law enforcement officers have to make split-second decisions that could be the difference of life or death for themselves or someone they are trying to protect. That is what we train them to do. Sadly, we sometimes need them to use force in order to keep the rest of us safe. Now, we are used to seeing videos on the internet of police officers using deadly force. But if you want to see really good policing in action, I would suggest people look at another video. It is on the internet. Just do a simple search of ``Los Angeles deputy Mercedes Benz.'' You will come across a video of a Los Angeles sheriff's deputy doing a routine traffic stop of a driver who had been using her phone while behind the wheel. In this video, the driver calls the deputy a ``murderer'' and then mocks him for being Hispanic and taunts him for supposedly wishing he were White. That video will make your stomach turn. But throughout the video, the deputy is courteous and professional. I suspect nearly all enforcement officers conduct themselves and their work in that way. They have a very hard job to do and deal with people who often don't want to deal with the police. Most of them do that job very professionally and respectfully. I worry that because of the threat of violence, the condemnation by the media, and daily abuses like this one, more and more police officers won't want to do the job anymore. And I worry that more and more young adults won't want to start careers in law enforcement. We need more qualified people who want to be police officers, not fewer. We can't keep up like this. We can't keep scaring away our police officers while telling the next generations of Americans that cops are evil. They are not evil. They are our friends and neighbors who make a career out of keeping us safe. When the outside world becomes a dangerous place, they show up and we expect them to show up. The outside world is not going to stop being a dangerous place. Let's make sure cops don't stop showing up. Let's end the war on cops.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as I have said many times in the past, Presidents should be given a good deal of discretion when choosing their political appointees, and so long as their nominees are qualified and do not obstruct the advice and consent process, the Senate should not stand in the way of their confirmation. After all, Presidents are ultimately responsible for the actions of their administration. And if the buck truly stops at the Resolute Desk, they need to be able to trust their subordinates to get the job done. That being said, I now come to the point of my coming to the floor; that I must vote no on the nomination of Samantha Power to be Director of USAID. On February 18, I sent a letter to Ms. Power asking questions regarding emails that came out of her office during her time serving as U.N. Ambassador. Heavily redacted versions of those emails obtained by my office appear to suggest that Ms. Power's staff may have been working behind the scenes to remove the Islamic Relief Agency from the U.S. Treasury Department's sanctions list. That organization was placed on the sanctions list for what? Funneling money to terrorist groups, and, thus, removing it would allow that organization to receive private donations as well as taxpayer funds. In her letter responding to my questions, Ms. Power claimed that she was not working to take the Islamic Relief Agency off the sanctions list. She further claimed that the emails in question were part of an effort to challenge false claims made by the Islamic Relief Agency at the U.N. denying their involvement in terrorist financing. In order to verify her claims, I have requested, on multiple occasions, that she provide unredacted copies of the emails and complete answers to the questions that I posed in my original letter. But after 3 months, all I have received is a collection of public press releases. I have not received the emails I requested. I have not received answers to my questions. Normally, political appointees and nominees wait until after they are confirmed to start ignoring congressional inquiries, but in this case, it seems the Executive branch has decided advice and consent is going to be a mere formality, and there is no need to wait. This seems to be a pattern. For instance, I asked the Secretary of HHS a number of specific questions for the record as part of the Finance Committee vetting process. I received responses that didn't even try to answer the substance of my questions. I also asked Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to reconcile some conflicting information on her House financial disclosures and responses to questions for the record for the Energy Committee about her taxes. They weren't gotcha questions either. In fact, it was probably innocent mistakes on her part, if anything, but Secretary Haaland declined to respond at all. Maybe the White House figures simply that they don't need Republican votes so they don't need to answer even routine vetting questions from Republicans, but then the White House can't blame Republicans for voting no on their nominees when they ignore our oversight questions. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am 5 minutes late in coming to the Senate floor. I was supposed to be here on the fentanyl issue to support Senator Cotton. I know that an objection has been raised, but I want people to know how important I think this issue is. Today, we were considering--hopefully, by unanimous consent--passing a bill to permanently schedule fentanyl substances. Proactively scheduling fentanyl-related substances ought to be a big priority because too many Americans' lives have been lost to reject this critical measure. Some wrongly assert that controlling fentanyl analogs is partisan and unnecessary. That is simply untrue. Legislation to schedule fentanyl analogs is a bipartisan issue. Just last year, this body passed a bipartisan, 15-month extension bill unanimously. Also, such authority is necessary. The CDC estimates that fentanyl analogs have killed 50,000 Americans in the last 12 months. We must prevent overdose deaths. Prevention is possible when we use our laws to force China to stop the flow of fentanyl analogs. Opponents of permanent scheduling assert that the authority is broad and could result in too many arrests, but since the Drug Enforcement Administration placed fentanyl analogs in schedule I, the Justice Department has convicted only 80 people under that authority. So too many people being arrested as an argument against their permanent extension is hogwash. This authority hasn't resulted in vast and wide prosecutions; rather, this authority has been targeted and deliberate, and, of course, that is the way it should be. So if controlling fentanyl analogs is, in fact, bipartisan and necessary, why isn't supporting legislation then a no-brainer? Perhaps because of heightened partisanship, the Democrats can't vote for legislation that helps law enforcement, or maybe they can't be seen as supporting any drug control law even if it could save thousands of lives. This position goes against the unfortunate truth that 50,000 Americans have died from these deadly fentanyl analogs. Politics has no place above human life. As frustrated as I am by this, it is not my nature to throw in the towel. I will always work hard to find middle ground. That is why I am asking every Senator to support Senator Cotton's permanent extension or, at a minimum, my bill, the Temporary Extension of Fentanyl Scheduling Act. This bipartisan measure extends the authority to schedule fentanyl analogs for 14 months. It keeps fentanyl analogs in schedule I until July 2022, which is long enough for the administration to come to a permanent scheduling solution and allow for a deliberate and transparent dialogue with Congress. Simply put, we need to give ourselves enough time to find a solution to this major problem causing 50,000 lives to be lost every year. As history shows us, lengthy fentanyl scheduling legislation is not controversial. I am simply asking for a similar, bipartisan approach now. My bill is the only bipartisan temporary extension bill on the table. I am grateful for Senators Hassan and Shaheen for teaming up with me and Senator Cornyn. We can't limit ourselves in the fight against fentanyl. It is with this in mind that I urge all of my colleagues to support either a permanent extension or my bipartisan bill and to extend the authority to schedule fentanyl analogs for 14 months. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I express my support for S. 937, as amended by Senators Hirono and Collins. Every single one of us is horrified to see our fellow Americans attacked because of their race or ethnicity. We are united in our opposition to this despicable violence and to seeing it investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I have introduced a resolution to this effect and asked for a hearing to learn more about Attorney General Garland's review of hate crimes committed against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. It is good to see my Democratic friends acknowledge that bipartisanship is still the way to solve problems in the Senate. We have come together and, with a bipartisan amendment, improved this bill and made it more useful. We have gone beyond merely looking at COVID- related hate crimes to all hate crimes, and we have increased funding for reporting hate crimes. I would be remiss if I did not say that more bipartisanship could have made the bill even better. I think a committee markup would have been useful. I think if Democrats had allowed us to bring a Republican amendment extending the Violence Against Women Act for a vote, that would have been useful. Women are suffering from terrible violence during this pandemic, and this was a missed opportunity. Passing amendments by Senators Kennedy, Cruz, Lee, and Blackburn would guarantee even more support for marginalized communities, by ensuring Asian Americans are not discriminated against by institutions of higher learning and that religious Americans are free to worship in peace during the pandemic. But I hope nonetheless that this is a moment where the Senate speaks together about the importance of fighting hate crimes. We all believe that, even though we have different ideas about the best way to do it. This bill is the product of that collaboration. I will be voting for it, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Samantha Power to be director of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (PN 114). Throughout the 116th Congress, I conducted an investigation that found that a non-profit organization transferred funds to an entity known as the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA). This entity had been sanctioned by the Treasury Department for helping funnel funds to terrorists and terrorist organizations including Osama Bin Laden. During this investigation we came across redacted State Department emails that imply that, while she was Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power worked through back channels to trigger a Treasury review of ISRA's sanctioned status in an effort to have them delisted. In an effort to have these emails un-redacted and better understand Ms. Power's involvement in what could be an alarming abuse of power, I sent a letter to Ms. Power and USAID requesting information on February 18, 2021. Ms. Power responded to my letter on March 23, 2021, the date of her committee hearing, but failed to answer the questions or provide the un-redacted versions of these emails. On March 31, 2021, I sent a second letter to Ms. Power urging her to fully respond to my initial letter. I have yet to receive a response. Unfortunately, due to Ms. Power's lack of transparency, I must object to any consideration of this nomination. I cannot in good conscience vote for Ms. Power until I have received a full response to the questions posed in my letter, reviewed the un-redacted versions of these emails, and confirmed that she did not attempt to utilize her office to delist ISRA through back channels.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to talk about what is very obvious on television--the crisis at the southern border. During the past several months, the American people have watched as a full-blown crisis has developed. It has reached a catastrophic phase, and it is not getting any better. Let me reemphasize that whatever the Biden administration wants to call it, it is a crisis. Simply put, the administration is in denial, and that denial has caused a humanitarian and national crisis. For example, border crossings are at the highest level we have seen in the last 15 years. Last month, Customs and Border Patrol, Border Protection, encountered more than 170,000 people attempting to cross at the southern border. That number includes almost 19,000 unaccompanied children, which is the highest number ever recorded in a single month. The surge has overwhelmed personnel and prompted the Biden administration to put out--would you believe this?--emergency calls for volunteers. They did that from across the Federal Government. According to news reports based on recent Biden administration emails, the administration is recruiting NASA employees to sit with children at border facilities. Really? That is NASA. The border crisis is so bad that the Biden administration is trying to pull people from NASA and place them at the border. My fellow Senators, this situation is out of control. This is a humanitarian and national security crisis. Terrorists, smugglers, criminals have seen this as their golden opportunity, and they are surely taking advantage of it. This can't continue. I have written to the Biden administration. I have visited the border in person. I have seen overwhelmed facilities. I have heard the calls of the cartel members and human traffickers yelling insults from across the Rio Grande, taunting Senators--yes, taunting Senators. Senator Cornyn and I have written to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee strongly urging him to hold border security hearings. During the Trump administration, while I served as chairman of the full committee and Senator Cornyn served as subcommittee chairman, we held no less than 15 hearings on oversight of the Department of Homeland Security and various aspects of our immigration policy. As chairman of the committee during the first 2 years of the Trump administration, I held hearings on immigration topics of bipartisan interest to all committee members, including Democratic committee members. Those hearings included oversight of family reunification efforts and the Trump administration's decision to end DACA programs. In that very same way, I am hopeful that Chairman Durbin will be willing to hold hearings on matters of great importance to me and committee members on both sides of the aisle. I am ready to work with him to put together hearings that address these problems productively. During the Easter recess, I instructed my oversight and investigative staff to get a classified briefing from the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That briefing provided important and time-sensitive information that further solidifies my belief that the Biden administration's border crisis is a national security problem. Moreover, the Biden administration's denial that there is a border crisis is itself a national security problem. You can't solve a problem if you refuse to admit that there is such a problem existing. This head-in-the-sand attitude will cost lives. That is what is so sad about the situation. It is not making anyone's life any better. In fact, it is putting lives at risk, American lives and immigrant lives. Yet the administration refuses to solve the problem. Earlier this month, I requested that the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, after briefing my investigative staff, that they brief the full Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, on a member level. Members need to fully understand the national security problems at the border with respect to terrorists, narcoterrorists, human smugglers, and every one of their criminal counterparts. We must also be fully read in to the methods and means that they use to plan and accomplish their criminal goals. Yesterday, in response to my request of these Agencies, the committee had that briefing. What we learned is that the crisis at the border is getting worse, and bad actors are expanding their technological edge to become more efficient at accomplishing their criminal goals. Human smuggling networks, cartels, and other bad actors are continuing to take full advantage of the crisis. As to where we go from here, the Biden administration knows it has a crisis on its hands. It is time to stop the denial and act now to solve this border crisis Information Sharing Mr. President, on another issue, I would like to address my fellow Senators. This deals with counterfeits and the need for the Federal Government to modernize its approach to information sharing. Counterfeits pose a danger to the health and safety of consumers. They also infringe on U.S. intellectual property rights and unfairly benefit international criminals. This will come as no surprise to anyone: The majority of fake goods come from China and Hong Kong. And the United States? Well, we are the biggest loser when it comes to our intellectual property-related crime and activity. Unfortunately, the problem of counterfeits has gotten worse during the pandemic. Americans have increasingly turned to e-commerce to buy goods like personal protective equipment, household products, as well as household cleaners, children's toys, and a lot of other items I won't list. Criminals use the same e-commerce sites to sell their bogus goods. These sites give criminals an air of legitimacy and make it harder for law enforcement to catch them. E-commerce sites also let criminals create multiple product listings that can trick consumers into purchasing fake goods. Unfortunately, when there is money to be made, criminals will find out how to profit and do it at the expense of others, even in the event of a global pandemic. However, there is some good news. We have ways of addressing the problem. Last week, I introduced legislation that will give U.S. Customs and Border Protection more authority to share information with rights holders and other interested parties on suspected counterfeit merchandise. This is an issue I first identified as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee when I investigated counterfeit goods sold online. During this investigation, I discovered that certain U.S. laws prevent Customs and Border Protection from sharing key pieces of information with their private sector partners. As a result, it is harder for Customs and Border Protection and its private sector partners to detect and disrupt counterfeiting networks. If they could work together and the law allowed it, it would be a lot easier to tackle the problems. To give credit where it is due, Customs and Border Protection has recognized this problem and is taking steps to rectify it through the 21st Century Customs Framework--for short, 21CCF--to improve data- sharing capabilities in real time. However, without statutory authority from Congress, in some ways, Customs and Border Protection has one hand tied behind its back. So my bill will get rid of some of these barriers for the Agency. It is one small but very crucial step toward a more secure supply chain. Sharing information is a simple solution that often gets overlooked. However, it can be an effective tool in creating comprehensive strategy against counterfeit activity. So I am asking my colleagues to join me in making this legislative fix so that we may create a supply chain that addresses a 21st-century problem. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on April 13, I delivered remarks on the Senate Floor to share my condolences for Iowa State Patrol Sergeant Jim Smith, who lost his life in the line of duty. I was honored to attend Sergeant Smith's funeral on April 16 in Independence. Jim Smith was revered as a man of strong convictions, love of family, and deep- rooted faith. Iowa State Patrol Colonel Nathan Fulk gave the following eulogy in honor of Sergeant Smith. I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, right now, I just want to speak about the motion to discharge as opposed to whether people should vote for or against Gupta. I am opposed to this effort to discharge Gupta from the Judiciary Committee. In fact, it is not properly in order. In theory, we are moving this nomination because it failed in Committee by an even, tie vote. But that vote should never have been called, and it was improper when it was. Under the committee rules, members have a right to unlimited debate. This can only be stopped either by a bipartisan vote to end debate under the rules or by a vote of the majority of the committee to set a time certain to vote under precedent. Because Republicans at Ms. Gupta's markup wanted to talk, there couldn't have been a bipartisan vote to end debate. In fact, some, like my colleagues from North Carolina, didn't have a chance to speak and were still waiting their turn. And because the Democrats don't have a majority in the committee, they couldn't have set a time certain. Under the rules and precedents of the committee, then, they had to let Republicans talk, and if it took more than one markup, so be it. The Democrats did this talkathon when I was chairman. During our second markup of 2017, in order to delay Senator Sessions' nomination to be Attorney General, Democrats filibustered in the Judiciary Committee. When it happened, I didn't interrupt anyone or break any rules. I simply continued the markup the next day, checking to see who would want to be recognized and for how long. The fact is that the Democrats frequently used these filibuster tactics against us over the past 4 years. We simply dealt with them from a position of confidence in the rules and precedents of our committee. Sometimes being chairman and moving nominees takes hard work, but we did the job we needed to do. That is not what happened in the discussion of Gupta. Instead, my colleague from Arkansas was interrupted and the roll was called while he was still speaking. This was not the power of the majority being used. It was the power of the chairman. What is the point of having rules if you can just ignore them--just ignore them when you find yourself dealing with an unfamiliar situation. So I don't think the even vote--the tie vote--in committee even properly happened. As far as I am concerned, Senator Cotton had the floor. That rollcall vote was illegitimate under committee rules, and so the one that we are going to have in the Senate this afternoon is just as illegitimate. And why did the Chairman scrap the committee rules for this nominee? This isn't a Supreme Court nomination. The nominee is a sub-Cabinet official at the Justice Department. So I have to wonder why. I think it is because the Democrats know how really powerful she will be in the Justice Department As Judge Garland told us during his hearing, he didn't pick Ms. Gupta. He only got to know her after they were both picked. That is quite a position for a subordinate to be in. The late Congressman Dingell famously said this--and I will clean it up a bit: ``You let me write the precedent, and I'll [beat] . . . you every time.'' The Judiciary Committee has done him one better: Now there is no procedure. If the rules are not respected, the Senate is an institution that loses every time. I urge my colleagues to vote no and protect the traditions of the body.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I express my concern over the rise in violent crime and in particular the hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Every single one of us ought to be horrified to see our fellow Americans attacked because of their race or ethnicity. We are united in our opposition to this hateful violence. We are united in seeing it investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I introduced a resolution to this effect, and I will welcome all my Senate colleagues to join me. I am very happy to see that Attorney General Garland has turned his attention to this problem. On March 30, he directed the Department of Justice to engage in a 30-day review of the Department's response to hate crimes. I hope the Senate will benefit from the results of that review. However, our responses to the problem of hate crimes must be guided by the facts and a pursuit of sound policy. I am not sure that we have done the legwork to arrive at a legislative solution that will make a difference to preventing, deterring, and punishing these crimes. Along with my colleague Senator Cotton, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and Counterterrorism, we are requesting a full or subcommittee hearing on the issue, and we should do that after the Attorney General's review has been completed. We now have before the Senate S. 937, the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, being introduced before the Attorney General's review began and appears to be duplicative or even in conflict with some of the DOJ's existing efforts. This does not seem to me to be the best path, but that is the path the Senate is on now, and I voted to proceed hours ago to S. 937. I am thankful that it is coming up. I know that Members of the Republican caucus have amendments that will hopefully improve the bill and make it a very useful piece of legislation. We hope these amendments will be listened to and fairly considered by our Democratic colleagues. This is too important of an issue to get wrong. Election Security Madam President, now, on another point. Between Democrats who believe Russia rigged the vote to elect Trump in 2016 and Republicans who believe various theories questioning Biden's election victory, they all add up to what seems to be a bipartisan supermajority of Americans casting doubt about our elections. In fact, one prominent claim by some Trump supporters that a particular brand of voting machine switched Trump votes to Biden appears to have been plagiarized from the Democratic Party's playbook from the election of 2004. I heard from many left-leaning Iowans at that time who questioned President Bush's victory based on claims that a particular brand of voting machine switched votes in Ohio. That was 2004. It seems kind of similar, doesn't it, today. Those totally unsubstantiated claims ultimately led Democrats to force a vote in a joint session of Congress in 2005 to reject Ohio's electoral votes cast for President Bush. There are still Democratic Members of Congress in both Chambers who voted to overturn Ohio State's certified election in 2004. Now, after the 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia, the losing Democratic candidate refused to concede, claiming, without evidence that would stand up in court, that she, as a Democratic candidate for Governor of Georgia, would have won but for voting irregularities. Now, rather than distance itself from questioning a certified election in 2018, the Democratic Party invited her to speak at their convention in 2020. Two years later, the tables are now turned. Trump lost Georgia by a far smaller margin than that Democratic candidate for Governor in Georgia in 2018 did, but we are now told that to suggest that there were flaws in the 2020 Georgia election is somehow unacceptable and undermining democracy. It is pretty obvious, after this history, that we need to break the cycle of partisans questioning elections when their side lost or it is OK to complain when their side lost, but if the other side does the same thing, there is something wrong with it. So there is a lesson for both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties must stop finger-pointing, stop blaming, and stop the partisan accusations. We all need to work together to restore Americans' faith in elections. So that brings me to something very current because it passed the House of Representatives. So that brings me to the Democrats' so-called For the People Act. Incidentally, don't you find that name a little creepy? So often in history, when people claim to speak for ``the people,'' they were just seeking power. For the People Act was introduced after the 2018 elections as a clear political statement to build the hyperpartisan narrative that Democratic defeats were due to widespread voter suppression. Now, we always hear about voter suppression before and since the 2020 election, but just think of the historic turnout--not only the historic turnout that the losing candidate had but the historic turnout that the winning candidate had. And yet we have voter suppression. H.R. 1 was then, and remains, a hastily cobbled together collection of every Democratic proposal for new election mandates. No care was taken to make it cohesive or workable. It is evident that State and local election officials were not consulted in its drafting. You know, just to consider the size of the bill, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I think, was only two pages. For the People Act, the bill introduced--or heard--before the Senate Rules Committee is 800 pages. Now, that bill that I just talked about had actually passed the House in 2019 on party lines and was placed directly on the Senate calendar at Senator Schumer's request. Now, this is very typical of political messaging bills so the minority leader can force a vote to proceed. I assume, in 2019, that Senator Schumer did not force the Senate vote to take up the bill because partisan activists got more traction out of blaming Leader McConnell for not bringing it up. Regardless, in 2019, it was clearly designed as a messaging bill and not one designed to ever get to the President's desk. Now, in 2021, we are back at it again, considering a totally partisan messaging bill that would radically rework all States' election systems, where it has been in the Constitution the primary concern of the State legislators and Congress seldomly intervening. I suppose the most obvious is that on a certain date in November we all have Presidential elections and congressional elections on the same date in all 50 States, but beyond that, it is pretty much up to each State how they want to conduct their elections. So how does this bill, passing the House, once again, over here in the Senate--how does that jibe with the message from Democrats just a couple of months ago that State-run elections are beyond reproach? Don't you remember? Because all 50 States had State-certified elections, that gave Biden his win. Now, it is pretty common sense. Either State-run elections are fundamentally flawed and unfair, requiring massive Federal intervention and Americans who question the outcome are taking a moral stand, or State-run elections are, by and large, very fair, and Americans can have confidence in the outcomes. Either way, the same principle should apply to the last several elections whether Republicans or Democrats were relatively more successful in each case. I get it. I get it that having unleashed this partisan tiger--the bill that came from the House of Representatives-- it is very hard to get that partisan tiger back in the cage. But when this bill fails, as it must, we need to tamp down the partisan accusations and work across party lines to restore faith in American elections. Now, the way the environment here is in Washington and in Congress, it isn't going to be easy, but the alternative is unthinkable I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a short tribute and then maybe about an 8- or 9-minute speech that I have. Today, I want to pay tribute to Iowa State Patrol Sergeant Jim Smith, who courageously gave his life in the line of duty this past Friday. Sergeant Smith, a 27-year Iowa State Patrol veteran and a tactical team leader, put himself in harm's way on behalf of his fellow Iowans last week, and it cost him everything. Sergeant Smith is being remembered as a dedicated father, a loyal public servant, a man of God who left a positive impression on everybody he encountered. I mourn for his family, fellow troopers, friends, and the entire Independence, IA, community at this tragic loss.