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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, we are going to take a procedural vote on Kash Patel's nomination to be Director of the FBI. I want to take a few minutes to express my support for his nomination and to urge my Democratic colleagues to consider voting for this nomination. Mr. Patel's resume doesn't look like a normal one for an FBI Director, but everybody knows in this Congress and maybe in the United States that we are not living in normal times. As I have exposed through my oversight work, the FBI has been infected by politicalization, and this storied Agency has been weaponized against political opponents. Mr. Patel is the right man at the right time. His career has been a study in fighting for unpopular but righteous causes, exposing corruption, and putting America first. Mr. Patel has served as a public defender, a counterterrorism prosecutor under President Obama, and a House staffer. In the House, he worked to expose Crossfire Hurricane as a political hit job that was based on discredited information paid for--would you believe it?--by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. After exposing the Russiagate scandal in Congress, Mr. Patel then went on to serve as Senior Director of Counterterrorism at the National Security Council, Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and Chief of Staff to the Acting Secretary of Defense. He has fought for transparency and accountability in government. I have fought for this in Congress for decades. That is the right approach because everybody knows that more transparency in government brings accountability by those of us serving in the government. In other words, the public business should be public. Because of his efforts in exposing corruption, Mr. Patel has been relentlessly attacked, as we have seen over the last 2 months. These smears began long before his confirmation hearing. I understand why he has been targeted in this way. He exposed a threat to the existing system--a system that has retaliated against whistleblowers, engaged in unprecedented lawfare against the President and the American people, and obstructed congressional oversight. Mr. Patel will end these abuses. He will restore the FBI to its essential mission of keeping Americans safe. Mr. Patel's vision for a new FBI is why he has been endorsed by organizations representing more than 680,000 law enforcement officers and by dozens of former and current FBI agents, State attorneys general, and U.S. attorneys. They trust Mr. Patel, and we should as well. I urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Patel's nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the nomination of Brooke Rollins of Texas to be Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. I met Mrs. Rollins during President Trump's first term when we worked together to pass the largest criminal justice reform legislation since the 1990s, the First Step Act. Now, she is focusing on her agricultural roots, having grown up participating in 4-H and FFA. I am encouraged by her attention to detail and hard work, something I am sure will serve her and America's farmers well. Mrs. Rollins is taking on a large role, leading 100,000 employees, making policy decisions that will affect family farmers across the country, and impact the efficiency and transparency of government. In her confirmation hearing, Mrs. Rollins assured me that she would, to the best of her ability, respond to my letters and make the Department of Ag a place where whistleblowers can come forward confidently. I look forward to working with this highly capable nominee to advance policies that will help Iowa farmers, including the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and advocating for new markets for our ag products.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the third time, I come to the Senate floor to ask my Democrat colleagues if they will respect the Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee. That committee voted unanimously to approve Mrs. Rollins to be Secretary of Agriculture. There should be no reason to spend 30 hours of debate, and it would show disrespect for the Democrats on the Agriculture Committee not to approve her unless we did it by unanimous consent.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, sometime today, we are voting on the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard. She is going to be Director of National Intelligence after she is confirmed. Until she was nominated, I only knew her from seeing her in media sound bites and what other people wrote about her. She came to my office, and we had a very good, very substantive conversation. I determined that she is very smart and obviously an articulate person. In our discussion, we covered many of her past statements on various policy matters, and she was able to clarify what the media got right and what the media got wrong. Obviously, since she served in the Congress of the United States as a Democrat, I and she may not agree on every policy. However, Representative Gabbard made clear that she does not see her position as Director of National Intelligence as a policymaking position. She understands that President Trump is the one who was elected. As Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's job will be simply to make sure that the intelligence community is able to provide the best unbiased information to help President Trump make the proper decisions. She and I also spoke about some of my past oversight work regarding the intelligence community. I have had mixed results in getting legitimate information that I have sought, depending upon who was in that particular position. For instance, when Rick Grenell became the Acting Director of National Intelligence, I suddenly and surprisingly got material that I had asked for after being totally stonewalled by previous Directors of National Intelligence. Based on my conversation, I expect Tulsi Gabbard, along with CIA Director Ratcliffe, will ensure that the intelligence community will be forthcoming and fully responsible to Congress as we in Congress exercise our constitutional responsibility not only to pass laws and appropriate money but to be a check on the executive branch of government to see that a President--whether that President is Republican or Democrat--faithfully executes the laws as required by the Congress of the United States. On another matter, yesterday, I took a minute or two to address the Senate to remind my other 99 Senators--which I do not have to remind the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee--that our nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, Mrs. Rollins, was voted out of committee unanimously. You would think, then, that if both Republicans and Democrats think that Mrs. Rollins is the proper person to be Secretary of Agriculture, she would be quickly approved for that position unanimously here in the U.S. Senate and maybe even be lucky enough to do it on a voice vote. Now, I don't know what is going to happen, but I do know that we are going to be sitting around the U.S. Senate today for several hours to see whether we are going to vote on Ms. Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence or we are going to have that disposed of very quickly and get down to work. But the people in this country send us to the U.S. Senate to actually do work. And when you are sitting around just waiting for a decision from the minority of when they are going to allow us to vote on this particular nomination or how we are going to handle Mrs. Rollins for Secretary of Agriculture, nothing is getting done, and we are wasting a lot of the taxpayers' time with a lot of important decisions that have to be made, even after we approve all the members of the Cabinet. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, after the Gabbard nomination, the next issue up for consideration by the Senate is cloture on the Robert F. Kennedy nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. This Cabinet position is responsible for implementing the administration's health agenda. As Secretary, Mr. Kennedy must spend his time focused on improving the health of all Americans, ensuring HHS is transparent and accountable to congressional oversight, and respecting whistleblowers. I think Kennedy has made it very clear, in life as a citizen, talking about improving the health of all Americans. So I would like to outline some of the priorities that Mr. Kennedy should focus on at Health and Human Services. And, obviously, I am asking him to focus on things and issues that are very dear to my heart and take up a lot of my time as a Senator from Iowa and a person very concerned about the quality of healthcare in rural America. Our country spends more than $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare. Growing healthcare costs don't just strain Americans' pocketbooks. Healthcare is also a major driver of widening budget deficits and the Federal Government's unsustainable fiscal outlook. We are not getting our money's worth for all of that spending. Major healthcare programs spending eats up 34 percent of the Federal revenue today, and that will grow to 41 percent of revenue by 2055. Mr. Kennedy must--and I think he is committed to--ensure that the key health programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, are protected and strengthened by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. The nominee must increase transparency and accountability. These actions will help make our healthcare system more efficient for the taxpayers and the