Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Mary Jane Cobb for her career as executive director of the Iowa State Education Association. She began her distinguished career in education in 1994. After serving in a number of positions working with students across the country, Mary Jane came to Iowa in 2008. In her role with ISEA, she has worked with teachers and schools around the State on many issues affecting our students. Mary Jane had an impact on the education of hundreds of thousands of our students in Iowa. I congratulate her on her career and wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to give an update on my oversight work. I often speak on the floor about the importance of oversight. Now, my remarks today have some history that goes back from now back to 8 years ago, so it might not seem very important today, but I speak so the Defense Department won't make the same blunder they made over that period of time. That blunder I am talking about is the mess- up with the JEDI contract, a cloud contract. The parable of the vineyard tells us about corrupt tenants who tried to steal someone's harvest and keep it for themselves. It is especially bad, then, when public officials try to take the fruit of the taxpayers' vineyard for private gain. We can't ignore this sort of corruption or it will surely get worse. The 2019 planned Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract-- otherwise known as JEDI--was an attempt to move the entire Defense Department to cloud, meaning cloud computing, which happened to be a very, very expensive project. It was around $10 billion and was ultimately canceled, as it should have been. Ten billion dollars is a lot of tempting fruit, even by Washington, DC, standards. Early on, there were allegations that various Defense Department officials were helping the big corporation of Amazon behind the scenes to gain a contracting advantage. The allegations caused the inspector general of the Department of Defense to review the matter. My oversight work started in 2019. My oversight has centered on conflicts of interest on the one hand, and on the other hand, the inspector general's review. It is a good-government oversight inquiry. I know Amazon didn't end up getting this particular contract, but that doesn't matter to my oversight and what I am telling you today. Even attempted efforts to steer a government contract need to be exposed. That is what the taxpayers deserve. Sally Donnelly, a key person in my investigation--happened to be a close adviser to then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis and former Amazon consultant--is a central figure. Let me make it very clear. Sally Donnelly was a close adviser to the Secretary of Defense and a former Amazon consultant. So that is the central figure of what I am talking about today. Throughout her time at the Defense Department, Donnelly received payments from the sale of her consulting business, which she sold right before she entered government service. She didn't disclose precisely who purchased her firm to either the Defense Department, which she should have, or to the inspector general, even when asked the identity under oath. In late 2022, I obtained new evidence the inspector general failed to obtain during its investigation. That evidence was that the actual name of the company that purchased Donnelly's firm was VMAP--an acronym, V- M-A-P. This company was a portfolio company of C5 Capital, an Amazon- linked company. The Defense Department inspector general claimed in its 2020 report that it found no evidence that Donnelly ``had an ongoing or undisclosed financial relationship with C5 Capital or Amazon and its affiliates that would have required her to recuse.'' The evidence appears to show otherwise. There was a financial relationship. Why the inspector general didn't find out about it, I don't know. In two letters last year, I continued to press Donnelly and her then- business partner, Andre Pienaar, the CEO of C5 Capital, for answers. Now, as you might expect, both have refused to cooperate with my oversight inquiry. The inspector general report also claimed to have found no evidence that Donnelly had any role in the JEDI contract or violated any of her ethical obligations. For additional transparency, we need to look at Defense Department records from 2017 and 2018, when Donnelly worked there, so you are going to hear a lot of quotes from emails I got. These records appear to show Donnelly working behind the scenes to favor Amazon. Some of this information was included in the inspector general's report. However, much of it was not included even though the inspector general had access to these government records. Kevin Sweeney, then-chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Mattis, told the inspector general that he thought Donnelly invited an Amazon vice president responsible for public sector sales to a London dinner with Secretary Mattis in March of 2017. This dinner was shortly after Donnelly began working for the Secretary of Defense. That Amazon executive, Teresa Carlson, used the dinner to invite the Secretary to later meet Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Secretary Mattis also revealed it was Donnelly who suggested he travel to meet tech leaders, including Amazon. Now, following that London dinner, Donnelly repeatedly pushed for the meeting between Bezos and Mattis. The inspector general report deflected by saying the Secretary's chief of staff, not Donnelly, scheduled his meetings. But that report cuts out part of an email showing that the chief of staff deferred to Donnelly on whether the Secretary should meet with Amazon's CEO. The inspector general's report also omitted a part of Donnelly's email where she said the Secretary should meet Bezos because he was ``the genius of our age.'' The inspector general's report omitted another email from an Amazon official asking Donnelly for guidance on the Secretary of Defense's Seattle visit to Amazon and what ``landmines we should avoid.'' That same email asked Donnelly to ``put a bug in some ears'' to help Amazon counter challenges from the Defense Department's Chief Information Officer. Donnelly responded on her government email with inside advice, telling the Amazon official to emphasize ``security security security of [the] cloud.'' Now, just 3 days before the visit to Seattle, a DOD official emailed Donnelly the agenda for Amazon's presentation, which included a ``cloud overview'' by the same Amazon official that had asked her for advice. An email sent from another Department of Defense official to Donnelly shortly after the Secretary's visit noted that discussion of cloud technology was the centerpiece of meetings with Amazon and other tech leaders. Donnelly also was informed by a DOD official traveling with the Secretary, on the very day of the Secretary's visit with Amazon's CEO, on August 10, 2017, that the visit ``seemed to morph into an Amazon Web Services sales pitch.'' A followup email from that same official informed her that after the visit, the Secretary of Defense was ``99.9% there in terms of going to the cloud.'' Despite all of this, when asked whether the Defense Department cloud was discussed during the meeting, Donnelly swore under oath on August 15, 2019: ``I don't know. I wasn't there.'' She also swore that she didn't know how long Bezos was present during the visit. But the same Defense Department official traveling with the Secretary of Defense told her via email that Bezos stayed for the Secretary's entire visit. The inspector general, however, found no ethics violation, claiming Donnelly had no formal role in the procurement. Now, the evidence again appears to say otherwise, and there is more. An email, 2 weeks after the Secretary's Amazon visit from DOD officials, spoke of the need for a memo from the Secretary to ``crush the bureaucratic impediments'' Amazon had been encountering. In other words, there were a lot of people in the Defense Department who knew something was going on, and they were trying to stop it. That is the way I read that email. Of course, Donnelly and another DOD official were on that email. In response, that DOD official, with Donnelly still copied, said: ``Sally is already working angles'' to crush those impediments. On September 13, 2017, merely weeks later, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a memo Department-wide crushing those impediments by announcing rapid cloud adoption through ``a tailored acquisition process.'' Now, I suppose ``tailored acquisition process'' has many definitions, but I kind of read that, as suspicious as I am, as trying to short- circuit the process of contracting so some favorable person can get it. Now, Air Force procurement documents interpreted this memo as what I just said, the Secretary's intention to award the contract to Amazon. Records also show that after the Secretary's Amazon meeting, the head of the Digital Defense Service asked Donnelly for permission to ``let me lead cloud tiger team.'' Donnelly didn't respond that she had no role in the process. Instead, she told the DOD official to ``Do it quick!'' Just a few weeks later, that official was appointed to lead the first phase of the JEDI contract. Donnelly reportedly organized another dinner in Washington in January 2018. Only four people were there: The Secretary of Defense, Sally Donnelly, Teresa Carlson, and the CEO of Amazon. Carlson directly admitted to the inspector general that the dinner's purpose was to continue the discussion from the Secretary's Amazon visit. That visit, apparently, became a sales pitch. Carlson sent Amazon Web Services sales material to Donnelly's government email for review just hours before that dinner. Instead of taking this evidence head-on, the inspector general report pointed to the Government Accountability Office, or what we know as GAO around here. The report claimed that the GAO ``also reviewed whether Mrs. Donnelly should have disqualified herself from participating in the JEDI Cloud procurement.'' That same report also claimed the GAO, in resolving a bid protest, agreed with the Defense Department that ``Ms. Donnelly wasn't involved in any way with the JEDI Cloud procurement.'' Attorneys for Donnelly and attorneys for C5's CEO made that very same claim. However, there is one very big problem. Donnelly wasn't even mentioned in the GAO's decision. The GAO told my office late last year that they have ``no idea where the statement in the DOD Inspector General report comes from.'' The GAO also told my office there is ``simply no support for this statement from the decision itself or the record of the arguments raised by the protester.'' So not only did the inspector general report omit critical evidence, that I have described to Senators today, but it blatantly misstates the work of another government Agency. So we have a big problem not only with conflict of interest, but we have a problem with the inspector general not doing its job because the Inspector General Office's work in this matter is a disgraceful example of government oversight. Former Department of Defense Acting Inspector General Sean O'Donnell was so embarrassed by his Agency's work that he refused to even name the staff who worked on this incompetent report. Robert Storch, the current inspector general, has followed suit. Donnelly has continued to refuse to cooperate with this congressional investigation, yet--can you believe this?--she still sits on the Defense Business Board, providing advice to the Secretary of Defense. A portfolio company of C5 Capital, according to its own public statements, has gained cyber security business in Ukraine. If that is supported by taxpayers' money, well, they shouldn't get a penny until the CEO cooperates with Congress and clears this matter up. Inspector General Storch must redo the investigation and rewrite relevant sections of this report, considering the clear failures of the original report. It is time to clear the air, time to fight corruption, time to restore trust in how you negotiate contracts and how you fight conflicts of interest. That is the history I have given you today. Yes, I know the JEDI contract is dead, but right now, there are people in the Defense Department who are still pursuing contracts to make use of the cloud for storage. Hopefully, lessons learned from this report I have given you and what took place in the JEDI contract are lessons learned so they won't be repeated as DOD moves ahead. These are multibillion-dollar contracts. We need to avoid conflicts of interests like this that I just have pointed out to you. We need to make sure there is good oversight of the expenditure of taxpayers' money, but that ought to start with the people in the Department of Defense itself. It ought to be policed by the inspector general of the DOD. That wasn't done in this case involving Donnelly. And, for sure, Congress shouldn't give up any of its constitutional responsibilities to see that taxpayers' money is spent wisely. I yield the floor.