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have one short issue and another issue of about 10 minutes. Over the Easter break, I held a Q&A in 24 counties to hear what was on the minds of Iowans. It was my constituents' agenda, not my agenda, that we discussed. From my cattle market transparency bill to Second Amendment issues, COVID-19 vaccines, and the crisis at the southern border, Iowans are always up to date on the issues most important to them. One prominent question: Why can't you guys in the Senate get along? In other words, ``Why not more bipartisanship?'' is a constant question I get. Iowans want Congress to work in a bipartisan way to enhance our Nation's infrastructure through increased funding for roads, bridges, highways, waterways, and rural broadband, among many other infrastructure issues. Unfortunately, what I have heard so far about President Biden's plan is that it is everything but the kitchen sink and not enough focus on just the big, big issue and the long-term issue of infrastructure. Iowans expect us to work in a bipartisan way, and I hope Democrats will agree to work together with us, unlike the passage of the $1.9 trillion bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to come to the floor to bring up four subjects. The first one is 30 seconds.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on another subject, over the years, the consolidation of the beef industry has threatened the livelihood of Iowa farm families and rural communities where they reside, and it isn't limited to just Iowa. This would be farmers all over the country. I have been working since 2002 to increase the producers' leverage against processors, improve market price discovery, and better situate independent Iowa cattlemen in the fed cattle markets. This past year, these issues became even more apparent and urgent because of the COVID pandemic. While the cattle industry has internally looked for ways to increase the amount of cash trade, it has not been able to find a solution. Unfortunately, this means that government intervention is needed as it is past time for a solution. The government needs to step in to guarantee that the free market treats cattlemen fairly. From the 2012 USDA ``Agriculture Census'' to the 2017 ``Agriculture Census,'' Iowa lost nearly 1,500 cattle producers. While we don't have USDA statistics from the past 2 years, the release of the 2022 USDA ``Agriculture Census'' will likely see an even more dramatic loss of producers because of the pandemic. I know this because of my many conversations I have with independent cattle producers from nearly every county in Iowa. During my meetings in all 99 Iowa counties, cattle market transparency and my bill introduced last Congress with Senator Tester, mandating 50 percent of negotiated cash trade in the cattle markets, is one of the most mentioned topics at those county meetings. The aid that Congress offered via the USDA Coronavirus Food Assistance Program provided over $7 billion in assistance to cattle producers so far. However, this assistance is merely a bandaid covering a gaping wound. Congress must step up again and, instead of providing payments to producers, make sure that producers have access to fair and transparent markets. From the Holcomb, KS, fire at a Tyson's facility to the widely reported closures of processing plants due to the coronavirus outbreaks, we continue to see a wide disparity between the cash price of fed cattle and the price of boxed beef, which, in turn, affects consumer costs. Normally, the packer spread between the price of live cattle and boxed beef is about $21 per hundredweight, but USDA's report on the coronavirus shutdowns showed that, last May, this spread was $279, as opposed to that usual $21 per hundredweight, the highest since reporting began 20 years ago. It is just part of a pattern that has evolved during my time in the Senate. That pattern is that farmers are getting a smaller amount of the overall dollar for their food production. I appreciate the leadership from Secretary Perdue in issuing their USDA report last August. That report helps the cause for the Grassley- Tester legislation. Beyond just highlighting problems, Perdue also offered recommendations, one of which was for Congress to consider a mechanism to mandate a level of negotiated cash trade. This is not a new issue in the beef industry. In fact, I first introduced a bill that would mandate cash trade way back almost 20 years. Today, on behalf of Iowa's independent cattle producers, I am proud to reintroduce my bill with Senator Tester to mandate negotiated cash trade at 50 percent. Without a mandated amount of cash trade, producers continue to be residual suppliers and will lack leverage to fairly negotiate with packing companies. Earlier this month, Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska introduced the Cattle Market Transparency Act of 2021. There are some excellent provisions in Senator Fischer's bill, such as the creation of a contract library, as well as new required reports on the number of cattle scheduled for delivery. These provisions will add great transparency and great price discovery. They are important to Iowans, as they are to Nebraskans. However, when it comes to a negotiated amount of cash trade, Senator Fischer's bill only mandates a regional minimum. This means price discovery would still be reliant upon cattle producers who already are negotiating. So what is price discovery? Well, put simply, price discovery is where a buyer and a seller agree on a price and a transaction occurs Cattle producers of all sizes and in all regions recognize that price discovery is a public good, a very good public good. These producers also realize that the thinning of the cash market is a serious problem for all market participants. Producers in the Midwest of the U.S. reporting regions already provide ample price discovery by putting in hard work and selling cattle using negotiated means at nearly 60 percent. They do this while producers who sell with formulas use these prices in their contracts. That is why something must be done. Any legislative solution should address the imbalance of the cash trade across the entire beef belt. My bill with Senator Tester would simply shift the burden of price discovery from independent producers, like those in Iowa, and spread it evenly among all cattle producers. I am looking forward to working with Senator Fischer and the entire Senate Agriculture Committee to make permanent changes in mandatory price reporting, which needs to be reauthorized by September 30 of this year. Cattle producers are counting on us to make changes. We can no longer take a wait-and-see approach. The beef industry employs hundreds of thousands of hard-working men and women who work each day to help feed our country and the world, but the USDA Agriculture Census shows we are losing these producers. I am asking my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor my bill with Senator Tester to ensure the strength of the beef supply chain and to support our cattle producers

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, during committee review of Ms. Young's nomination to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, important questions were raised about whether she would uphold and enforce the restrictions of the Hyde amendment if confirmed. I found her initial response to a question put to her on the subject troubling as it suggested she may seek to use her position to undermine Hyde. However, after speaking with Ms. Young and pressing her on the issue, I am satisfied that she will follow the law as written by Congress without regard to her own personal views. She has assured me that she has no intention to revise rules or regulations concerning Hyde and understands it is not her place to change law. I therefore have decided to vote in favor of her nomination.