consumers. I am the author of major and more recent updates to the Federal Government's most powerful tool in fighting fraud, and that is people that use the False Claims Act. Since the enactment of this legislation--I am talking about reforms to the False Claims Act--the Federal Government has recovered more than $78 billion lost to fraud and saved billions more by deterring would-be fraudsters. People in the Justice Department, both Republican and Democrat, say that the False Claims Act is their best tool to get after these fraudsters. In the 1 year of just 2024--and Attorney General Garland reported this to me just a couple of days before he left office--in 2024, there was more than $2.9 billion in False Claims Act settlements and judgments, with $1.7 billion of it involving the healthcare industry. Now, as you know, I listen to a lot of whistleblowers, and whistleblowers were responsible for helping to recover nearly all of that $1.7 billion. And I think I discussed the False Claims Act and the use of it by soon-to-be Secretary Kennedy. He seemed to be very enthused about listening to whistleblowers and use of the False Claims Act, and I think that he was probably being made aware of it for the first time. So I hope he will look into how he can use this act and, particularly, by listening to reports from whistleblowers of the waste of taxpayers' money. Now, the Justice Department and HHS, in combination, need to more aggressively go after healthcare waste, fraud, and abuse and empower and encourage whistleblowers. My top healthcare priority is lowering the cost of prescription drugs. We can start by putting more sunshine on pharmacy benefit managers' practices and holding these PBMs accountable. We should also establish price transparency on prescription drug TV ads. Knowing what something costs before buying it is just common sense and very helpful to the consumer. Transparency will bring more accountability and lower costs to consumers. Mr. Kennedy must also protect and improve access to rural healthcare. The previous administration dragged its feet in opening up spots for what is termed the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration programs. HHS must also listen to the concerns from rural pharmacies and ensure rural hospitals benefit from additional physician slots that Congress has authorized. I look forward to strengthening the new and voluntary rural emergency program to ensure that it is working for rural communities, extending telehealth access, and supporting physicians getting a fair reimbursement under Medicare. I also expect HHS to support healthy moms and babies by improving care, coordination, and using telehealth in rural areas. HHS should work with me to support kids with complex medical needs so these kids and their families are getting the right care at the right time and at the right place. Our programs helping support kids with complex medical needs covers probably six or--well, depending on how many problems these kids have--but they have to navigate across several different programs, and what we are trying to do through legislation we pass is to have help so that when you have to see five or six different specialists, you have somebody saying what is available and what can we do to help you make access to all this. I also expect HHS to protect the most vulnerable and older Americans. I have spoken at length with Mr. Kennedy about some comments that he made in regard to agriculture, and I have heard from farmers in Iowa and agricultural organizations and commodity groups in the State, fearful that Mr. Kennedy has some radical ideas on agriculture. At the end of the hour meeting I had in his office, prior to his hearing before the Finance Committee, I was calmed quite a bit by what he told me about his views on agriculture. I hope that that calm can be maintained. But if it is not, Mr. Kennedy is sure to hear from me. So when we talked about this in my office, Mr. Kennedy prefaced our initial conversation by saying that he, as HHS Secretary, will not have jurisdiction over agricultural issues. So you can expect that I will expect him to leave agriculture practices regulations to the proper Agencies and, for the most part, that is the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. I have also sent letters to Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS requiring--requesting they provide information regarding conflicts of interest on the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee to increase transparencies. The problem there is that there is a feeling among a lot of members of the Advisory Committee that they may have an unjustified conflict of interest in what they are suggesting we eat and the type of diet we have. So I expect Mr. Kennedy to provide Congress with a confidential financial disclosure from the Advisory Committee before finalizing dietary guidelines so that we know that nobody has a vested interest in however those guidelines are written. On issues of healthcare and agriculture, Mr. Kennedy said in his nomination hearing: I agree with all of those provisions-- I am quoting him now. I agree with all of those provisions, Senator. Meaning this Senator. My approach to [the] administration [of] HHS will be radical transparency. If members of this committee or other members of [the committee] want information, the doors are open. . . . [I]f Congress asks me for information, you will get it immediately. That is the end of the quote. I don't know whether people, even in the Senate here but particularly outside, know how refreshing it is to have a member of the Cabinet say: If Congress asks me for information, you would get it immediately. Because over the years that I have been in the U.S. Senate, it doesn't matter whether it is a Republican or Democrat administration, carrying out our constitutional responsibilities to see that--checks and balances to see that the executive branch and the President faithfully executes the laws is not an easy process, and we have difficulty getting answers to our questions. Now, I don't know how much of this--I have had trouble with HHS in the past, but I know when Pam Bondi came to my office, I showed her a file of 158 letters that I had written to the Justice Department in the last 4 years to get information and documents in regard to my investigations of wrongdoing, and most of them weren't answered. Or if we got answers, it was merely words on a sheet of paper. Not very helpful. So thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for your promise. And I am going to quote again: If Congress asks me for information, you will get it immediately. Because that is what our job is. Every high school student learns in government about checks and balances of government, that we not only pass laws and we not only appropriate money, but we have a responsibility to the taxpayers and the citizens of this country to make sure that a President does what the Constitution says he should do: faithfully execute the laws. And Cabinet people are bound by that same thing. Every Cabinet member that comes to my office, I tell them about the importance of our constitutional responsibility of oversight, answering our letters, and listening to whistleblowers. And in regard to answering letters, everybody that comes before a committee is asked by the chairman of that committee: Will you answer our letters? And everybody says yes. And I advise them to say ``maybe'' so that they aren't turned out to be liars. So I expect Mr. Kennedy's Agency to provide timely and complete responses to congressional oversight. Oversight allows us to hold bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law and helps keep faith with the taxpayers. So I look forward to working with Mr. Kennedy to improve the health of all Americans, make our healthcare system more efficient, and ensure HHS's adherence to Kennedy's radical transparency commitment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, one short issue to just make mention, and then I want to pay tribute to an Iowan. This week we are going to vote on the Secretary of Agriculture to be confirmed for the Cabinet. That person was voted out of committee unanimously. So I think it is ridiculous for the minority--for a committee where every Democrat and every Republican voted for this nominee--to have even 1 minute of debate. It ought to be approved by unanimous consent. Now, it may not be, but at least I expressed my opinion, and I gave a rationale why that should be done. We shouldn't be spending 30 hours of debate on somebody that has been approved unanimously by the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, sometime today, we are confirming Scott Turner as the new Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. As a former NFL cornerback, developer, State and local official, and Executive Director of the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council, Mr. Turner understands the challenges facing American communities. While the vast majority of housing and development issues are solved at the local and State level, I certainly understand how the Federal Government and the programs utilized by many Iowa individuals, families, and communities assist with making our cities the best place to live, work, and play. I look forward to working with Scott Turner to advance Iowa's priorities and sound policies for our Nation. Even though I did not meet with Scott Turner in my office, as I do with most nominees for the Cabinet, I stressed to him today the importance of responding to congressional letters and inquiries, and I will have an example on that in just a minute. I