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, every year, at this time of the year, Sunshine Week is held around the birthday of James Madison--not only a former President but one of our greatest Founding Fathers and the acclaimed ``Father of the Constitution.'' Sunshine Week is a critical reminder of the need for transparency and open government. And our government is not as open as it should be. President Madison famously said that a great difficulty in forming a government operated by imperfect people was that you must oblige it-- meaning the government--to control itself. Well, amen to what Madison said. As a conservative, I have worked especially hard on Madison's challenge, making sure that the government controls itself. One way to do that is to limit the size and scope of the government. It is hard to control a government that does everything but make your bed and tuck you in to sleep. Another check on out-of-control government is separation of powers-- the same separation of powers when you study the essentials of American government. Congress doesn't execute laws. The President and the executive agencies shouldn't try to make laws. And neither should our courts. To control a government as big as ours, it takes a lot of very bright light shining on every Agency and Office. And instead of 1 week called Sunshine Week, we ought to have 365 days a year in which we have sunshine on our government's operation. I have long supported the Freedom of Information Act. And that act urges Agencies to be more responsive to record requests. That is essential to open government because it gives citizens access to information. As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. Congress also has a solemn constitutional duty to conduct strong oversight to ensure that the executive branch executes the laws as Congress has intended. You learn that in eighth grade civics class, called checks and balances of government. I call it oversight. But it is a constitutional responsibility. We can't legislate effectively unless we in Congress know what is going on behind the scenes, and most of that behind-the-scenes is in the executive branch of government. That is why whistleblowers are so very important and why I rely on whistleblowers to give me a lot of information I would not have other access to. So I consider them a very important part of doing my role, my constitutional responsibility of oversight to see that a President does what the Constitution says, and his oath says to faithfully execute the laws. These whistleblowers are patriots and our most powerful tool in rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct. Despite their vital contribution to good government, they are often targeted for retaliation and harassment. That should stop. In so many speeches, I have come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to point out specific examples of where these patriotic people we call whistleblowers are retaliated against and retaliated in a way that--the law says that retaliation is not lawful. There is a growing trend among Federal Agencies to place a blanket of silence over whistleblowers. The Agencies do this by violating whistleblower disclosure laws, including withholding notice of what we call anti-gag provisions. In other words, if you are the head of an Agency and you have a whistleblower, you can't tell them they can't talk to Congress. The law requires all Federal Agencies to include an anti-gag provision in their nondisclosure policies and forms. This provision notifies employees of their rights to report misconduct to Congress, to inspectors general, and to the Office of Special Counsel. Without knowing of the anti-gag provision's protections, employees who see government wrongdoing often stay in the shadows. If people are notified that they can talk to Congress and the law protects them, we are more apt to get information on wrongdoing, the misexpenditure of money, or laws not being carried out as we intended that Congress wouldn't even know about. The reason they don't speak is they fear the retaliation if they do speak out, and this is what I have spoken about so many times on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The fact that they are retaliated against is something that I say over and over again is unacceptable. That is why this week I wrote to all of our inspectors general of the executive branch of government, requesting they ensure this provision is included, as required by law, which will make it harder for Federal Agencies to conceal their wrongdoing. This year, whistleblowers have helped to let the sunshine in where it matters most. They are helping me track down vulnerable migrant children the Biden Department of Health and Human Services has failed to protect against potential trafficking. As we speak, law enforcement is working through information I provided to hopefully bring their own special kind of sunshine to the criminals taking advantage of these young kids. I have also sought information from government contractors who receive billions of taxpayer dollars to care for unaccompanied children but whose practices and failures are largely shielded from public knowledge and scrutiny. We need a full accounting of how contractors spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money. That is why last year I also launched an investigation into one of the Environmental Protection Agency's grant programs. That exposed significant waste. It turns out that the EPA doesn't even require the program's grantees to submit financial documents during the grant that show how taxpayer money is being spent by those various organizations. You would think Agencies would be very grateful when these failures are exposed. Instead, you know what--I was met with delay and obstruction by this administration's EPA. Accountability can be uncomfortable, and bureaucrats don't like it. After I reported that obstruction to the EPA Office of Inspector General, it agreed to audit the program and look into how EPA influenced grantees to obstruct my oversight. Then we get to the Justice Department and the FBI. Recently, the Justice Department indicted an FBI confidential human source who served as the basis for what is commonly known as the document 1023. That is the FBI-generated document that Chairman Comer in the House and I made public alleging criminal bribery schemes between the Biden family and a foreign national. Embarrassingly, for 3 years, the 1023 collected dust--until Congress and Justice Department whistleblowers forced the FBI and U.S. Attorney Weiss to interview that FBI source. The Federal indictment doesn't explain the full set of facts and leaves many questions unanswered. Those questions include how the Justice Department and the FBI could use this confidential human source for approximately 13 years, pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars, use his information in investigations and prosecutions, and then ultimately determine after 13 or 14 years that this guy is a liar. According to government documents in the court case, the FBI source was reporting information to the FBI as late as December 2023. This is a matter that requires extensive sunlight. If not for whistleblowers, my securing the document 1023 and releasing that document, do you know what? The FBI would still be believing the lies of their confidential human source, and they would still be paying taxpayer dollars to this confidential source for the lies he was giving to the FBI. Now, they have arrested him because of my oversight work. So what is the government doing to get all the money back that they paid him? In addition to my investigative efforts, I have worked with a bipartisan set of colleagues to strengthen attorney misconduct oversight at the Justice Department. For example, I cosponsored bipartisan legislation to close a loophole that prevents the inspector general at the Department of Justice from investigating alleged Justice Department attorney misconduct. Now, understand, in the Department of Justice, the inspector general, who is supposed to sort out wrongdoing, can't even investigate the lawyers of that Department when they do misconduct. My consistent efforts to let in sunshine continue across our government, whether it is asking the FBI to explain a memo targeting Catholics based on biased sources, ensuring our immigration officials follow the law and collect DNA from illegal migrants they encounter at the border, or even exposing flaws at the Veterans' Administration that endangered the privacy of our veterans. So we all ought to be thankful for Sunshine Week, which is an opportunity for us doing our constitutional duty of oversight to highlight these efforts and to remind us that shining a consistent light is essential to make government accountable to ``we the people.'