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that my Judiciary Committee detailee, Joseph Routh, be given privileges of the floor for the remainder of the 117th Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. A Civil War legislation called the False Claims Act has been on the books since that period of time. In 1986, I believe it was, I got some amendments to it that made it a much more valuable piece of legislation than it was before that time. It is called the False Claims Act, and it has brought, I think, something like $64 billion back into the Federal Treasury of fraudulently taken money since then. The problem today, even though it has been a successful law, is that the courts tend, from time to time, to neuter its capabilities by interpreting it in a way so it is not quite as effective. From time to time, we have passed legislation to overcome some of those court decisions. I am here today to talk about another opportunity this Senate has to make the False Claims Act the effective piece of legislation it was. So I want to alert my colleagues about the most recent limitations the courts have imposed on the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, for the very same purpose it serves today: to fight fraud, not just with military matters, as was the reason for doing it because the Union Army was being defrauded at that particular time, but, today, it fights fraud governmentwide. Today, it is the government's most powerful anti-fraud statute. That is because amendments that I offered in 1986 empowered whistleblowers to sue fraudsters on the government's behalf with or without the government's help. Since then, we have recovered more than $64 billion of taxpayer money lost to fraud. Now, when we talk about anti-fraud statutes like the False Claims Act, we use the term ``materiality.'' It is because of that term that the courts have caused--their interpretation of that term has caused-- the act to be less effective. The False Claims Act defines ``materiality'' as ``having a natural tendency of influencing the payment or receipt of money or property.'' Basically, if the government could have withheld payment, then it was likely material. However, based on a 2016 Supreme Court opinion, the Federal courts are trying to reshape the act's materiality requirement. In the Supreme Court's opinion in Escobar, ``if the Government pays a particular claim in full despite its actual knowledge that certain requirements were violated, that is very strong evidence that those requirements are not material.'' Citing this language, other courts have made the government's payment decisions in these cases a deciding factor. Consequently, the Justice Department now shies away from prosecuting these cases. That is the case even when the fraud is very obvious and then, obviously, material. Recently, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction briefed me on a report about a botched Defense Department effort to quickly buy cargo planes from an Italian manufacturer called Alenia. In 2009, the Department of Defense bought 20 cargo planes from this company, Alenia, for $549 million. These planes were intended to move goods and train Afghan pilots. This is the type of plane we are talking about. The contract required the manufacturers to refurbish 20 retired aircraft and provide enough spare parts for 10 years of maintenance. To seal the deal, the company even took Department of Defense personnel on several warehouse tours to prove they had all these spare parts. When the planes arrived in Afghanistan, mechanics quickly noted the planes were very poorly refurbished. Worse, they couldn't actually fly. The poor state of the planes and the hazards of the Afghan elements made that impossible. The company, Alenia, also lied about their maintenance commitments. Now, remember, I already told you about their promise that those warehouses were full of parts for the next 10 years. These spare parts that they showed them were not for these planes. In other words, they were for the wrong planes. Despite this blatant fraud, the Department of Defense inspectors kept certifying the planes, and the government kept making payments. But here is the catch: The inspectors later admitted that many of the documents and manuals they reviewed were in Italian, and none of them spoke Italian. In the final count, out of 20 aircraft, 4 never even made it to Afghanistan. It is unclear why the Department of Defense continued making payments despite these flagrant violations, but by 2013, it became clear that continuing this program was unfeasible, and the government tried to sell the remaining 16 planes. You can imagine that nobody wanted these planes. So the Obama-Biden administration sold them all for scrap metal. You can see the scrap metal right here. To recap, the government bought 20 airplanes for $549 million and, in less than 5 years, sold them for $40,257 worth of scrap metal. The photos next to me show what we bought compared to what it was actually worth, a little pile of garbage. It is clear that the actual condition of the planes and the lack of parts were very material components of this contract. See, there is that word ``material.'' Now, thanks to the Department of Defense's poor judgment and also the courts' new standard on materiality, the Justice Department won't bring False Claims Act charges against that company. Materiality is important to protect against parasitic lawsuits, but we can't allow defendants to get away with scalping the taxpayers because some government bureaucrats failed to do their jobs. Government bureaucrats are highly segmented and often unable to make key decisions for their organizations. Now, that is not the employee's fault. That is just kind of the way government, I am sorry to say, operates. Also, the government typically stops payments only when it has fully investigated and corroborated a claim of fraud. In my many years of investigating the Department of Defense, it has taught me that a Pentagon bureaucrat is rarely motivated to recognize fraud. That is because the money doesn't come out of their pocket. This example highlights how the courts' narrow interpretation of ``materiality'' fails to take into account how the government really works and why we need to overcome the courts' decision on the definition of ``materiality.'' When the False Claims Act was originally passed, one fraudster boasted--and this is a direct quote--``You can sell anything to the government at almost any price if you've got the guts to ask.'' Unfortunately, that was true in this case as well. I have already made it public that I am working to patch this hole in the taxpayer's pocket. This example perfectly illustrates the need for change. I am working on introducing legislation to address the issue, and I am in the final stages of negotiating and look forward to putting forward a very bipartisan bill in the coming weeks. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on March 6 of this year, the intelligence community issued its ``Intelligence Community Assessment on Foreign Threats to the 2020 U.S. Federal Elections.'' Based on that report, some in the liberal media have falsely claimed that my and Senator Johnson's Hunter Biden-related oversight activity last Congress was based on Russian disinformation. Even Peter Strzok felt the need to chime in on Twitter to say that we received Russian disinformation. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but such claims are false and misleading. To be precise, Senator Johnson and I didn't receive, solicit, or rely upon any information from Andrii Derkach, and we publicly said so many times. I don't know how many times last fall I was on this floor of the U.S. Senate trying to explain that to the people who were making those accusations. It seems like Strzok pays just about as careful attention to these facts as he did to the Crossfire FISA applications. Of course, Twitter lets disinformation about the Steele dossier run wild on their platform yet shuts down still unrefuted reporting on Hunter Biden before the 2020 election. In other words, we have a double standard. Now, regarding Russian disinformation, it wasn't Senator Johnson and this Senator that dealt in it. It happens to be very clear that the other side, the Democrats, were dealing with it. Here's one quick example. If you want more, then I would refer you to section 10 of our September 23, 2020, report. On July 13, 2020, then-Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff sent a letter with a classified attachment to the FBI to express a purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign disinformation campaign. The classified attachment to that letter included unclassified elements that attempted, but failed, to tie our work to Derkach. Those unclassified elements were leaked to the press to support a false campaign accusing us two Senators of using Russian disinformation. Then, during the course of our investigation, we ran a transcribed interview of George Kent. Before that interview, the Democrats acquired Derkach's materials. During that interview, they asked the witness about it. He stated: ``What you're asking me to interpret is a master chart of disinformation and malign influence.'' At that interview, the Democrats introduced known disinformation into the investigative record as an exhibit. More precisely, the Democrats relied upon and disseminated known disinformation from a foreign source whom the intelligence community warned was actively seeking to influence U.S. politics. Yet now--can you believe this?--they accuse this Senator and Senator Johnson of doing that very thing. Now let that sink in because there is a case of double standard around here. It is clear that the Democrats hope that their self-created disinformation campaign would drown out our report and its findings to protect Candidate Biden from the facts. Now that President Biden is in office, the facts aren't going anywhere. I had an opportunity to serve 28 years in the Senate with Senator Biden. I liked him then; I still like him. But that doesn't mean that I like the double standard the press has toward President Biden and us Republicans. As President Biden gears up for his first press conference, he ought to answer for the fact that his family was and possibly still is financially connected to Chinese nationals with links to the Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army. Indeed, Hunter Biden reportedly admitted that he was well aware that some of his business associates were connected to the Communist Chinese Government intelligence services. Now, double standard--where is the media in asking serious questions about that? It has also been reported that emails show Joe Biden and his brother were ``office mates'' with the very same Chinese nationals with links to the Communist regime and the its military. Now, talk about a double standard. Where is the media in asking serious questions about that? Yet they are reporting this very day about things that Johnson and Grassley did about disinformation, which I have told you so many times we never received. Now there is this interview on television with Tony Bobulinski, publicly stating that Joe Biden was aware of and possibly involved in Hunter Biden's business deals. Talk about a double standard. Where is the media asking serious questions about that? The Biden family transactions and associations in our September 20 report raised criminal, counterintelligence, and extortion concerns. Yet the media--the liberal media--has ignored all of it and has failed to ask any legitimate questions. Don't you think that we the people have a right to know the answers? The media certainly seemed to think so in all the doings of the Trump administration. If the story I just laid out here were about Trump, I guarantee you that it would be all over the news. It is perfectly legitimate and reasonable for Congress and the news media to question the Biden administration about these global financial transactions and associations. It is perfectly legitimate to ask how they could impact the Biden administration's foreign policy. That is especially true as it relates to China, given the extensive links between the Biden family and that country. Let's see if anyone dares to ask questions at the President's first news conference.