want to explain that Congress has the constitutional duty to perform oversight over the executive branch and, as we learn in our high school government classes, what we call checks and balances. Congress not only passes laws and appropriates money, but we have a responsibility to make sure that those laws are faithfully executed by whoever is President of the United States. Oversight then allows us to hold bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law, and it helps keep the faith with taxpayers, because, if we have transparency in government, we have greater accountability of the government product or lack thereof. Let me give you an example where congressional oversight has been much needed at Housing and Urban Development. Congress passed legislation that became effective July 2013 that requires Federal contracts to include anti-retaliation protections for contractor employees. This works to make sure that whistleblowers are protected. However, over the last decade, the HUD inspector general found that thousands of HUD contractors lacked these whistleblower protections because the Agency failed to adequately update past contracts to include whistleblowers and whistleblower protections. Last August, following up on my responsibility to investigate, I requested answers and records about these findings, but Housing and Urban Development, under the Biden administration, failed to fully respond and provide responsive records. I fully expect Mr. Turner, as the new Secretary, to respond to all the congressional inquiries in a timely and responsible manner. I look forward to working with this new Secretary to support long- term housing and revitalization policies to keep our communities, our States, and our Nation strong. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, we will vote on the nomination of Russ Vought to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Mr. Vought served as the OMB Director for much of President Trump's first term, and before that, he was Deputy Director of the same Agency. So he is clearly qualified for this job. My discussions with Mr. Vought focused on the Nation's dismal fiscal trajectory, overregulation, congressional oversight, and respect for whistleblowers. With the Federal Government running a $2 trillion annual deficit and a national debt approaching $37 trillion, a fiscally sound budget is more important than ever, and I am counting on Mr. Vought to help the President chart a new fiscal path that will not be an easy job. In addition to reining in spending, Mr. Vought understands the need to cut redtape. For too long, overzealous and unelected bureaucracies have sought to use regulation to stretch the meaning of laws beyond congressional intent. The Supreme Court's recent decision, last year, in Loper Bright should be used by OMB to place a check on out-of- control rulemaking. Mr. Vought and I also had a good discussion on the importance of responding to congressional letters and respecting whistleblowers. He not only agreed with me but expressed an interest in helping ensure timely responses to Congress and respect for whistleblowers as the norm across government Agencies. I look forward to working with Mr. Vought to right-size the Federal Government.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the enclosed rules of procedure for the committee on the Judiciary for the 119th Congress printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in a few minutes--probably shortly, I should say--we will vote to confirm Pam Bondi as the Attorney General of the United States. Before we do, I would like to speak in support of her nomination and, in doing that, urge my colleagues to vote for her, hopefully in a bipartisan way like we did for Garland under the Biden administration. Ms. Bondi has been nominated to one of the most important offices in our country, and she has shown that she is up to that task. Her impressive record and presentation at her hearing are proof that she is ready to take the helm of the Justice Department. Ms. Bondi made history in 2010 as the first woman elected to be Florida's attorney general. She held this role for 8 years after she was comfortably reelected by the people of Florida to that second term. Eight years of service as attorney general of the third largest State in this Union is excellent preparation for the role of Attorney General of the United States. As Florida's attorney general, Ms. Bondi was a member of the Florida cabinet, its chief legal officer, and led a very large agency. She handled many issues at the State level that she will be handling at the Federal level, and by all accounts, she has handled those jobs expertly. As attorney general, Ms. Bondi didn't shy away from hard work or complicated problems. She engaged in an aggressive campaign to eliminate pill mills, took a leading role in securing a $3\1/4\ billion settlement following the Deepwater Horizon oilspill, and eliminated the backlog of rape kits. She also stood for law and order and sought justice for victims of violent criminals. Her record shows that she is highly qualified to be Attorney General of the United States. During her confirmation hearing, Ms. Bondi answered questions for more than 5 hours. What we learned during her hearing reinforced what we knew from her existing record as attorney general of Florida: She is a tough, fair, career prosecutor who built her reputation by enforcing the rule of law--pretty simple. We also heard from witnesses who praised Ms. Bondi's character, fairness, and willingness to work with members of both parties to solve the problems in Florida, and we are sure she is going to work the same way as Attorney General of the United States. What did we hear from these witnesses? We heard from an elected Democrat who never voted for President Trump. He said Ms. Bondi was fair, tethered to the rule of law, and could work with both Democrats and Republicans to serve the American people. We heard from Florida's statewide prosecutor, who praised her competence running the legal department, as I have said, of the third largest State in the Union. We heard from a Florida sheriff, who testified about her commitment to law and order and to her partnership with law enforcement to keep Floridians safe. These witnesses have worked with Ms. Bondi for decades, and they all vouch for her capability and character. Ms. Bondi's nomination has also received a flood of support from all across America. I have a group of people here that have expressed their view through letters to the committee. Law enforcement groups representing more than 650,000 officers wrote to urge us to support Ms. Bondi's nomination. A few of these groups include the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, Major County Sheriffs, National Narcotic Officers' Associations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and still some others. This support is a testament to Ms. Bondi's history of backing the blue. We should all be backing the blue. I just met with some law enforcement people just before coming over here, and I tell every one of them, I am not for defunding the police, and thank you for keeping the peace. We have also received letters of support from more than 100 former senior Department of Justice officials, scores of former U.S. attorneys, dozens of State attorneys general, women's rights groups, Second Amendment groups, and, of course, others. Between her record, her presentation in committee, and the support she has received from across the country, I am convinced that Ms. Bondi is the right choice. When confirmed, Ms. Bondi will take the helm of what we all know is a turbulent time and also a Justice Department infected with political decision making and its leaders refusing to acknowledge that reality; in other words, political decision making at least on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building overtaking the major role of the FBI, and the FBI is part of the Justice Department. They aren't putting first things first. Here are a few examples of political decision making and infection in the Department: Crossfire Hurricane; secondly, the Justice Department's targeting my staff--yes, that is right, my investigative staff--who at the time was investigating, at my direction, the government's abuse in Crossfire Hurricane; thirdly, coverup of the Hunter Biden laptop story and sweetheart plea deals offered by the Department of Justice to Hunter Biden; fourth, the FBI's inappropriate briefing to me and Senator Johnson during our Biden family investigation that was later leaked, and nothing is supposed to be leaked from what we call the SCIF; fifth, Special Counsel Jack Smith's lawfare operation--in other words, trying to put now-President Trump in jail; sixth, the targeting of traditional Catholics, concerned parents, and abortion protesters as security threats; and, seventh, the coordination of censorship of political speeches. I don't have an eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, but they exist. I am not going to take your time on that. All of these things that I mentioned, plus things I haven't mentioned, are very serious breaches of the public trust, and we can't tolerate that sort of breach. I am confident Ms. Bondi will not tolerate that breach, and I am looking forward to working with her to shed sunlight on these abuses. And sunlight, as some Supreme Court Justice said, is the best attack against--oh, my gosh, I forgot exactly what it was. But sunshine coming in will really solve a lot of problems. This is the way I put it. I say we need more transparency in government, and transparency brings accountability. I