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, it is no secret this U.S. Senator for Iowa loves history. And I love rooting for our Iowa student-athletes who put in the work at practices and in the off-season to play hard and walk off the court as champions, whether or not they win or lose the game that day. Today, I would like to toot the horn for my hometown team and its victorious, history-making season. The Dike-New Hartford Wolverines won the 2A State basketball title at the Iowa Girls State High School Basketball Tournament in Des Moines on Saturday, March 2, 2024. Getting to play in the historic and storied annual Iowa Girls State High School Basketball tournament is a privilege sought by 7,500 basketball players across Iowa every year. This was the team's fourth consecutive State basketball title, and with it, the Dike-New Hartford Wolverines became the second program in State five-on-five history to take that crown four times in a row, 2021-2024. The Dike-New Hartford Wolverines now tie with the Ankeny Hawks who won four State titles from 2002-2005. A century earlier, Audubon took home the title 4 years in a row at the six-on-six tournament, 1921-1924. In an interview after the Wolverine's four-peat State title, the leading scorer in the championship game, Payton Petersen summed up the victory with a hot tip to her teammates and community. ``We worked so hard to get where we are. Sometimes you take things for granted, but just knowing you put blood, sweat, and tears into this, we're working hard every day in practice and every summer. That's a testament to what our team is, how our coaches coach and our community.'' March is Iowa History Month and National Women's Month, both fitting themes to honor the accomplishments of the Dike-New Hartford Wolverines. Over their career, Barbara and I had the chance to see the team play and enjoyed every minute of it. We congratulate the players, managers, trainers, coaches, cheerleaders, fans, and family members for their history-making season. It is a thrilling achievement that will bring these young student-athletes a lifetime of memories and lessons for years to come, from the pageantry of the tournament to the teamwork it takes to overcome obstacles, build confidence, and lead to succeed. From the varsity starters to the bench players and fans in the stands, this was a team effort the entire community can take pride in celebrating. Congratulations to the coaches who devoted countless hours of time and preparation, led by head coach Bruce Dall and assistant coaches Matt Dove, Ashley Beninga, Craig Chapman, and Mandy Danner. Notably, Coach Dall has been named a finalist for the 2024 National High School Athletic Coaches Association Coach of the Year. To all the athletes on the roster, keep up the good work. #RollBlue: Players Abby Jensen, Addy Joslin, Autumn Meester, Izzy Norton, Jadyn Petersen, Josey Syhlman, Joy Eilderts, Kailyn Meester, Keely Kauten, Kennedy Syhlman, Madde Buskohl, Mallory Petersen, Mariah Asche, Maryn Bixby, Miranda Tyler, Payton Foster, Payton Petersen, Rylee Reicks, Sophia Bennett, Seeri Smith, Silvey Fuller, Sydney Anema. Coaches Bruce Dall, Matt Dove, Ashley Beninga, Craig Chapman, Mady Danner. Managers Will Huck, Reedlynn Kannegieter, Zari Jones, Ashton Schmitz.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss with my colleagues the fact that Agencies of the Federal Government aren't very insightful to make sure that taxpayers' money is spent properly and also to say how they are not cooperating with the constitutional responsibility of Congress to make sure the money is spent in a legal way. In this case, I am here to talk about the Environmental Protection Agency. On April 13, I began an investigation into an EPA program called the Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Cooperative Agreement Program. Now that is quite a name, isn't it? On February 22 of this year, I issued a preliminary report on my investigation. That EPA program dishes out millions of taxpayer dollars to left-leaning nonprofits. The funding is from President Biden's American Rescue Plan, which was opposed by Senate Republicans. According to the EPA, the purpose of this environmental justice program is to address environmental and public health issues in underserved communities. As part of that program, the EPA sent 34 individual nonprofits a combined $4.3 million, with each receiving up to $200,000. I think the money was meant to be spent for the purpose of improving the environment--and I don't have any trouble with that--but I think you will see that the grantees didn't use the money for what it was intended for. Now, I wrote to all 34 grantees because I wanted to know how they spent that taxpayer money. I wrote to the EPA because I wanted to know how it was conducting oversight of that spending. You see, it isn't only Congress that has a responsibility to see that the money is spent responsibly and according to Congress's will, but it is also up to these Agencies to make sure that they spend the money accordingly. It is a pretty simple request. I want EPA to show their work, how the taxpayers' money is being spent. Well, this EPA, apparently, to them that question is just too much for them to handle. So guess what happened after I sent the oversight letters. The EPA interfered and told these 34 grantees that they--meaning the EPA--would handle the Grassley request. This led many grantees to refuse compliance with any congressional oversight request and also obstruct my efforts of getting answers for the taxpayers. Some grantees were so emboldened by EPA's obstructive conduct that they sent my staff emails. And this is just one example of the emails: We report to EPA and they're responding on our behalf. You can make your request to them. We won't be responding further. Don't contact us any further. That is how they treat this Senator doing his constitutional responsibilities, and, obviously, you can tell by that quote that this is very much obstruction. What the Biden EPA has done is to obstruct a core constitutional requirement of the Congress; that is, knowing how appropriated taxpayer money is being used by the executive branch. Moreover, the EPA couldn't even respond on behalf of grantees, and it is pretty simple because the EPA doesn't even possess the records that I was requesting from the nonprofits. That is a whole different problem for the EPA. Specifically I asked grantees--and this is a quote from my letter: Provide all records showing how the taxpayer money your organization received was spent. In your production, please provide a financial summary showing what the taxpayer money was spent on. Amazingly, the EPA can't fulfill this request for grantees because, at this point in the life cycle of the grant, it doesn't possess the records that show how taxpayer money has been spent. Accordingly, except for my asking these questions, the EPA wouldn't have possessed these records at this point in the grant program. The EPA only has financial records showing how much money the grantees had drawn down from the overall grant. The EPA emailed my staff this: At the current stage in the grant process, this is the only document detailing financial progress that grantees are required to submit to the Agency. For context, the ``only document'' referred to by the EPA doesn't show how, and on what, taxpayer money was being spent by each grantee. Now, that is beyond embarrassing. It is a disgrace and a slap in the face to the taxpayers who worked so hard for their money that the EPA has failed to track their money. The EPA is throwing taxpayers' money around without a care in the world. My preliminary oversight report also found that some of the projects didn't even pass the smell test. For example, grantees that did respond to us reported projects like empathetic listening training, tree walk- and-talks, making musical presentations to their communities, and buying clothing. And it turns out the lion's share of the money, so far, is being used for more salaries of the people who are on the nonprofit payroll and also other employee benefits. Many of the 34 grantees were unable to provide records showing how much money their projects could cost. Some were able to provide those records I asked for. Then why didn't all of the grantees? Well, I think, going back to what I previously said, the EPA said you didn't have to answer. I think the taxpayers have a right to know these financial details. With America suffering from record inflation and being forced to make difficult financial decisions, the EPA's obstructive conduct toward the Congress and the EPA's weak and incompetent oversight all are insults to the American taxpayer. To make it worse, the EPA program I have talked about is just getting started. The EPA plans to spend tens of millions of dollars more in coming years on similar programs and has spent, according to what I have been able to assess at this point--that means for more salaries and benefits probably for the employees of the organizations as opposed to helping solve our environmental problems. I imagine one would be hard-pressed to find any American taxpayer who would be satisfied with the EPA's conduct in how this money is being spent. It is time for the EPA to do real oversight of how all this money is spent. The American taxpayers deserve better from its government, so, as usual, the Grassley oversight will continue. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, first, I would like to thank Senator Graham for his leadership for protecting our kids, and also I would like to thank him for giving me this opportunity to help him advance three bipartisan bills which could revolutionize child safety in the digital era. As child predators have exploited the development of technology to harm and endanger our Nation's most vulnerable, our laws to address this grave and growing threat to our kids have fallen way, way behind. We have three bills to talk about. One goes by the title of ``STOP CSAM.'' It strengthens reporting requirements of suspected abuse by expanding mandatory reporting and enhancing the CyberTipline, and it also protects child victims in court. Another bill goes by the title of ``EARN IT.'' It modernizes section 230 to ensure that victims can secure justice. And the last one, the SHIELD Act, would impose necessary criminal penalties for distributing illegal explicit material and hold sexual predators accountable. I am proud to cosponsor both the STOP CSAM and the EARN IT Act and have supported all three bills in the Judiciary Committee as part of my efforts, joining with Senator Graham, to protect American youth. These bills are essential to protect our children and are examples of the fine bipartisan work that this body is capable of doing when we put constituents first. Nothing is more important than protecting our youth, their childhood, and their futures. It is time to send these bills to the House and then hopefully through the House to President Biden. The longer we wait, the more children are victimized and more childhoods are lost. We owe it to them to do what is right. Thanks again to Senator Graham for deferring to me, and thank you for your leadership.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am proud to recognize University of Iowa's Caitlin Clark, a true generational talent, for her historic achievements in women's collegiate basketball. Clark is a West Des Moines native. In the Hawkeyes' February 15, 2024, matchup against the Michigan Wolverines, Clark became the alltime leading scorer in NCAA women's basketball history. She clinched the record in the opening 2 minutes with three baskets, including a logo 3-point shot. She put up 49 total points that game in the Carver Hawkeye Arena, a new school and personal best. Less than 3 weeks later, during her last regular season game with the Hawkeyes, Clark surpassed ``Pistol'' Pete Maravich's 1970 record for highest number of points scored in the NCAA. To date, Clark has racked up 3,685 career points, more than any Division I player in history, men's or women's. Clark's success is undoubtedly the dividend of her hard work, discipline, and dedication. It seems to have earned her a suffix: ``the first.'' Clark, the first player to record a 40-point triple-double in men's or women's NCAA tournament history. Clark, the first player to drop consecutive 40-point games in the women's NCAA tournament. Clark, the first Division I player to top 3,000 points, 1,000 assists, and 800 rebounds. Clark, the first Big Ten player to win every major national player of the year award: AP Player of the Year, the Honda Sports Award, the John R. Wooden Award, Naismith College Player of the Year, USBWA National Player of the Year, and the Wade Trophy. She is a team player, too. In the 2022-23 season, Clark was responsible for 48 percent of the team's assists--another first. No other Division I player, male or female, had ever accounted for more than 42 percent of their team's assists. Clark is captivating the world with her talent, competitiveness, team spirit, sportsmanship, leadership, work ethic, and evident love for the game of basketball. Already, she has become one of history's most influential women in sports. Public engagement in women's college basketball has never before reached today's heights. During the 2023 NCAA Tournament, the championship boasted a sellout crowd of 19,482 ticket holders and 9.9 million at-home viewers. The Hawkeyes' Final Four faceoff garnered 5.5 million viewers, making it the most-watched Women's NCAA Tournament semifinals game on the books. Weeks ahead of the Hawkeyes' 2023-24 season opener, the team broke the alltime attendance record for a single women's basketball game when 55,646 spectators packed Kinnick Stadium for a charity-benefit exhibition. The 2024 Big Ten Women's Basketball Tournament is sold out for the first time ever. The ``Caitlin Clark Effect'' is not just changing women's college basketball; it is inspiring athletes of all ages, across all sports. As Clark continues to rise through the ranks of the ``all-time greats,'' I congratulate her on behalf of the Hawkeye State. Keep making us proud. Go Hawks.