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, we welcome about a million immigrants every year. We welcome them because they come here, abiding by our laws, and we need immigrants. We have been a welcoming country for a long time, but I come to the floor to speak about the ongoing crisis at our southern border--a crisis that, I think, this administration doesn't want to admit is a crisis. Because of some changes in policy, we have that crisis, and that crisis is people entering our country in violation of our laws. Since taking office, this administration has advanced policies that have undermined immigration enforcement. These policies undermine efforts to secure our southern border, and they encourage illegal immigration into our country. President Biden has signaled that, when it comes to immigration that violates our laws, the United States is open for business. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats are doubling down on that position this very week. They are working to pass several mass amnesty bills that contain no provisions related to securing the border. It turns out that people are finally paying attention. U.S. Customs and Border Protection recently confirmed that it had encountered over 100,000 migrants attempting to cross the southern border in February-- the first full month of this new administration. That is the highest total for the month of February since 2006. News reports are that Democrats are blaming Trump's policies for this situation that we are in. Yet the number of single adults encountered at the southern border was up 175 percent compared to last February. The number of family units was up 170 percent, and the number of unaccompanied alien children was up 171 percent. The Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for the care of the unaccompanied children after they arrive in the United States, had 7,300 unaccompanied children referrals in February. That is the highest number of February referrals in the history of the program. As of late last week, Health and Human Services had over 8,500 unaccompanied children in its facilities. As of this past weekend, more than 4,200 were being held by the Customs and Border Patrol holding facilities, with nearly 3,000 being held past the legal limit of 72 hours. These are the ``kids in cages,'' whom many of our Democratic colleagues were so outraged about a few years ago, blaming Trump, even though the so-called cages were created in the Obama administration, just being reused again. Curiously, we are not seeing nearly as much outrage now as we saw during the Trump episode. Where is our fair and balanced press today? Reports emerged late last week that one Border Patrol facility in Texas was operating at 729 percent of pandemic capacity. Many minors who had been in custody for over 5 days were reportedly able to shower only once. If this were happening during the Trump administration, our Democratic colleagues would be expressing their anger and their outrage on any media outlet that they could find. But because this crisis is happening as a result of President Biden's policies, we have mostly silence. President Biden's border crisis reaches beyond just these staggering numbers that I have given you. First, it is a humanitarian tragedy--a crisis. The Biden administration's policies have incentivized unaccompanied children and family units to make an incredibly dangerous trip to our southern borders. On March 10, Reuters reported that the Mexican Government is worried that the Biden administration's asylum policies ``are stoking illegal immigration and creating business for organized crime''--from the Mexican Government, reported by Reuters. There is no doubt that cartels are profiting greatly from this trafficking. One Mexican official was quoted as saying: ``Migrants have become a commodity.'' The article went on to discuss how gangs are ``diversifying methods of smuggling'' and how smugglers are advising migrants on how to more easily apply for asylum in the United States, including by bringing children. It also described how higher concentrations of migrants in areas near the U.S.-Mexican border have encouraged gangs to recruit some migrants as drug mules and to kidnap other migrants. For what? For money. This is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy created in just recent weeks by changes of policies at the border by this new administration. Second, President Biden's border crisis presents a public health threat in the middle of a pandemic. Recent reports have indicated that the administration plans to turn two Texas facilities, where migrant family units are being held, into rapid processing centers. The plan is to hold the family units for 3 days or less. It is unclear if all of these migrants are being tested for COVID-19, when they are being tested, how they are being tested, and how they are being handled if they test positively. Recent media reports also indicate that 100 undocumented immigrants who were released by the Department of Homeland Security into the United States later tested positive for the virus. In these times, as we are all concerned about the pandemic, it can't be acceptable. Finally, President Biden's border crisis has created a situation that is overwhelming the men and women who work to protect our borders. It is straining the resources of agencies that must cope with the results of this administration's misguided immigration policies. One of the most important responsibilities of the Federal Government and any Presidential administration, Republican or Democrat, is to enforce our immigration laws in ways that ensure the sovereignty of our borders, protects the American people, and, lastly, discourages illegal immigration. It is clear that this administration has failed to live up to this responsibility. I hope that President Biden changes course and begins to work with Congress in a bipartisan way to secure our borders and, at the same time, reform our laws in ways that discourage this violation of our immigration laws by people just willy-nilly crossing the border, even being invited here. If they instead continue on their present course, this will be just the first of many border surges to come over the next 4 years. What we need is to keep our doors open, as we have done for decades with legal immigrants, and do everything we can to discourage people from coming here in violation of our laws. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I am going to discuss a very important issue that I started to investigate during the last Congress, and it is an issue that the executive branch must continue to improve upon. The subject is information sharing between the intelligence community and the Department of Health and Human Services. The connection between those two entities is a critical information sharing data point, and it must last beyond the current pandemic. To state the obvious, the healthcare landscape has evolved considerably in the past several decades. More specifically, the healthcare landscape has changed considerably in just the last year because of the COVID pandemic. Threats to healthcare now include cyber, intelligence, and counterintelligence threats. For example, we know the Chinese Government engaged in cyber attacks to steal American COVID-related research. The Communist Chinese Government will stop at nothing to steal our hard-earned work product. They know, as does the world, that the best of the best is still right here in America. Last Congress, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I focused a good deal of my oversight efforts on the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of National Security. For example, in June of 2019, I held a hearing on foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research, where the Office of National Security was one of the government witnesses. After the hearing, I then held a classified committee briefing with all the government witnesses to further discuss the foreign threats that we face. That office is the Department's connection, then, to the intelligence community and, accordingly, it plays a critical role in the Department of HHS's overall mission. That mission includes pandemic response and countering national security threats To fully perform its function, HHS needs access to intelligence community products and databases. So with that access, they would have information that is vital to mitigating threats to the Department, its funded partners, and its interagency colleagues. So, as part of my oversight efforts and before the pandemic even started, I worked to get that process done. I noted my concerns to the Trump administration that the Office of National Security hadn't been adequately incorporated into the intelligence community. To their credit, the Trump administration rightly and quickly resolved many of these issues. The Trump administration created links and information sharing between the intelligence community and the Department of Health and Human Services where that cooperation hadn't existed before. Those links should have existed many years ago, but prior administrations, like the Obama-Biden administration, failed to see around the corner and get the job done. Just as an example, even with the swine flu and outbreaks across the globe, the Obama-Biden administration failed to plug the Department of Health and Human Services into the intelligence community the way that it should have been done. The current pandemic exemplifies the need to have a robust intelligence operation that includes the Department of Health and Human Services. As pathogenic threats to our homeland and our people increase and become more complex, the Federal Government must prepare well in advance for a very quick response. In order to accomplish that task, the government must focus on the seamless communication that must exist between and among the various Departments and Agencies. The Federal Government must take a whole-of-government approach. One serious barrier to that seamless communication is overclassification. That is a serious barrier we find