have already released new FBI records, in fact, just last week, with Senator Johnson that show even more political bias within the Justice Department and the FBI. These records prove that former FBI Special Agent in Charge Thibault, a known anti- Trump agent, authored the initial language for what ultimately became Jack Smith's Federal case against Trump regarding the 2020 Presidential election. That case was code-named ``Arctic Frost.'' I don't know where they get the name ``Arctic Frost,'' but that is what the case was called. These records that we released last week showed a scheme in place between the Justice Department and FBI officials to get Trump. I had to rely on brave whistleblowers to uncover the truth because I was stonewalled by the Justice Department and the FBI, and I was stonewalled even after they promised, at their own confirmation hearing, that they would answer the letters that Congressmen wrote them. We never got any answers. In fact, there are 58 questions, in the last 4 years, that I have written to the FBI on my investigations that I have not gotten answers to. So if you wonder why I am so passionate about Pam Bondi, I am confident that she is going to take a different approach and when she says ``yes'' for answering her letters, it will be yes, instead of what the other people should have said as the answer to that question, which is ``maybe.'' As the recent terrorist attacks in New Orleans and around the world have shown, we are faced with very serious threats to our national security. The President needs his team in place to protect our country, and the American people deserve a secure homeland and borders, safe streets, and orderly markets. We need to swiftly confirm a capable and serious Attorney General to get to work. I am disappointed that none of my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee voted for Ms. Bondi in committee. I hope it will be different when we get to the full Senate. We had a bipartisan vote, as I have said previously, for Attorney General Garland. Maybe, in hindsight, we shouldn't have had, but we did. There is no doubt that Ms. Bondi is highly qualified. In committee, several of my Democratic colleagues even acknowledged as much. She is qualified for the job. She represents mainstream views shared by at least the 77 million Americans who voted for change on November 5. This should earn her the same bipartisan support this body gave Attorney General Garland. That is the third time I have said that. If my colleagues will not cross the aisle to vote for this qualified nominee, they will show that Senate Democrats are intent on opposing President Trump's Cabinet picks for purely partisan reasons, even at the same time they admit how fully qualified she is to do the job. So ending now, I say once again, I proudly support Ms. Bondi. I look forward to confirming her. She is ready and able to serve our country well and I know she will work with President Trump to restore faith in the Justice Department. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in confirming Ms. Bondi. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the nominee for Secretary of Veterans Affairs that we will be voting on in a couple of hours. I have long considered myself a friend of veterans. The men and women who have put themselves in harm's way to serve our country, they deserve our full support, and they have mine. Too often, I hear from veterans in Iowa that the Department of Veterans Affairs makes it difficult for them to access healthcare and the services that we honor them with because they have defended our country. Whether this is expecting them to drive an unnecessary distance for their initial disability exam or making it more difficult to seek the care that they choose outside of the VA system, our veterans deserve much better. The VA needs to do better, which brings me to former Representative Doug Collins, President Trump's nominee to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Representative Collins, a veteran himself, recognizes the challenges veterans face with the VA. During his time in the House of Representatives, he was a supporter of giving veterans the choice on where to seek healthcare. He and I agree that the VA needs to do better by our veterans and taxpayers alike. This became more obvious to the public last year when the VA misled Congress by claiming the Department was going to face a shortfall in funding but, in fact, ended the fiscal year with a surplus--can you believe this?--in the billions. When I heard about this alleged shortfall, I joined my colleagues, led by the junior Senator from Alaska, to work to bring more transparency to the VA budget process. As I shared with Representative Collins, I will continue to do so. When we first met in my office, I gave Representative Collins my advice that I give to every nominee coming to the office because these people come before the committee, and one of the questions they are asked: Will you answer our letters? And they all say yes. But we know, as a matter of fact, that doesn't happen as often as it should. So I suggested to him that maybe instead of saying ``yes,'' he say ``maybe'' so he wouldn't turn out to be a liar ever, unlike the former Secretary of VA who did not feel the need to respond to even a bipartisan letter that I sent in October of 2024, alongside three of my colleagues, before that Secretary departed from his post. Now, Representative Collins understands the importance of being accountable and forthcoming to Congress because he has been a Member of Congress. So I thank Representative Collins for his service to our country, and I will look forward to voting positively on his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 10 a.m., to consider a nomination. committee on judiciary The Committee on Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 2:20 p.m., to conduct a closed business meeting. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sam Ruhe and Ivy Benjenk, two detailees in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the last 3 or 4 years, I have come to the floor to discuss with my colleagues information that I get from whistleblowers in the FBI and the Department of Justice, most of it dealing with the subject of the critical weaponization of people at the highest levels of the FBI and their violating of protocol, getting involved in political situations that the FBI has no business being in. Last week, when Mr. Patel was before my Judiciary Committee, I released some new emails that I have gotten that show further involvement of certain people in the case against Trump that Jack Smith headed up. I am here today because, when I released those emails, last week, there was a New York Times story that got it all wrong. So, today, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention a January 30, 2025, New York Times article from Adam Goldman and Alan Feuer about my and Senator Johnson's oversight of the FBI. In that article they said: ``FBI emails released Thursday showed that agents and officials followed standard procedure'' when opening the Trump elector case. Well, they read it wrong, and I am going to tell you why they read it wrong. The article written by these two can be summed up like this: a very wet kiss to the politically biased leadership within the FBI. Last week, Senator Johnson and I made public FBI records that showed a snapshot into the origins of the Jack Smith elector case against Trump. Those records included a February 14, 2022, email from Assistant Special Agent in Charge Thibault to his subordinate agent, Michelle Ball. The subject line of that email was ``Elector Matter.'' My office has been told that Thibault handpicked subordinate agents, including Michelle Ball and Jamie Garman, who are both referenced in the documents that I released, to conceal his role as an initiating agent. The documents Senator Johnson and I released support that. In the February 2022 email, Special Agent Thibault says, in part: ``Here is [the] draft opening language we discussed.'' Attached to that email is a Word document titled ``Elector.'' That Word document, when opened, contains information that became part of the predicating document that would later be approved to open the case code-named ``Arctic Frost.'' That was all about prosecuting then-Citizen Trump. When opening the Word document, it says this: ``Author: Timothy Thibault.'' It also says this: ``Last modified by: Timothy Thibault.'' Today, Senator Johnson and I will be publicly releasing a new email that we have obtained that was sent from Thibault to Michelle Ball and Jamie Garman on March 1, 2022. In the email, Thibault says: ``To add . . . will come by to discuss.'' The document was attached to the email, with language to be added to the Arctic Frost document opening the investigation against Trump. The document attached to the email lists the author and modifier as-- you guess it--Thibault. The document itself is titled ``Arctic Frost,'' and it adds President Trump as a criminal subject to the investigation. Notably, the document lists then-Chairman Durbin's 2021 investigative report on Trump to help justify that Trump yet fails to use my 2021 report, which provided much needed context. Now, the New York Times article said the FBI records Senator Johnson and I made public ``showed that agents and officials followed standard procedure,'' but that totally ignores the facts and evidence, let alone not even considering the FBI rules for making these determinations for opening a prosecution case. So I go to these rules. Section 7.7.1 in the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide--and