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I want to take the time of my colleagues to set the record straight, yet again, about an FBI investigative report that has been generated that goes by the number 1023, and I do this because the breathless media misreporting requires that I come to the floor to give a historical reorientation of the facts and the evidence. As I have said all along on the Senate floor, I and Chairman Comer of the House, made the 1023 document public for this single purpose; that purpose is to force the FBI to do what the taxpayers pay the FBI to do, and that is investigate, in this case, the information contained in that document that goes by the number of 1023. It is all pretty simple. I didn't promote or vouch for the allegations in 1023 as the truth, like some confused Democrats and the partisan media have falsely said. I pushed the FBI to do their job because that is my responsibility to the taxpayers and the people of Iowa. Now some confused Democrats and partisan media have returned to their favorite line, falsely saying that our effort to get the FBI to do their job is somehow peddling Russian disinformation. It is kind of like a nervous tic to all of them. For years, they falsely said the same thing about my and Senator Johnson's Biden family investigation, even though our investigation was based on Obama and Biden administration records and, really, on authentic bank records. Some Democrats and the partisan media apparently don't care about observing and reading the facts. Well, this Senator does care about that. So let's discuss the facts of the matter that they either missed or, more likely, are choosing to ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative. The whistleblowers within the Justice Department who came to me said the FBI had this document, the 1023, in their possession, now 3 years ago, June of 2020--3.5 years ago, in fact, because that document is dated June 30, 2020. Those whistleblowers that came to me were right. Whistleblowers said that the FBI considered its confidential human source to be credible. That confidential human source--which I will simply describe today as the FBI's source--formed the basis of the 1023. If you are following television, we now know the name of that FBI source. But until he was arrested, I did not know his name. The FBI said the same to Congress and used the credibility of that source, the credibility assessment of that individual, to withhold the 1023 from Congress when we first asked for it. Even Ranking Member Raskin of the House Committee confirmed that the FBI told Congress that the FBI source was credible. The FBI found their source so credible that the FBI gave their source the authority even to engage in illegal activity for the FBI's criminal investigation. And, yes, I want to make clear: The FBI said that he could do illegal things in his work for the FBI. The FBI told him that he may even have to testify in court based on the information he provided. In fact, the FBI said that this source was so credible that the public release of the unclassified 1023 could put his life at risk, another excuse that they used. Now let me be clear: The FBI consistently and publicly vouched for their source. Then the other week, the Biden Justice made this source's name public for the world to see. So if you watch television, you get his name off of television. Apparently, the FBI's excuse to withhold the document from Congress, as you can see, was pure smoke. Remember, the FBI said releasing the 1023 could put their confidential human source's life in danger. The FBI's conduct is, of course, obviously absurd and a disservice to the American people--that means a disservice to the American people when the FBI doesn't do its job of following up on investigative reports, as they didn't in this case for 3 years. So you can see those same whistleblowers were right about the FBI believing that their source was credible. Whistleblower said the FBI's source served as a source for many years, dating to the Obama administration. According to the Justice Department indictment, the FBI's source worked for the Federal Government and was paid by the Federal Government since 2010. So, again, those whistleblowers at the Justice Department were right. Whistleblowers said the FBI failed to investigate the allegations in the document. So let me refresh this history by giving the timeline: According to the Justice Department indictment, the FBI finally interviewed the FBI source on September 27 last year. We made the 1023 public just a few months prior on July 20, 2023. Clearly, the FBI finally acted because of our release of the document. In other words, we embarrassed them. And by that time, as I have said, by my timeline, the document was over 3 years old--3 years they didn't do their job that the FBI ought to have been following up on. So the 1023 sat with the FBI collecting dust until we in Congress acted. My releasing the 1023 got the FBI to do its job that they should have been doing 3 years before. So I think it is legitimate in this political climate we are in this year, a presidential year, to ask the question: Would Special Counsel Jack Smith have waited years to act if the 1023 was about former President Trump? Those whistleblowers were right about the FBI's failure to investigate. I started my oversight relating to the FBI's failure to investigate the 1023 on October 13, 2022. So I didn't have the document in my possession. I knew about it from the whistleblowers, but what information I got from the whistleblowers was without actually reading the document. I sent a letter to Attorney General Garland, Director Wray, and U.S. Attorney Weiss to ask this very simple question: What have the FBI and the Justice Department, to include U.S. Attorney Weiss, done to investigate? I also asked for an array of documents, including travel documents that the Justice Department has used to indict the source, and I also asked, before I had read the document, for the same records. Again, this would have been after we released the document, so I correct myself. I asked for the same records again on October 24, 2023. I said this on May 3, a year earlier: What we don't know is what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify these claims or investigate further. I asked on May 5, 2023, about the 1023: I wish I could say I knew it was true or untrue. On May 9, 2023, I said: My focus right now is on the FBI and the Department of Justice. What have they done with this [1023] document? On June 1, 2023, I said: We're responsible for making sure the FBI does its job, and that's what we want to know. I came to this floor of the Senate on June 12, 2023, to say to my colleagues this: Here, with this 1023 document I've been referring to throughout my remarks, the Biden Justice Department and FBI must explain to Congress and the American people what, if anything, they have done with this information. And they need to show their work. We are not accepting their word anymore. We are seeking documentary proof of what they did to investigate the matter or their failure to do so. Then, after Comer and I publicly released the document, I said this on July 25, 2023: I want to make clear what my oversight focus is and will be: holding the Biden Justice Department and FBI accountable to explain to the American people what they did to investigate and what they found. What did the Justice Department and FBI do to investigate the information contained in the 1023? Did the Justice Department and [the] FBI follow normal investigative process and procedure or try to sweep it all under the rug because of political bias? More precisely, did the FBI and DOJ seek to obtain the evidence referenced in the document? Did [the Department of Justice] and FBI seek to interview individuals relating to the 1023? If not, why not? If so, one way or the other, what did they find? And that is the end of the quote from what I said here on the floor of the Senate last year on this very subject. Let me say that one line again so everyone hears me. ``One way or the other, what did they'' meaning the FBI, ``find?'' All of these partisan media outlets, if they had a shred of intellectual honesty and decency, would report these facts and hold the FBI accountable for their failures. And, of course, one congressional request after another went unanswered by the Justice Department and the FBI. So, considering that deafening silence and the FBI's assertions that the source was credible, we made the 1023 public to force the FBI to do what they are paid to do--to do their job. They were supposed to be investigating this matter 3 years ago and doing it not for Chuck Grassley but for the American people. If Congress didn't ask for transparency and accountability--in other words, we in the Congress doing our oversight work--we would break faith with the American people, just like the FBI that didn't do its job and broke faith with the American people. And do you know what else? The Biden administration hasn't answered my and Senator Johnson's oversight requests. Let's not forget, there is a larger investigative picture here other than just 1023. Senator Johnson and I released two reports in 2020 as part of our Biden family investigation. We gave a series of floor speeches introducing bank records connecting the Biden family to communist China financial interests. Then, on October 26, 2022, we sent hundreds of pages of those bank records to U.S. Attorney Weiss. So then this question is appropriate: To my Democratic colleagues and, more importantly, the partisan media that is not doing their job, are those authentic bank records that Johnson and I made public--is that Russian disinformation? Now, Chairmen Comer, Jordan, and Smith have built and advanced upon the foundation created by Senator Johnson and this Senator. So here is the question: Where is the Biden Justice Department regarding those bank records and potential money laundering? Where is the Biden Justice Department regarding Biden family members registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? Another question: The Biden Justice Department appears concerned about their FBI source's contact with foreign nationals; so where is that same concern regarding the Biden family's foreign connections? Are the Justice Department and FBI sitting on it just like they did