too much in government. But, particularly when it deals with the pandemic, it becomes a problem that can cost a lot of lives. In January of 2020 when reports began to circulate about COVID, I instructed my oversight and investigative staff to get a classified briefing from the Office of National Security. After that briefing, I made clear in a public way that overclassification during a public health emergency could have deadly consequences. If a certain intelligence work product is classified in a certain way, sometimes other government Agencies won't then have access. The Federal Government must guard against this type of overclassification, and that is especially important during emergency situations that demand quick action. To the extent that disagreements exist between Agencies, which they often do in complex and ever-changing fact patterns, discussion must be had between and among the government. From that, the facts will bear out, and the best decisions can then be made. That process can't take place if the government puts information in silos that Federal health Agencies are unable to access. Overclassification is more of a problem when China's Government refuses to share relevant data with researchers. At least this government--the United States Government--can and should share information between and among its Agencies. This administration must advance and improve upon the cooperative gains created by the Trump administration and make sure that the left hand continues to communicate with the right hand. The last thing that we should do is to revert to the lack of cooperation that existed before, especially in light of the current pandemic and the lessons that have been learned from this pandemic. The cooperation between Federal health Agencies and the intelligence community will strengthen ties between them for decades to come, and the American people will be better served by the increased communication. Simply put, increased communication will save lives.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, recently, the Biden administration withdrew a proposed Trump administration rule that would have required universities and K-12 schools to identify their connections with Confucius Institutes, which are very much connected to the country of China and, I would even say, to the Communist Party of China, which may be one and the same. I have asked the Biden administration about that move, but the administration has failed to respond to date. So I am here today to discuss four areas wherein the administration must be tough with China as well as with other countries. Since April 2015, I have conducted oversight on several key aspects of foreign efforts to influence Members of Congress and the American public. First, I have focused on the equal, fair, and aggressive enforcement of transparency laws. An example of one transparency law that I will focus on is the Foreign Agents Registration Act. I first raised concerns about the Foreign Agents Registration Act in April 2015, when it became very apparent that it wasn't being used hardly at all. Historically, it hasn't been used very much, and people have been getting away without registering under that act. It may be OK to represent a foreign country or a foreign interest, but at least we in Congress ought to know about it, and, in turn, the American people ought to know who you are and whom you are speaking for. In 1938, Congress passed that law for the purpose then of exposing Nazi propaganda and identifying foreign attempts to influence policymakers as well as the American public. Last updated in 1966, the Foreign Agents Registration Act requires those who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and foreign interests to register their affiliations and activities with our Justice Department. The Foreign Agents Registration Act reflects the fundamental principle that transparency brings accountability. Until recently, however, the law has been seldom used. The Foreign Agents Registration Act ought to be better enforced and also be equally enforced. That is why I worked to expose holes in the existing law and then find ways through additional legislation to shore it up or even use oversight to see that the Justice Department takes its use with more certainty and with more force. As a result of those efforts, last session, I introduced a bipartisan bill that goes by the title of ``Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act.'' Since it wasn't passed in the last Congress, I will be reintroducing it this session. The bill requires the Justice Department for the first time to craft a comprehensive enforcement strategy and to release advisory opinions to promote that transparency. It gives investigators new tools, including civil investigative demand authority, to help identify violations. Last Congress, the bill had support from Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein of the Judiciary Committee and Chairman Rubio and Vice Chairman Warner of the Intelligence Committee. It also had bipartisan support on the Foreign Relations Committee, including from Senators Shaheen, Rubio, Murphy, and Young, who have all worked to shine a light on foreign influence. We also had the signoff from the chairman of that committee, also with support from the Trump administration. Unfortunately, when Senator Cornyn and I joined on the floor just before Christmas to ask for unanimous consent for the passage of this bill that had such broad bipartisan support, the Democrats objected even though it had this bipartisan, multicommittee support. So I strongly urge the Biden administration to join my efforts in making commonsense, bipartisan reforms to the Foreign Agents Registration Act and to make it a priority. My bill gets the job done. The second point I want to raise is that I have focused my oversight on increasing nontraditional espionage activities and foreign threats targeting taxpayer-funded research. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2018, I convened a hearing regarding Chinese nontraditional espionage against the United States. In that hearing, both DOJ and FBI officials made very clear that the threat to our universities and taxpayer-funded research from foreign governments, especially China, is real and it is ongoing. For example, the Department of Justice witness stated: We need to adapt our enforcement strategy to reach non- traditional collectors, including researchers in labs, universities, and the defense industrial base, some of whom may have undisclosed ties to Chinese institutions and conflicting loyalties. The FBI witness stated that China's talent recruitment programs are effectively ``brain gain programs'' that ``encourage theft of intellectual property from U.S. institutions.'' In June of 2019, when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I held a hearing on foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research which focused heavily on China's theft and China's espionage within our research community here in the United States. After the hearing, I organized a classified committee briefing on the topic from the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general, and the Department of Homeland Security. The Trump administration ramped up government efforts to investigate and prosecute researchers for stealing intellectual property and research. The Biden administration must continue those aggressive efforts if they want to be taken seriously. Those efforts are more important now than ever. For example, during the COVID pandemic, China has used cyber attacks to try to steal COVID-related research. Third, another focus of mine has been on propaganda efforts within our schools and universities. Specifically, that concerns China's Confucius Institutes. As an extension of the Chinese Government, the Confucius Institutes are a foreign principal for purposes of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. According to reporting, the strategic goal of the Chinese Government is to place its institutes within existing colleges and universities in order to influence perceptions of the Communist government in China under the guise of teaching Chinese language, Chinese culture, and Chinese history. In other words, we have to see this problem with open eyes. In light of these factors, in October of 2018, I wrote to the Justice Department and asked why it had yet to require individuals working for Confucius Institutes to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Then, in March of 2020, I wrote to dozens of schools asking that they get a briefing from the FBI on the threats Confucius Institutes bring to the academic environment. I have also strongly backed Senator Kennedy's Confucius Act--that is the title of the bill--which passed the Senate just last week. In part, that bill mandates that if a school wants an institute on campus, that school must have full managerial and academic control, not control from the Chinese Government. China's threats to our security are very real. They are known and show no sign of stopping. It is a very good sign that in the past couple of years, many universities and colleges have cut ties with Confucius Institutes. Probably some of those were on those respective campuses for a long period of time. The Biden administration must use every tool at its disposal to protect and defend our national security from this Communist threat, which is why I wrote to the Biden Department of Homeland Security on February 11 this year regarding its withdrawal of the Confucius rule, which I thought was a very good step forward from the previous administration. Among the questions I asked of the Department, two relate to whether the Biden administration considers the Confucius Institute to be an extension of the Communist Chinese Government as well as being purveyors of Communist Chinese propaganda. That ought to be easily recognized, and I imagine our President does recognize it, but I want to have him tell me so. So far, that Department has thus far failed to respond. The Biden administration would be wise to answer both in the affirmative to clearly state to the country and the world where it stands regarding China's gigantic propaganda machine, of which the Confucius Institutes are only a small part. In other words, besides going after the Confucius Institutes, we have to have our eyes open to every way that the Communist Chinese and their government is trying to