that is, essentially, the FBI's manual--is titled, ``Opening Documentation.'' That rule shows the work flow approval and makes clear that supervisors--I want to emphasize ``supervisors''--are to approve the work product provided to them. The point here is Thibault did not conduct himself like that sort of a supervisor. In other words, the intent of this rule, based on its plain text, is that subordinate agents provide work product to supervising agents for the latter's approval. Should there be any doubt about this intent, look no further than section 3.5.2.3 titled ``No Self-Approval Rule.'' That rule says, in part: ``an approval official (and the rule uses the word supervisor to define this person) may not self-approve his/her own work activity. An independent evaluation and approval of these activities must be obtained, including the opening and closing of any Assessment or predicated investigation.'' Then the rule says this: ``In the event that an FBI employee errantly conducts a self-approval, the approval is considered substantial non- compliance and must be documented.'' So that leaves you with Thibault self-approving something that he wasn't supposed to self-approve. Moreover, another FBI document defines ``general roles and privileges'' of supervisors as this: ``Supervisor--assigns leads; approves documents; assigns squad current workload.'' None of this says that a supervisor like Thibault is allowed to draft and open a case and approve it for themselves. Based on the facts and the evidence that Senator Johnson and I have obtained to date, and based on the FBI's own rules, Thibault essentially self-approved his own case, in violation of FBI rules, which means this guy was out to get Trump as fast as he could. According to this case that, again, I say is named Arctic Frost, as they code-named the Trump case, it was defective from the very start, not only from a political infection standpoint but also because of substantial noncompliance with FBI rules. Getting back to the New York Times article, at this point, the paper simply is an FBI stenographer and propagandist, parroting FBI lies, claiming emails released by me and Senator Johnson ``showed that agents and officials followed standard procedure'' when opening Arctic Frost. As with most of the information in the leaks the FBI has laundered through Goldman, the truth is quite the opposite of the FBI and the New York Times' narrative. Does the New York Times believe that it is normal for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge to prepare case predication for the opening of an investigation and then feed it to a street agent? And add to that doing it to a former President of the United States. Is it normal for FBI agents to ignore sources that counteract the predication they so badly manufacture? Is it normal for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge to boast anti-Trump social media poses under his true name and title while he is overseeing the most politically sensitive investigation for the FBI? Is it normal for an Assistant Special Agent in Charge responsible for the most sensitive political investigations in the FBI to be forced to resign for partisanship on the job and then be found to have violated the Hatch Act for that same partisanship? It seems to this Senator that the New York Times has become the paid publicist of senior members of the FBI, an unethical quid pro quo of pushing their narratives in exchange for publishing false information. On the occasion of the latest article as a mouthpiece for nameless FBI sources, I invite the New York Times editorial board to undertake its own investigation into Goldman's receipt of one-sided law enforcement information leaked to him from FBI employees. Absent that, continued New York Times reporting in this area is inherently questionable. Now, I started this by talking about occasionally, from time to time, I come to the U.S. Senate floor to discuss information I get from whistleblowers that deals with the political weaponization of the FBI. I released some of those emails last week at the Patel hearing. Now, what Patel is all about, by President Trump appointing him to FBI Director, is simply to see that none of this stuff that I have discussed in previous speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate ever happens again and that the FBI is going to be a law enforcement Agency and not a political weaponization organization. And I say that about the people that are on the seventh floor of the Hoover FBI Building. I am not condemning the people that are working FBI cases in Iowa or any of the other 49 States because they are doing their job. But they should have the full support of the seventh floor of the building and not be concerned about prosecuting a former President of the United States, now reelected as the 47th President of the United States. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, January is National Blood Donor Month. Every two seconds someone in the United States needs blood. Yet less than 10 percent of the eligible population donates blood annually. Blood donations are especially critical for patients receiving an organ transplant, having surgery, premature infants, and those involved in car accidents. Regular blood donations can help your neighbor or a stranger. Following a natural disaster, we often hear the call for blood donations. Yet we often forget about it when those events pass. Blood donations are needed all the time. I encourage Iowans--I suppose I should encourage all Americans--who can donate blood to find their local blood center and donate today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, later today, we are going to have the first set of votes on the nomination of Pam Bondi to serve as Attorney General of the United States. Before we do, I would like to speak in support of her nomination. Ms. Bondi made history as the first woman elected as Florida attorney general. She served for 8 years and was easily reelected to a second term because she did such a great job. She fought against pill mills, eliminated the backlog of rape test kits, and stood for law and order. There is no doubt that Ms. Bondi is highly qualified. She is capable of doing the job well, and she represents mainstream views shared by at least 77 million Americans who voted for change in the 2024 election. This should earn her the same bipartisan support this body gave to Attorney General Garland, including this Senator. I am disappointed that none of my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee voted for Ms. Bondi, and I hope the full Senate takes a different approach. If my colleagues won't cross the aisle for this qualified nominee, they will show that their intent on opposing President Trump's picks are for purely partisan reasons. Ms. Bondi is ready and able to serve our country, and she will work with President Trump to restore faith in the Justice Department. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Ms. Bondi. Later today, we will be working on the nomination of Christopher Wright of Colorado to be Secretary of Energy. I rise now to speak in support of that nomination. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Wright affirmed that he would testify before Congress when called upon. And I would also expect him to answer any questions from me and my colleagues here in the Congress. I did not have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Wright, but if I had met with him, I would have told him about the importance of whistleblowers and the need to listen to whistleblowers--any of them-- in the Department of Energy. Mr. Wright has spoken of the need to build out domestic energy through the use of multiple sources. I subscribe to an ``all of the above'' energy philosophy. Some people only like all of the above the ground--wind and solar, as an example. Others only like all below the ground, like oil and gas. But when I say ``all of the above,'' I mean all of the above the ground and all the energy that can come from below the ground. Iowa fits into this philosophy as a leader in alternative energy production. Over 60 percent of Iowa's electricity comes from wind turbines, which also sustains over 4,000 jobs across the State. Iowa is the No. 1 State for biofuel production. Ethanol and biodiesel contribute nearly $5 billion to the Iowa economy, often supporting rural communities. Renewable natural gas is also a growing industry in Iowa, and I am hopeful to have nuclear energy join the generation mix once again as well. I look forward to working with Mr. Wright to continue supporting America's energy dominance through an ``all of the above'' approach. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Governor Doug Burgum of North Dakota will soon be our next Secretary of the Department of the Interior. I am going to support that nomination. I think he will be confirmed, but until that happens, we always say ``if confirmed.'' If confirmed, Mr. Burgum will play a critical role in balancing the importance of conserving our wildlife and natural resources, while also assisting in the enhancement of domestic energy production. Now, we must remember, over the last 4 years--in other words, under the Biden administration--many of our Nation's Federal lands were off limits for any type of use, and the excuse was for the sake of conservation. Though that is a broad stroke--the word ``conservation''--it wasn't made very clear what was meant. Many know that I have been a longtime advocate for transparency in the public's business because transparency brings accountability. Mr. Burgum will be expected to be transparent and forthcoming when leading the Department, and I expect that he will be, but especially when responding to letters from Members of Congress. If confirmed, Mr. Burgum will oversee several Bureaus and Agencies that all work together supporting the Interior Department's mission of protecting, of managing, and of honoring our Nation's natural resources and lands. On the topic of our country's resources, the United States has ample resources for energy production and generation, and President Trump winning the election has made clear that that is a top priority for him. And the President has created a special council on energy, and Mr. Burgum will be chairing that council. Now, I happen to be a believer, as I am sure Mr. Burgum is, in what you call an ``all of the above'' strategy on energy. An ``all of the above'' strategy really means just that, in other words, an emphasis upon what we have got energy from--fossil fuels--and that is declining in use, but it is still going to be around for a long, long time. It means all the energy--alternative energy--that we can create. It means conservation, and not necessarily conservation promoted by government but individual conservation. And, of course, nuclear, and nuclear brings to our attention a whole new generation of ways to produce nuclear energy. That is ``all of the above.'' And, of course, we ought to, in order to accomplish that, cut back on Biden-era regulations. These regulations seem to be very opaque. And, consequently, we would forge a fiscally sound path forward in regard to everything that less regulation would bring us. I believe that Mr. Burgum understands the need to support an ``all of the above'' approach to energy policy, given his leadership on that issue as Governor of the State of North Dakota. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, every so often, I come to the Senate floor to bring my colleagues up to date on the lack of financial management system in the Department of Defense. I am here again to address what I consider a festering bureaucratic sore. The Pentagon can't keep track of the taxpayers' money. And as I just indicated, I speak about this many times. In 30 years of watchdogging, little or nothing has happened. Internal controls over the taxpayers' money remain weak or nonexistent at the Department of Defense. And I am here today to speak specifically about a recent inspector general's audit, driving home that point. Specifically, auditors discovered $1.1 billion in undocumented payments by the Pentagon using funds Congress provided to assist Ukraine. They examined 479 transactions for the calendar year 2022, totaling $2.1 billion dollars. The auditors determined that 65 percent of the transactions could not be verified for a lack of documentation. If the sample were doubled in size, the inspector general estimated a staggering 94 percent would be unsupported. Now, we all agree that is unacceptable; or if we don't agree that that is unacceptable, there is something wrong with our thinking. The rules are crystal clear. Supporting documentation is required when paying bills. Proper documentary support should include a contract, travel authorization, invoice, receipts, payment voucher, or things like that. And I don't mean you have to have all those available to pay a bill, but you ought to have at least one of them or more before you spend the taxpayers' money. Now, taken together, these records form an audit trail essential for payment verification and fraud detection. If the documents match up, a bill is ready to pay. So $1.1 billion went out the door, and there is no documentation to back it up. I want to make very clear: That is an audit report, not Chuck Grassley saying that. So we don't know how that money was used. Was it spent to assist Ukraine as required, or was it misused or stolen? We simply don't know. Clearly, unsupported payments leave the door wide open to fraudsters. Paying bills without documentation shows neglect and indifference. It is reckless and should not be tolerated. These undocumented expenditures occurred on the watch of Chief Financial Officer--or as we know him CFO Mike McCord. Though Mike McCord has departed the Department, he and his deputies are accountable. They failed to exercise due diligence over the public's money. Such gross mismanagement is made worse by the Pentagon's pitiful accounting system--or as I said in my opening, the lack of a financial management system. Top managers turned a blind eye to this problem as well, just like a long line of their predecessors. Instead of modernizing, they kept pouring out billions down a rathole to upgrade ancient systems that belong on the junk heap. Why did such smart, experienced managers go down that rabbit hole? Why did they fail to acquire modern systems that could produce reliable information, effective controls, or clean opinions? Why has this problem not been fixed? There once was a bravehearted watchdog in the Air Force's Comptroller's who claimed to know the answer. Ernie Fitzgerald was that person's name. I knew him in the 1980s. He worked in the Defense Department until he retired maybe 20 years ago, and he probably died about 3 or 4 years ago. He had this to say: Leaders in the Pentagon don't want to fix it. Sloppy accounting gives them flexibility to hide their shenanigans. When there is no audit trail to follow, it is easy to make sneaky accounting adjustments to cover your backside. Pentagon managers have some explaining to do, and I am all ears. I want to give you just one recent example, and I am following up with the inspector general in the Pentagon to get some answers on this. Over a period of 6 years, until earlier last year when she pleaded guilty to--can you believe this--stealing $106 million out of the Defense Department. She was buying all kinds of homes and all kinds of expensive cars, and I don't have a long list of where $106 million went, but can you believe over a period of 5 years, there was nobody in the Defense Department who caught it? Eventually, after 6 years, the IRS discovered it, but she got away with it for 6 years. Now, she is prosecuted and 15 years in prison. She wasn't prosecuted--she pled guilty. But so I write to the IG to get an explanation of how come they have a financial management system--or a lack thereof--that doesn't catch somebody stealing $106 million. So I sent along, with those questions I am asking the IG, a report that I put out in 1998 that was a report of people stealing money at the Air Force base in Dayton, where they had this check-writing machine, and we found out that the person managing that check-writing machine could make checks out to people in his family. And there was about $5 million stolen at that particular time. And so we went to Dayton to study what was wrong, and what was wrong is exactly what this audit report shows today, they were writing checks without invoices. Now, you see, we pointed something out, what, 26 years ago or something like that, that was wrong with financial management in the Defense Department, and I--so I guess you could say the Defense Department has learned nothing in the last 26 years. And I just hope that they would take my report of 1998 and what is wrong with Janet Mello stealing $106 million and try to change the system. Now, we, in the Congress, with our power of oversight, or as you study in high school government, checks and balances of government, we appropriate money, we pass laws, but we don't enforce those laws. We have a constitutional responsibility to point out when the executive branch of government or the people in the executive branch of government aren't faithfully executing the laws that we pass or properly appropriate spending the money the way we appropriated. So we don't enforce the laws; we make the laws. We have oversight. But what do you do? You come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and try to raise Cain about it and get some changes made. But the Defense Department is a little bit different than any other Agency of the Federal Government because they are the only Agency of the Federal Government that has never had a clean audit. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here to back the nomination of Lee Zeldin of New York to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, so my vote will be yes in a few hours from now when we vote on that nomination. The EPA plays a very important regulatory role in the United States. Not only does it regulate pollution, like many Americans already know, but it also regulates many areas that impact Americans every day. As many farmers in Iowa know, the previous administration's EPA put out a regulation that would overregulate what we know in this town as waters of the United States or, as the leader just put it, WOTUS. This would have regulated 96 percent of the land in the State of Iowa, and that would subject that land to Federal water regulations. It would almost be impossible to do regular farming operations without wondering whether you were violating some regulation. That is what the leader just said. This regulation is not common sense. The EPA also oversees issues critical to agriculture, such as the approval and labeling of pesticides and other important tools for farmers. The EPA also oversees the renewable fuel standard and protects its integrity. The renewable fuel standard provides an important framework for biofuels, which benefits farmers by sustaining an additional market for their commodities. Besides, biofuels, or in Iowa because we are No. 1 in the production of ethanol, we like to say it is good for agriculture; it is good for good-paying