with the 1023 for at least 3 years? Here is another question to pose to the media and my colleagues: If we didn't make the 1023 public, would the FBI have interviewed the FBI source or would he remain on the taxpayers' payroll for another 10 years, continuing to misinform the FBI? And by misinforming, I presume that is the reason why he is sitting in jail right now in Los Angeles, awaiting trial or waiting on whatever they have to do to follow up on the arrest. What will happen to the defendants if this source's information was used for a conviction or a plea deal? This is really quite the mess for the Justice Department and the FBI, and it is one of their own making. My oversight investigations are done without regard to power, party, or privilege, and I back that statement up with asking you to remember, I am the Senator who did a transcribed interview with Donald Trump, Jr., when Donald Trump was President of the United States. That is when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I also ordered my staff to interview other Republicans during my Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and you know what? If I had the gavel today, I would bring more Bidens to Congress to testify because the American people really deserve the kind of nonpartisan oversight that I have been conducting for years. And remember this--and it is pretty simple--If the FBI came clean years ago about this document 1023, we wouldn't have had to release that very document. I wouldn't have had to rely on whistleblowers to make this public. So this guy still could be working for the FBI for another 10 years. Instead, these people played games, withheld the document from Congress, and provided false and misleading information to Congress and the American people, not wanting to come clean on what they did with 1023. We all know that transparency in government brings accountability. Now, folks are being held accountable because of my congressional oversight. My oversight will continue. The FBI has a lot of explaining to do for their continued shortcomings and actions in this case. When will the media ask the FBI to explain? I just explained it for the American people. I would like to see the media cover this instead of talking about Russian disinformation when this issue is discussed in print media and on television. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand why many Americans would like to find a quick way to end the horrific war Russia unleashed on Ukraine. It is tempting to think we can ignore it and hope it will not affect us down the line. However, whether we like it or not, Vladimir Putin's Russia has launched the largest war in Europe since World War II, and if not stopped now, it will only expand until U.S. allies and U.S. troops are dragged in. I want to prevent that from happening. Russia is not our friend, nor is Russia neutral toward the United States. Putin, with his roots in the KGB, has identified us as an adversary and actively works to undermine the United States. All the way back in 2005, Vladimir Putin said, ``The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.'' Obviously, for those countries previously held captive by the Soviet empire, and now free and independent, the collapse of their Soviet prison was anything but a catastrophe. Putin's lackey, former Russian President Medvedev, has recently threatened our NATO ally Poland with losing its statehood. Putin likes to repeat the phrase that ``Russia's borders do not end anywhere.'' A billboard was recently spotted with Putin's face and that phrase just before the border crossing with Estonia, another deeply pro-American NATO ally. Maybe this is all bluster, but history shows that we should take it seriously. Some people on my side of the aisle have suggested that we should deny Ukraine the arms and ammunition they need to defend themselves and push the Ukrainians to negotiate an end to the war. But we already tried that. This was the Obama policy, and it failed miserably. Remember, Putin invaded Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014. President Obama responded by refusing lethal aid to Ukraine and urging negotiations, effectively locking in Russia's territorial gains. Far from ending the conflict, this led Putin to conclude that he could get away with invading all of Ukraine, which he did in February 2022. I am very surprised to see some Republicans now urging a return to the dangerously weak and failed Obama policy. That would be a huge mistake. I also want to be clear that I do not wholeheartedly support President Biden's handling of Russia's invasion. If the Biden administration had made the decision to send key weapons sooner, the Ukrainians might have been able to take back even more territory. Both Putin and most Western analysts expected the mighty Russian army would take Kyiv in days. The Ukrainians shocked the world with their will to defend their homeland. Western support trickled in, with some of our European allies leading the way. Ukraine was then able to take back half of the territory Russia initially captured in its full-scale invasion. Today, Ukraine remains in control of roughly 83 percent of its territory. That is a remarkable success, thanks to the support of Europe and the United States and the fighting spirit of the Ukrainians. The United States has been spending about 5 percent of our annual U.S. military budget to arm Ukraine and U.S. intelligence believes the war has severely degraded Russia's military power and its ability to threaten NATO allies. However, Ukraine is now running out of shells. Europe has now committed double the amount of aid to Ukraine in dollar terms as the United States. The United States ranks 15th in aid to Ukraine relative to the size of our economy, with some European allies providing many times more than us. But Europe's military production capacity is not as great as ours. In the short term, Europe cannot fill the gap in military assistance if the United States does not chip in. The frontlines have not moved much in months, which has led to the false impression that the situation is stable and ripe for a settlement. Russia has shown no indication that it will settle for less than its stated aim of toppling the freely elected Government of Ukraine and either installing a puppet government or occupying Ukraine outright. On the Ukrainian side, after uncovering the massacres at places like Bucha and Irpin after being liberated from Russian occupation, public opinion has swung overwhelmingly against ceding any territory to Russia. The Russian occupiers tortured, raped, and killed anyone who espouses Ukrainian national identity. As we have been reminded lately and as I spoke about in the Senate a year ago, Putin ascribes to a twisted Russian nationalist view of history that denies the legitimacy of Ukrainian national identity. In this, he comes from a long line of Russian imperialists that for centuries have tried, and failed, to convince Ukrainians that they are really ``little Russians'' and not a separate nation. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted and taken to Russia, where they face indoctrination to forget their Ukrainian identity and become Russian. As I have spoken out about, Christian denominations other than Russian Orthodox are persecuted by Russian occupying forces. Evangelical Christians, which are seen as linked to the West, have been disproportionately singled out for torture and repression. We should not urge Ukrainians to accept this fate, nor would they if we did. It is clear that, with continued Western military aid, Russia is unlikely to make significant territorial gains. But, if Ukraine continues to face a shortage of artillery shells and the lifesaving Patriot missiles, Ukraine could gradually lose in a painful attritional war. This would mean even more death and suffering and more genocidal Russian war crimes like we have seen. Keep in mind that the United States and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons inherited from the Soviet Union in return for a guarantee of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia is in violation of that agreement and at least two other treaties with Ukraine. As a signatory, the United States should not look the other way, nor should we simply trust Russia to adhere to any future agreement any longer than it takes to rearm. Putin faced no consequences for his invasion and occupation of part of Georgia in 2008. The weak response to his partial invasion of Ukraine in 2014 led him to embark on a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, he will be emboldened to attack NATO countries down the line, and it will cost much, much more-- potentially including American lives. Those who worry about World War III should take a lesson from World War II. Appeasement encourages further aggression. Agreeing to let aggression pay off in return for a temporary halt to fighting is not an anti-war position; it is likely to lead to a wider war before too long. I should also add that there is a lot of inaccurate talk about ``$60 billion for Ukraine.'' In fact, about 80 percent of that money will be spent right here in the U.S. This is a U.S. national security bill to protect Americans. Much of the money in the bill actually goes to beef up our military, not Ukraine's. For instance, $20 billion of the so- called Ukraine money is actually for DOD to buy weapons here at home to replenish our stockpiles with new, updated weapons; $8.3 billion is allocated to greatly expand American military production capacity. This gets put under the Ukraine heading because Russia's full-scale war on Ukraine was a wakeup call that our munitions production capacity is not where it should be in the event we get into a major war. But we need that capacity for our national security whether we help Ukraine or not. In fact, $344 million from previous so-called Ukraine bills has already gone to Iowa. The Iowa Army Ammunition Plant loads the explosives into shells, including the much in demand 155mm artillery ammunition. The dedicated workforce at the Iowa plant has already doubled production, and these modernization investments will greatly increase the capacity to surge production much further if needed to keep our country safe. I am proud of Iowa's role in keeping America the ``arsenal of democracy.'' I remember in the Truman administration, Republicans blaming Democrats with the slogan ``Who lost China?'' Republicans at that time were blaming the Democrats for China becoming communist. So how does that relate to Ukraine? There was an editorial in the Washington Post recently titled, ``Will the GOP become the party of retreat and surrender?''--meaning surrendering Ukraine to Russia and Putin. So my admonition to my fellow Republicans is this: Do we want to make the same mistake the Democrats made 70 years ago? I, for one, have no intention of doing so.