influence things in this country, as well as stealing things from our country. Lastly, I want to highlight a very important issue that has recently been brought to my attention. Upon entering office, President Biden fired all U.S. Executive Directors at multilateral development banks who were currently serving out their terms. Some of these multilateral development banks are the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It has been U.S. tradition for incoming Presidents to allow these nonpartisan U.S. Executive Directors to serve in their positions until their term ends regardless of whatever administration put them in those positions. This tradition is meant to ensure that the United States maintains a consistent authoritative presence and engagement within those multilateral institutions. In the last administration, the United States was tough on China through these development banks, and we were hoping that these people would be left in place so they could continue that tough-on-China approach. The Executive Directors who were in their respective positions made it a point to defend U.S. strategic interests by building coalitions aimed at eroding Chinese influence, which has been allowed to grow at an alarming extent. There is quite a push by the Chinese Communist Government to get involved in the highest levels of almost every international organization, not just these banks that I am talking about. Removing these U.S. leaders from their positions prior to their terms expiring and with no replacements even nominated isn't an example of the United States leading; this is an example of our country ceding its duties and responsibilities on the world stage. In addition to my unanswered letters, the Biden administration should inform Congress as to why it removed all Executive Directors from their positions prior to their terms expiring. I hope President Biden knows China is aggressively growing its influence in these multilateral organizations, so now isn't the time to abandon the field. There is no time to be weak with China. We must work tirelessly to protect our way of life and our national security from the ever-present threat of the Communist Chinese Government. At the same time, we must build on the foundation that the Trump administration created to protect American taxpayers from foreign theft and espionage and propaganda. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have spoken on the Senate floor recently on the subject of free speech as it applies to the world of digital media. The principles of free speech are timeless and are applicable to new forms of communication. Still, it is natural that new questions will arise and new mechanisms might be needed to apply those principles across new modes of communication. What shouldn't be in question is the need for open dialogue and freedom of speech in academia. Otherwise, what does the principle of academic freedom mean if it isn't involved with freedom of speech? All of the progress that has made modern life possible has been the result of individuals who have been able to think of things in new ways, even if that challenged an old orthodoxy. A healthy and vibrant academic environment is not afraid of those challenges. Only stagnant, defensive, and unconfident regimes suppress speech. Think about the recent protests in Russia, Belarus, or Burma. China's restrictions on the internet and suppression of minorities show that it is threatened by contrary ways of thinking. Which would you describe as an advanced, stable, and dynamic society: North Korea or South Korea? Obviously, that describes South Korea well. It does not at all describe that part of the Korean Peninsula north of the 38th parallel. So what does it say about so many American academic institutions that the notion of free thought and free speech has now become controversial? What purpose do universities serve if one of the purposes is not to discuss controversial subjects? I often say my definition of a university is where controversy runs rampant. We hear lots of rationales about why the current generation of college students needs to be protected from hearing speech that could be offensive, hateful, or just plain wrong. Of course, none of us support hateful speech. I don't support it, but I do support freedom. If you empower those in authority to limit hate speech, whether they be college administrators or government officials, that power will eventually be abused to limit dissenting points of view of all kinds, and that is where some universities are right now. Even in Iowa's three public universities, we have seen recent efforts to shut down mainstream, center-right views. For instance, a dean at the University of Iowa sent an email across a university platform criticizing a Trump administrative Executive order, but at that same university, when a student challenged the position of the dean using the very same medium, the student was threatened with disciplinary action. Well, the dean has since apologized for his initial handling of the subject, so I don't raise that to pick on him. In fact, that very dean has befriended me in very many ways and in thoughtful ways as well. But it just makes you wonder if it is part of a broader cultural trend in academia, what went on in that instance at the University of Iowa. Then there was an English professor at Iowa State University who had to be reprimanded for banning her students from writing papers expressing certain viewpoints such as opposition to abortion or same- sex marriage. The president of my alma mater, the University of Northern Iowa, had to step in to reverse a decision by the student senate denying a group of pro-life students student organization status purely because of their political views. In each case, the university administrations of these three universities ultimately resolved these incidents well and properly so. I mention them not to pick on my State of Iowa's universities and not to criticize any university, for that matter, but because they seem to be examples of a broader trend on campuses across the country of a knee-jerk reaction to shut down speech some find disagreeable. The best response to the expression of views that you find repugnant is speech that points out the errors of that particular way of thinking. Now, I think that is best expressed by the University of Chicago's policy, which has become kind of a gold standard for free speech advocacy on university campuses. The University of Chicago expressly prohibits obstructing or otherwise interfering with freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. If you are confident in the rightness of your views and you have an environment that allows free expression of those views, you need not fear speech you find wrong. Of course, that assumes that human beings are all gifted with the power of reason and can discern what is right. Now, if it happens that that is not the case, if people cannot be trusted to listen to different views and come to the right conclusion, then there is no basis for democracy and our system of self-government, then, is fundamentally flawed. You can shield students from hearing challenging and uncomfortable views while in college but not when they get out in the real world. Just think of these college students who are on campus. What if they had left high school for the world of work? They would be faced with all these things every day. So what is special about a college campus? In fact, it is so special that you ought to have a discussion of all these subjects. Academic institutions that do not allow for student views to be challenged, to be tested, to be refined through rigorous debate are doing those very same students a very great disservice. These students' knowledge will be limited, then, and their views unsophisticated. Their ability to deal with different ways of thinking, which they will inevitably encounter throughout their lifetime, will be greatly diminished. I feel sorry for students who graduate from colleges that cocoon them from controversy. Let me repeat what I said at the beginning. I have always thought of a university as a place where controversy should run rampant. The notion that the voices students hear must be curated for their own good is concerning, not just because it has a totalitarian ring but because it is harming students in the long run, when they have to deal with the real world. If students are showing up on campus unable to cope emotionally with hearing conflicting viewpoints, that is a problem of their upbringing and education to that point, before they go to that university. It is something colleges need to confront head-on for their students' well- being. Further shielding students from having their views challenged and then sending them out in the world thinking they are prepared is a recipe for failure. Americans seem to be losing the ability to understand the point of view of those with whom they disagree. That is an unrealistic point of view for Americans to have. It is a failure to teach about freedom. Questioning of motives has replaced principled argument. Shouting insults has displaced logical debate. Don't you see, this is a societal trend that increasingly is reflected in the Halls of Congress--right here. Those who have attended institutions of higher education should have to be exposed to the great thinkers of the past and the present, be able to argue points logically, and, more importantly, understand the points of those whom they are trying to persuade or refute. College graduates should be models of civil discourse. Instead, they are too often the vanguard of the closing of the American mind. For the sake of their students and for the benefit of society, I urge college administrators, trustees, alumni, and all Americans who value the free exchange of ideas to work toward reversing this trend. Open debate may seem contentious at times, but it is the only path toward mutual understanding, which is so needed right now in American society, our less-than-civil American society, which that less-than- civil American society tends to show up in a democracy that has representative government where, if you are really going to have representative government, wouldn't you expect some of what is happening at the grassroots to show up here in the Halls of Congress? And we do see it all the time, to our shame.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk, and I ask that it be reported.