jobs in rural America that we would never have without the ethanol industry; it is good for the environment because it is clean- burning; it is good for our national security--less reliance upon foreign sources of energy. There is everything about biofuels that is good, good, good. There is not a negative that you can come up with about them. In our meeting earlier this month in my office--Mr. Zeldin came there--I impressed upon him the far-reaching impact that his Agency has over the lives of farmers and all Americans. Mr. Zeldin assured me that he would be responsive to Congress and that he would provide ample time to provide transparency and market stability before regulations from his Agency are promulgated. Mr. Zeldin's assurance about making decisions on time is important because previously the required volume obligations dealing with biofuels and the small refinery exemptions have not been finalized in time to make the RVOs whole. This leads to less ethanol blending, which goes against President Trump's commitment to farmers and the ethanol industry, which Mr. Zeldin assured me that he supports. For the sake of Iowa farmers, I am hopeful that Mr. Zeldin stays true to his word. Just in case you wonder whether or not we have anything to fear from EPA in agriculture, I want to give you a little history that is now history, but it just shows you how, in this town, which I call an island surrounded by reality--the real America is outside of this island here--a few years ago, they were going to promote a rule that you would say is just unbelievable. You have to be telling us a story. They wouldn't be proposing this rule. It was called the fugitive dust rule. OK. The theory of the fugitive dust rule from EPA is that if you are farming and you create dust in the normal operations that go into a farming operation--plowing, disking, planting, spraying, whatever it might be, combining the harvest--that you are supposed to keep that dust within your property lines. Now, that is what EPA tried to promulgate. In fact, I think one time we thought we had it killed, and a couple of years later, it came up again. Now I think it is dead forever because it doesn't meet the commonsense test that a farmer working his fields can keep the dust within his property lines. So I tried to explain it to EPA Administrators this way in regard to the harvesting of soybeans, which leaves a lot of dust. I said that when soybeans are 13 percent moisture, it is very necessary that you very quickly harvest them because 13 percent is the most ideal time with that amount of moisture in soybeans. Do you know, to these Administrators, only God determines when the wind blows, and whether the wind is blowing or not, your soybeans are 13 percent, you have to get in there and combine them and not worry about where the dust goes, and you have about 2 weeks during the harvest season to accomplish the same goal. But, no kidding, that is what EPA was trying to do to agriculture a few years ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, we are confirming former Congressman Sean Duffy as the new Secretary of Transportation. Our Nation's infrastructure is essential to the economy, trade, and vitality of each of our 50 States. In Iowa, it is fundamental to moving our agriculture products, manufacturing goods, and, of course, our 3.3 million people. I have long supported sound, sustainable infrastructure policies that provide certainty to businesses, States, and the transportation community. I agree that businesses and State and local governments need long-term visions and plans to ensure our infrastructure networks remain strong and support our Nation's economic growth and competitiveness. We are soon faced, in this body and in the entire Congress, with reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation laws. I am glad that Congressman Duffy understands, from representing Northwest Wisconsin, that rural America has many infrastructure needs--as many as urban areas. I supported the bipartisan infrastructure bill to provide needed funding to repair and replace Iowa's aging infrastructure. I look forward to working with him to advance Iowa's priorities and sound policies for the Nation. Now, in the case of Secretary Duffy, even though I didn't meet with him in my office, like I do a lot of nominees, I stress today the importance of responding to congressional letters and inquiries. Congress has a constitutional duty to perform oversight over the executive branch for, as we learn in high school civics, what we call checks and balances. Congress not only passes laws and appropriates money, but we have a responsibility to make sure that those laws are faithfully executed by whomever is President of the United States. Oversight, then, allows us to hold bureaucrats accountable to the rule of law, and it helps to keep faith with taxpayers. Or another way of saying it, if we have transparency in government, which the oversight of Congress ought to implement, we have greater accountability of our work. Currently, I have been conducting oversight over the FAA and the safety of Boeing aircraft. I fully expect the new Secretary to respond to all congressional inquiries in a timely and responsive manner. When people come to my office, I remind them of that question they get from every chairman of every committee: Will you answer the letters that we send, or will you appear before Congress, or will you take our telephone calls? Every one of them says yes, but that is not entirely how it works out. I use an example of the Justice Department the last 4 years--as I showed soon-to-be Attorney General Pam Bondi--that I wrote 158 letters to the Justice Department. And if I got answers, they were partial answers, but most were not responded to. That is not the way that the executive branch of government, either under a Democrat or Republican President, should be handling or, let's say, should be thumbing their nose at the legislative branch of government. So when people say yes to these questions that they are offered by the chairmen of the committee, I say to them: It would be more honest if you would say maybe instead of saying yes. So I hope that Secretary-to-be Duffy will respond to my inquiries about the FAA and Boeing aircraft. I look forward to working with former Congressman Duffy to support long-term infrastructure policies to keep our manufacturing and our agriculture sectors robust and to support our State and local communities that depend on their jobs. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration and extermination camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau. We commemorate this day through International Holocaust Remembrance Day. Today, we remember the 6 million Jewish victims as well as millions of other victims persecuted by the Nazis, and we do this so that it is never repeated. I honor the victims, the survivors, and their families by combating anti-Semitism and preserving history for future generations. In 2023, the Simon Wiesenthal Center approached me about wrongdoing by the Swiss bank named Credit Suisse in its internal investigations into undisclosed information relating to the bank's Nazi ties. For decades, we have tried to track the Nazi confiscation of all kinds of Jewish valuables and cash, and we all know that the Nazis used Swiss banks to hide whatever was confiscated. I went to Senator Whitehouse, chairman of the Budget Committee. He and I issued the Budget Committee's first subpoena since 1991 to obtain a report that was developed by the investigation's independent ombudsman, Mr. Neil Barofsky. The report confirmed allegations and shed light on the breadth of Credit Suisse's servicing of Nazi wealth during and after World War II, along with their efforts to keep that wealth hidden. So it is very clear Credit Suisse's past leadership handled this matter terribly. They lied to Congress while smearing the reputation of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and also the reputation of Mr. Barofsky. The bank even fired Mr. Barofsky, which is why we had to subpoena his report. Since then, Credit Suisse as a bank collapsed and was merged, and Mr. Barofsky has been rehired after our pressure. Now, the bank UBS owns the results of this inquiry, and it also owns Credit Suisse's past of mishandling this whole event. Earlier this month, Senator Whitehouse and I released updates from this investigation. Shortly after, there were negative press leaks about UBS and possibly past disgruntled employees. The leaks contained lies about the work and attacked Mr. Barofsky's character. These attacks serve no purpose other than to frustrate an investigation into Credit Suisse's Nazi past. That absurd conduct is, in fact, a spit in the face to the victims of the Holocaust. The U.S. Congress won't tolerate and shouldn't tolerate that kind of evil here in the 21st century, and neither will those brave souls long past that lived through the Nazi evil. They stand guard as our spiritual strength. So let this be a message to the bank obstructionists: This Senator, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will leave no stone unturned when it comes to Nazi evils--and neither will Senator Whitehouse. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as the leader has just said, I come to the floor for the same purpose: to talk about my vote in favor of Mr. Bessent to be Secretary of the Treasury. This Cabinet position is one of the most important positions in any administration. The Secretary is the tip of the spear for a President's domestic economic agenda. Moreover, the Secretary is a very key player in international affairs, with responsibilities covering international trade, global finance, and foreign sanctions--and that is just to name a few. Given the current challenges we face as a nation, the next Treasury Secretary will have a full load on their plate. The United States is facing what former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers recently called ``the biggest fiscal sustainability problem since the Civil War.'' At the same time, the expansionist ambitions of Russia in Europe and China--particularly China's pursuit of economic hegemony--threaten the international economic order. Having met with Mr. Bessent, I am confident he is up to the task. He has indepth knowledge of economic history. In fact, he taught a class on the subject at Yale University. That and his decades-long career in finance make him uniquely qualified to be our next Secretary of the Treasury. He is acutely aware of the risks posed to our national economy by our $36 trillion national debt. He understands that digging ourselves out of our fiscal hole will require spending restraint and, coupled with that, great economic growth. As he discussed in testimony before the Senate committee, avoiding the largest tax hike in the history of our country by extending the 2017 tax law is crucial to the health of the American economy. And we all know in this body that the biggest tax increase in the history of the country can happen to the middle class even without a vote of Congress because the 2017 tax bill sunsets at the end of this year. Mr. Bessent also understands that international trade and access to foreign markets are vital to the economic success of the American farmer. And when I spoke with this nominee in my office, I was pleasantly surprised by his knowledge of agriculture, stemming from his ownership of farmland in North Dakota. As with all nominees, I stressed to Mr. Bessent the importance of responding to Congressional letters. Congress has a constitutional duty to perform oversight of the executive branch. I intend to hold him to his commitment to respond to all congressional inquiries in a timely and responsive manner. I also told him that every nominee that comes before any committee is asked that same question: Will you respond to our letters? And I say, kind of tongue-in-cheek but with some truth to it, that you ought to say ``maybe''--because I showed Pam Bondi, our nominee for Attorney General, when she was in my office, a whole file of 158 letters in the last 4 years that I sent to the Department of Justice that have remained unanswered or not fully answered, and all that. So I hope that we can get this Trump Cabinet to keep their word that they are going to answer our letters, because they need to focus it from the standpoint of the Constitution. You learn in eighth grade civics that we not only pass laws here and appropriate money, but under checks and balances, we have the responsibility to make sure that the executive branch faithfully executes that law or spends that money appropriately. And so checking up on that requires a lot of communication between us in the Congress and the executive branch, and that is true whether it is a Republican or Democrat President. But I hope this administration is committed to fully cooperating with Congress on our oversight responsibilities. Now, there is another item I always stress with Treasury nominees, and that is the importance of the IRS Whistleblower Program that I authored critical updates to in 2006. To date, this program has brought in over $6 billion to the Treasury, thanks to whistleblowers who often risk their careers to blow the whistle on tax cheats. This legislation is meant to make sure that the IRS has total information on who is paying their taxes and who isn't. So if you are working with some corporation that is not paying their taxes and you can report that successfully--the collection of those taxes--to the IRS, that whistleblower can get a share of the return. And so far since 2006, $6 billion--billion dollars--has come back into the Federal Treasury as a result of that program. However, in regard to that program, for much of the program's history, there has been an embedded culture in Treasury and the IRS that has hampered the success of the program. So I will look forward to working with Mr. Bessent to turn that culture around so that the 2006 legislation will be much more productive in not having the Federal Government cheated out of taxes that people owe. So based on my discussions with Mr. Bessent, there is no doubt in my mind that he is well qualified to be Treasury Secretary. So I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of his nomination later today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, everybody knows that except for Native Americans, this great Nation of ours is a nation of immigrants. We are one of the most welcoming nations in the world, maybe the most welcoming to immigrants, because about a million people come here every year legally. My family has been blessed by two: a daughter-in-law of 45 years from South Korea and a granddaughter-in-law of about 6 or 7 years from Ethiopia. I have learned much from them. And I think America is great because of the people that come here. But we are also a nation based on the rule of law. We have not seen that immigration law enforced over the last 4 years. So I am going to be voting for Governor Noem because she is committed to enforcing our immigration laws. I think Secretary Mayorkas felt in his heart that America ought to be a land of opportunity, the opportunity for anybody who wanted to come here. He said he was enforcing the laws, but we know that he wasn't enforcing laws because you saw, every night on TV, people crossing the Rio Grande coming to this country and violating our laws as they entered. We all know that if you are going to be a sovereign nation, you have got to control your borders. We can't have millions of people coming here in violation of our laws--people who are on the Terrorist Watchlist, people with criminal records, everybody just willy-nilly coming here. We are that land of opportunity but also a land of the rule of law. We are seeing deportations going on now with priority on people who are criminals or on the Terrorist Watchlist. We are hearing some economists and some business people saying our economy is in jeopardy if we deport these people, but no employer is going to hire somebody on the Terrorist Watchlist if they know that they are. No employer is going to hire somebody with a criminal record if they know about that criminal record. So let's talk about the impact of deportation on the economy after people with criminal records, after people who are on the Terrorist Watchlist, and the 1.2 or 1.3 million people who have been adjudicated who did not meet the test of our law so they could legally be in this country, to have those three categories of people deported. Then maybe let's talk about the impact on the economy after that. But I think that is quite a few months down the road. One other reason that I am voting for Governor Noem--and this is a repeat of what I said last night on the floor of the U.S. Senate in regard of Pete Hegseth being Secretary of Defense. When these people who are nominees come to my office, I point out to them a couple of things: No. 1, I always say, You are going to be asked if you will answer our letters. And everybody for decades has been saying yes to that. And I point out to them how they ought to really say ``maybe,'' because I use the last 4 years of the Garland Department of Justice as an example, showing these nominees, when they come to my office, a pile of about 158 letters that the Department of Justice and the FBI haven't appropriately answered, even after they said they had answered all of our letters. Now, that may be tongue in cheek--``maybe''--when I tell them that. But I think we have a responsibility to make sure in our constitutional job of oversight to see that the laws are faithfully executed and when we contact the administration when we think things are wrong, that we are entitled to an answer. This isn't a problem just in a Democrat administration; this is also a problem in Republican administrations. So I asked the new Secretary of Defense that question. He said he was going to be diligent about that. And I discussed the same thing with Governor Noem as well because we ought to have cooperation of the executive branch of government in Congress doing its job of oversight. I am satisfied that Governor Noem will, to the best of her ability, help us with our oversight abilities and even help us get answers to those left over from the Biden administration. I think Governor Noem is very well-qualified to be Secretary of Homeland Security. I wish her well in the enforcement of law and reemphasize that a border security is very important not only for the sovereignty of this great Nation of ours, because you can't be a sovereign nation if you don't control the borders; and, secondly, for our national security because you can't have people on the Terrorist Watchlist coming to this country and invading us; and also for law enforcement because you can't have people with criminal records coming to this country. It is a big job that is left over from the last 4 years of a Secretary of Homeland Security who wasn't enforcing the law. I think Governor Noem is up to the task, and we wish her well as she proceeds down this road of making sure that the sovereignty of the United States is protected, our national security is protected, and we have a safe nation based upon law enforcement being able to do its job. I yield the floor.