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week, a dear friend of mine and the Grassley family passed away unexpectedly at age 64. A fourth- generation family farmer, Bill Northey was a son of the soil from Northwest Iowa, where Iowa Nice and a strong work ethic run through the bloodstreams in smalltown Iowa. Bill graduated from Iowa State University in 1981 with an undergraduate degree in agricultural business. A quarter-century later, he earned a master of business administration from Southwest Minnesota State University. After graduating from Iowa State, Bill returned home to the family farm near Spirit Lake, IA, in Dickinson County. Here, Bill practiced what he preached. The Northey family farm implemented conservation-friendly farming practices, including reduced tillage, cover crops, and GPS on its corn and soybean acres. At age 20, in the midst of the farm crisis in 1985, Bill was the only local farmer to show up at a meeting organized by the Iowa Corn Growers Association. Unbeknownst to Bill at the time, that meeting launched his public service career. He ran for the Iowa Corn Growers board and, later on, became president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association and the National Corn Growers Association. His resume reflects his lifelong commitment to and champion for Iowa agriculture. Bill cut his teeth in public service at the grassroots, where he served as a commissioner of the Dickinson County Soil and Water Conservation District and rose through the ranks of the Iowa Farm Bureau at the county and State levels. In 2006, he ran and won a statewide election to serve as Iowa Agriculture Secretary, where he served from 2007 to 2018. He served at the helm of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship for 11 years, winning reelection in 2010 and 2014. Under his leadership, Bill championed renewable fuels, a statewide voluntary water quality program and led Iowa producers through animal disease outbreaks, including the State's bird flu outbreak in 2014-2015 that has helped guide responses today to the highly contagious disease. President Trump tapped Bill to serve as the first USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, where he served under Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue until 2021. Bill was caught in some crossfire over regional disputes related to the Renewable Fuel Standard. Without hesitation, I went toe-to-toe with Texas Senators in support of his nomination. Bill was highly qualified and deserving of the responsibility to serve in this leadership role for America's farmers. Bill never wavered in his patience and commitment to public service. He weathered the nomination storm with grace and self-sacrifice over an issue that is important to the farm economy, U.S. energy independence, national security, and the environment. Once confirmed to the USDA post, Bill oversaw a division with 21,000 employees who worked across 3,000 locations. Traveling to 48 of 50 States, Bill expanded his agrarian horizons beyond the row crops of Middle America. But for Bill, there was no place like home. After leaving the USDA, Bill returned to Iowa and was hired to lead the Agribusiness Association of Iowa, an organization whose 1,100-plus membership supplies feed, seed, crop protection chemicals, grain, fertilizer, equipment, and more to support Iowa's agricultural supply chain across the State. Bill was a natural leader. His decades of advocacy for Iowa agriculture came naturally. It was rooted bone-deep in his heritage as family farmer. A steward of the soil, Bill understood that a farmer's livelihood hinges on protecting natural resources and the whims of Mother Nature. He brought dirt-underneath-the-fingernails work experience to the policymaking table where his voice mattered. That was because Bill spoke with authority, with farm-calloused hands and the authenticity of a farmer's heart. He knew the challenges farmers faced from 1 year to the next. A soft-spoken leader, Bill had gravitational pull with the people he worked with and for the people he served. He was approachable, affable, and put in the work. A thoughtful leader, Bill was a problem-solver who led by example. As one of the architects of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy and early adopter of cover crops to improve water quality, Bill was known to tell farmers, whose livelihoods depend on environmental stewardship, that such programs are voluntary, but ``not optional.'' Named an Iowa Master Farmer in 2016, the Iowa farm community has lost a giant. Barbara and I have lost a dear friend. His leadership and friendship will be missed. Iowa farmers will benefit from his work to promote conservation and their work to feed and fuel the world for generations to come. To his beloved wife Cindy, three daughters, grandchildren, extended family, and loved ones, Barbara and I send our prayers and condolences. May Bill's memory heal your hearts and evoke smiles and laughter around the dinner table in the days and years to come.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the organ transplant business and network governance has been in shambles for decades, and people have needlessly died because of it, and we have passed very good legislation unanimously to correct it. So I come to the Senate floor because I have very serious concerns about the Biden administration's implementation of H.R. 2544. That legislation goes by the title of Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Act. I am joined by a colleague who has worked really hard on this issue, Senator Moran of Kansas, who will also give his views on this issue. He worked with me and championed this very important issue. On September 22 of this year, this legislation, H.R. 2544, was signed into law by this President. In less than 3 months, the Health Resources and Services Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services is already ignoring congressional intent while asking Congress--can you believe it--for money to implement the law, and it is presumably to implement the law contrary to what the legislation requires. Now, I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this very important bipartisan piece of legislation. We fought alongside patient organizations that knew this whole setup, for decades, was not working the way it should. We did this with the hope and expectation that we would have real competition to manage our organ donation system. Congress unanimously passed the bill, as I said before, and we were able to do it despite attempts by a lot of people within the 40-year- old organization that runs this program that tried to kill it with what we call around here poison-pill amendments. And that point is very important because we didn't adopt any of those amendments. Yet we see some of those amendments' approaches being now promoted by this administration in the implementation of this bill. These potential poison-pill amendments would have prevented competition in our organ donation system, and we felt that competition was what we needed, instead of the monopolistic approaches that had existed for decades. And you can imagine these amendments were pushed-- yes--by the same nonprofit monopolies that have called the shots in our Nation's failed organ donation system for the last 40 years. So here is where we are within just 3 short months after the passing of what we thought was real reform. Now, the Health Resources and Services Administration of HHS, led by Administrator Carole Johnson, has attempted to restrict competition right out of the gate by inserting, via contracting process, the very poison pills that Congress kept out of the law. For example, that Agency announced plans to install the existing United Network for Organ Sharing board--the one that has been running the show--as the new, so-called independent board. Regarding limiting competition for the board contract, Agency officials told my staff and staff from other congressional offices: the Agency can place restrictions on any contracts, including the IT contract. Again, the purpose of this legislation was to create competition, not stifle it with government restrictions and sweetheart deals. My bipartisan oversight over the years has shown that the United Network for Organ Sharing IT system is failing at every level. I have heard from patient groups and leaders with these very same concerns. These patient advocacy organizations are rightfully concerned that HHS, today, is caving to bad actors who have been running our Nation's organ donation system since 1986. The president of the Global Liver Institute wrote: I never imagined that industry could so quickly dictate the terms of the law's implementation. The National Kidney Foundation wrote that these proposals ``continue to empower those who have been responsible for the problems that have plagued the transplant system.'' From what my staff has been told, Health Resources and Services Administration officials have threatened the very patient groups writing those letters to me and other Members of Congress. The Health Resources and Services Administration allegedly told some of these patient groups to retract their letters of concern and that their letters were a lie. All of this is unacceptable--and should be to the 100 Members of this body who passed this legislation unanimously. I started working to fix our Nation's corrupt, broken organ donation system way back in 2005. Since then, more than 200,000 Americans have needlessly died on the transplant waiting list, disproportionately for people of color and people of rural America. Patients and Congress fought for this legislation. Now, HHS, under this administration, needs to implement this law in the interest of patients. Patients' lives depend on it--200,000 lives over 40 years lost because of how this organization has distributed or lost or a hundred other ways you can say the organ not getting to the patient it was intended. Maladministration by the organ network must stop, and it looks to me like HHS wants to keep it going as it is and prevent and stand in the way of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in its relentless pursuit of canceling student debt, the Department of Education seems to have forgotten that Congress gave it a job to do. Last year, the Department announced its unconstitutional efforts to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars, contrary to law. Of course, you remember that was the forgiving of student loans. Even after this attempt was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, endless efforts of debt cancellation seem to have taken precedent over the duty Congress is giving the Department. For example, after being on pause for 3 years, student loan payments finally started back up here in October of this year. Servicers, students, and Members of Congress pressed for answers about how and when this process would work. But instead of a plan, the return to repayment has been utter chaos. Iowans, and even some Members of my staff who have student loans, have waited for weeks to get answers to very basic questions about their loans. Due to sloppy recordkeeping, the Department has failed its audit for the second straight year in a row. In its hurry to cancel debt, the administration can't even provide auditors enough information to do their jobs. It isn't just previous students who are being left in limbo. There is another issue that is hard to get information on. So we have current and incoming college students who still can't fill out the application form that goes by the acronym FAFSA. That stands for ``free application for student aid.'' In a normal year, students would fill it out in October and know early in the process whether they had qualified for Pell grants or other forms of student aid, but this year, students still don't have the information they need to start choosing the best school for them. I have long said that students don't have enough transparent information when applying to college. The shortened timeline this year makes it even harder. To address the problem that I just mentioned, I recently sent a letter, with Senator Kaine of Virginia and other colleagues, pressing the Department of Education to give students the information they need. That includes making sure that farm families aren't forced to sell their farms in order to send their kids to college. It helps no one to lump small family farms in with the largest mega farms--as if a farm family who is barely getting by is somehow considered to be rich--and have their kids not qualify for student loans. The bipartisan effort by Senator Kaine and me pushes the Department to recognize that distinction and ensure that farm kids have the information they need to properly fill out the proper forms to see if they qualify for student loans. All students deserve to have the information they need and to get that information ahead of time. Students, families, and borrowers shouldn't have their timelines delayed by changing political whims. Congress certainly did not pass a law telling the Department to cancel hundreds of billions in student debt, but Congress did give the Department a mandate to properly oversee student loan repayments, the implementation of the FAFSA, and to keep its finances in order. Before trying to unconstitutionally create enormous new cancelation programs, I suggest and encourage the Department of Education to do the job it has actually been given by the Congress to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I placed a hold on S. 595, the Rio San Jose and Rio Jemez Water Settlements Act of 2023. The legislation is not paid for and would violate multiple budget enforcement rules. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would increase the deficit by $1.7 billion.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I want to address the ill-advised and really unacceptable conduct at the November 30 Judiciary Committee executive meeting. The majority there didn't allow a single Republican amendment to the adoption of the subpoena authorization, and that was breaking with precedent. Contrary to what Democrats allege, when I was chairman, I followed the rules and let everyone speak who wanted to so speak. I even allowed them to offer resolutions during a confirmation process, which I could have ruled out of order. Simply put, this subpoena authorization isn't based on oversight; it is based on overreach. It is a political hit. Over the past 6 months, the left's web of dark money interest groups has tried to impugn the character and reputation of certain conservative members of the Supreme Court. This Democratic investigation into the Supreme Court totally ignores ethical questions and dark money networks surrounding liberal Justices. This is all part of a whirlwind effort to cast doubt on our country's highest Court and call into question the legitimacy of its rulings. Conservative Justices have been specifically targeted, harassed, and even threatened. The left's influence-peddling scheme views these conservative Justices as the greatest obstacle to jamming their radical agenda through our courts because Congress won't do the same liberal bidding. The left has outlined new rules for conservative Justices: Justices' spouses must give up their independent law practices; Justices shouldn't vacation with close personal friends; Justices shouldn't have wealthy friends; and Justices shouldn't make any new friends after donning the robe. How unfair and how unrealistic. No such conflicts of interest ever were raised during the Court's liberal years. These rules were not invoked against the Court's liberal Justices. This persistent political battering of the Judiciary is coming at a tremendous cost. The conservative Justices have endured real threats to their safety and the safety of their loved ones. As I have said before, judicial decision-making must be based on law and sound jurisprudence. It shouldn't be subject to the whims of public opinion or clamor. It cannot be the result of threats and intimidation of Supreme Court Justices. This political hit by the Democratic majority of the committee will do lasting damage not only to the Court but to the committee. Again, this effort isn't really oversight as I like to do, and we do a good job of it; instead, it is about political theater. Let me give some examples of how an investigation should be conducted. During my time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, starting in 2017, the committee investigated, in a bipartisan fashion, alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Bipartisan committee staff--I want to emphasize that--bipartisan committee staff interviewed five individuals who participated in that meeting, including President Trump's son, and collected documents from several others involved. At the Democrats' request, the committee interviewed an additional six individuals. I subpoenaed even Paul Manafort, with then-Ranking Member Feinstein's agreement for him to appear at a hearing and to provide testimony. With the exception of Democrats refusing to subpoena Fusion GPS and related parties, then-Chairman Graham's 2020 Crossfire Hurricane subpoena authorization was based on years of bipartisan work. As I have thought more about my Democratic colleagues' apparent laser focus on government ethics, it is clear that they have totally ignored the biggest, most obvious ethical fact pattern that requires investigation, and that is of the Biden family. Since August 2019, Senator Johnson and I have investigated the Biden family's connections to foreign governments and questionable foreign nationals. We issued two reports and gave three floor speeches that made public hundreds of bank records. Our findings showed criminal activity, to include potential money laundering, with respect to members of the Biden family and their business associates and the use of public office for private gain. Well, with respect to the Hunter Biden-related accounts, some have also been flagged for potential human trafficking. As Senator Johnson and I noted in our September 23, 2020, Biden family report, Treasury records show thousands of dollars in financial transactions involving Hunter Biden and Ukrainian and Russian women. These Treasury records link those women to Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking rings. At this Judiciary Committee executive meeting that I have been speaking about, Democrats failed to consider my amendment to gather more facts on this abuse against women. Senator Johnson and I made public a bank record that showed Hunter Biden received $1 million from a Chinese company that was an arm of the communist regime for representing Patrick Ho. Patrick Ho was charged and convicted for bribery and related Federal offenses. Now, guess what. Hunter Biden called Patrick Ho the spy chief for China. Based on the known facts, it appears that Hunter Biden was effectively a foreign agent of the communist regime. The Judiciary Committee maintained jurisdiction and still maintains jurisdiction over the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Justice Department's enforcement of it. Yet, the Democrat-led committee has ignored the law and the Biden family. In July of this year, I obtained and publicly released what is now called the Biden family 1023. This FBI-generated document is based on information provided to a long-serving FBI confidential human source. The FBI document shows a criminal bribery scheme. The criminal scheme included Joe Biden and Hunter Biden each being paid $5 million for Joe Biden to take a policy position in favor of a foreign national. That policy position was ultimately taken. Joe Biden even bragged about it, and you can see, fairly regularly, his voice and his face talking about this--what he did to the Ukrainian Government to get somebody fired. The 1023 used the phrase ``Big Guy'' to describe Joe Biden before the ``Big Guy'' description was publicly known months later. Different people at different times in different parts of the world independently used the same code name to describe Joe Biden. Do my Democratic colleagues believe that it is just a coincidence? The 1023 includes references to audio recordings with Joe Biden, text messages, and records allegedly proving bribery criminal activity, and that it was real. What have my Democratic colleagues done to investigate that evidence? What has the Biden Justice Department done? The Tony Bobulinski interview noted that the Biden family would receive a multimillion-dollar unsecured loan, intended to be forgivable, from the energy company in China called CEFC. That would serve as payments for actions Joe Biden took during his Vice Presidency. This financial strategy to illegally treat income as a loan is consistent with the IRS whistleblower testimony that indicated Hunter Biden attempted the same with respect to other income. These facts and allegations indicate criminal activity, money laundering, bribery, tax evasion, and significant ethical violations. And, by the way, the Hunter Biden tax indictment mentioned financial transactions that my and Senator Johnson's work exposed years ago. Look at indictment paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 100. Compare them with the other two reports from 2020 and three floor speeches last year. My Democratic colleagues have shown zero interest in knowing, understanding, joining forces, or advancing this 4-year-old investigation. Instead, they have shown willful blindness to protect the President and family. One of my Democratic colleagues said the right thing when we considered then-Chairman Graham's subpoena authorization. Senator Whitehouse brought up an amendment to ``reinforce his point made at the last meeting about the selective enthusiasm of [the Judiciary] Committee for getting to the bottom of things and what appears to be a policy at the Department of Justice of refusing to answer Committee members' letters and Committee members' questions for the record.'' The U.S. Congress has a constitutional mandate to conduct oversight of Republican and Democratic administrations without any political bias for either. We have a duty to ensure the Justice Department and the FBI consistently enforce the law without regard to politics. Judiciary Committee Democrats were eager to engage in the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation before it was totally debunked. However, they were very eager to falsely attack my and Senator Johnson's Biden family investigation as Russian disinformation. Sadly, I haven't seen the same enthusiasm from the other side now that a Democratic political family is under the microscope. If it is criminal and ethical questions my Democratic colleagues are interested in, then the Judiciary Committee should, in a bipartisan fashion, bring the family members for interviews and obtain records from them. No, the Democrat majority wants to investigate Supreme Court Justices and, of all nine of the Justices, only the conservative ones. So I can only conclude the Democrats' brand of oversight is more about politics than fact finding.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to celebrate 20 years since the passage of the Part D Medicare prescription drug benefit. Tomorrow, December 8, is that day. There was a time when the seniors of America on Medicare didn't have access to nationwide prescription drug benefits, so, as I indicated, 20 years ago tomorrow, President George W. Bush signed into law a nationwide prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. At that time, I was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was proud to be the lead author on Medicare Part D. It wasn't easy. It took several years to bring Members of both political parties in the Senate and the House, along with a President--in this case, President Bush--to accomplish this monumental task. As I remember, both political parties were blaming each other over a period of maybe 5 or 6 years for why we didn't have a prescription drug bill and probably blaming each other. Throughout 2001, 2002, and 2003, I led bipartisan negotiations that eventually produced the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which is the official title of that legislation. In 2003, I said this, a quote from that period of time: Medicare is part of our country's social fabric. We're not only saving it, but we're also improving it. Of course, that still rings true today. Today, 52 million seniors are voluntarily enrolled in a Medicare Part D plan, because it is not a requirement of Medicare. In 2023, 804 stand-alone prescription drug plans were offered across the Nation, with the average Iowan having over 20 plans to choose from to meet whatever their special needs are. Over the lifetime of the program, the average annual Medicare Part D base beneficiary monthly premium has been between $27 to $36 a month. I remember some of the discussions that we were having back then as we tried to develop this legislation. We thought to ourselves that we had to be very careful that the initial premiums were not over $40 a month because we figured that was just too high for anybody to participate in this new program. We knew or at least thought at that time that they would continue to go up according to inflation, but, as you can see, after 27 years, the base beneficiary monthly premium is still well below $40 a month, which obviously is quite a surprise to those of us who were involved at that time in writing this legislation but a very positive surprise. Access and affordability have been a key hallmark of the Medicare Part D Program, but so has good stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars. In the first decade of the program, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that Medicare Part D would cost taxpayers roughly $550 billion for that decade. It ended up costing $353 billion, which was 36 percent less than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected in 2003. Most Federal projections of cost of almost any government program always tend to be much greater than CBO estimated. So this is another one of those pleasant surprises that have come out of what we thought would actually materialize as we were writing this legislation. I know that seniors have appreciated this nationwide prescription drug benefit and its use of a market-based approach. A market-based approach is pretty important because a lot of people like to have one single government program that dictates to each participant only that one choice, and that is the choice the government offers. In this particular case, we know we have had plenty of choices to meet the needs of Americans in different ways according to their likes. Recently, I have been told by my constituents how Medicare Part D has helped make their lives easier. There is a lady by the name of Kay from Mount Vernon, IA, who wrote this: I am 100 percent satisfied with Medicare Part D. It's given me peace of mind and cost savings that make room in my budget for other living expenses. Julie from Dubuque, IA, said this: I wouldn't possibly be able to afford oncological care without this insurance. My advice for Iowans becoming eligible for Medicare: Sign up for Medicare Part D. Use a trusted source to navigate all the plans. I'm glad to have choices, not one-size-fits-all. An Iowan who volunteers with the Senior Health Insurance Information Program said this: As a SHIIP volunteer-- SHIIP is the Senior Health Insurance Information Program-- I like to help people find the best plan to fit their needs and their finances. One individual was taking 35 daily prescription medications that would have cost $10,000 per month without Part D. For this Iowan, Medicare Part D was by definition, lifesaving. I am glad Medicare Part D has benefited these seniors. Medicare Part D has shown that empowering patients with health plan transparency and choice can bring about significant savings for patients and taxpayers. Even though Medicare Part D has been around for at least 20 years, I have consistently conducted oversight and worked to make it better for seniors and taxpayers. During Medicare Part D's implementation, I held the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services accountable and consistently conducted oversight that ranged from making sure seniors could access their prescription drugs all the way to ensuring that taxpayer dollars were wisely spent. I have also worked to advance commonsense reforms for seniors, for providers, and for taxpayers. Twenty years ago, we modernized Medicare to improve access for seniors while ensuring fiscal sustainability for taxpayers. I don't know why for sure, in 1966 when Medicare was set up, why it didn't include prescription drugs, but I assumed at that particular time that prescription drugs were about 1 or 2 percent of the cost of medicine in the United States or the delivery of medicine in the United States. Today, I think it is somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. These patient-centered principles that I have talked about can be applied to the latest front in the fight to lower prescription drugs by shining sunlight on powerful drug middlemen called pharmacy benefit managers. By bringing transparency to the PBM industry, we will empower patients, employers, providers, and insurers to make informed decisions based on the true value, if any, that PBMs provide. When consumers are empowered, they can demand change or pursue better alternatives. Unleashing market forces that foster innovation and apply downward pressure on prices is the way to get there. The Senate has an opportunity to take action to reduce costs for patients and taxpayers alike. We should let the successes of Medicare Part D's patient-centered approach guide us. Now, my colleagues are going to say that I took advantage of commemorating 20 years of Part D being a successful program for seniors and keeping drug costs down for seniors to take a whack at PBMs. But I think we all ought to think in terms of these powerful middlemen between the companies and you as the consumer or the local pharmacy, and we don't have any idea what they are doing. We know they have something to do with setting prices, setting rebates, determining what drugs are in what formularies, but beyond that, we don't know whether the rebates they give benefit the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the PBMs themselves, the pharmacies, or you as a consumer, and we ought to know that. Senator Wyden, my Democratic friend--he and I traded off sharing the Finance Committee from time to time. He and I started working on PBMs probably about 5 years ago. We were the only two who were interested in it, but it has reached a stage where at least four committees of the U.S. Senate and one committee of the House of Representatives have put out bills to make the opaque environment in which PBMs operate more transparent. Now, we aren't saying that what they are doing is wrong; we are only saying we ought to know what they are doing for the benefit of the consumer but also for the benefit of the American taxpayer because, through Medicare and Medicaid, government is the biggest purchaser of drugs in the United States, and maybe we can save the taxpayers some money. So besides being here on the floor of the U.S. Senate to praise the Congress in 2003 for passing the prescription drug Part D program for Medicare, I didn't want to lose the opportunity to urge action on PBM legislation so that we can know what is going on with the pricing of drugs, the formularies, and who benefits from it because, with transparency, there brings accountability. Maybe transparency won't be enough when we are all done, but I wouldn't know where to tell you to go if you wanted to change some law right now to transform this system, but I think transparency will do a great deal of good. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Iowans recall the derecho that tore through parts of our State in 2020. The storm hit alongside the COVID- 19 pandemic, when communities faced unprecedented challenges, including stalled school meal programs. Such unforeseen events can disrupt communities. Individuals like Michael Rojas of Polk County step up-- often on a moment's notice and without pause--to keep that from happening. Mr. Rojas helped lead FEMA's response to the 2020 derecho, putting to work his expertise from a prior post with Iowa's Habitat for Humanity, where he dealt with tornado and flood damage. During the pandemic, he spearheaded critical plans to address food insecurity in our State. Today, he is a disaster program officer with Volunteer Iowa, which facilitates opportunities for local nonprofits and nearby residents to engage in projects with impacts close to home. Iowans who cross paths with Mr. Rojas undoubtedly know his selflessness, ingenuity, and efficacy. By honoring Mr. Rojas on a national scale with its Excellence in Disaster Services Leadership Award, AmeriCorps seems to have hit the nail on the head. I congratulate Mr. Rojas on this well-earned recognition and thank him for his continued, exemplary service to Iowa.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if the Biden administration decides to allow a terrorist state access to billions of dollars, then, at a bare minimum, the Biden administration must perform exceedingly strict oversight of how that money is used. It is pretty simple, common sense requires considering the attendant risk that this money gives to Iran. The Biden administration has created a serious problem that needs strict oversight. More than all that, the Congress must also have the same regard of how the executive branch conducts its business in regard to these billions of dollars. Today, I have an on-point example to present to my colleagues. In September of this year, the administration's State Department provided Iran access to $6 billion as part of a prisoner swap agreement. Then, in mid-October, the United States and the Qatari Governments decided to refreeze these funds due to the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel. Hamas, an Iranian-funded terrorist organization, as we all know, attacked Israel and murdered civilians, seized hostages, and destroyed towns. Hamas committed unspeakable acts of terror and evil, not seen since the Nazis, toward Jewish people. On October 12 of this year, Secretary of State Blinken addressed the international media and, in that address, claimed that the State Department has ``strict oversight of the funds and retains the right to freeze them''--meaning freezing the $6 billion. Now, there had better be strict oversight--the taxpayers ought to require that--exceedingly strict oversight. I now ask: What did the Secretary of State mean when he said ``strict oversight''? I don't want lip service from the Secretary. I want details. So on October 12 of this year, I wrote a letter asking exactly that: What are the details? My letter also sought to know what government Agencies are involved in this alleged oversight. What are the roles of the respective Agencies in this oversight? What enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance? How will the State Department be able to punish Iran if conditions of the $6 billion is violated? I also asked what components of the State Department are responsible for conducting this oversight, among other questions. Almost a month past the 2-week deadline to respond, the State Department did finally send me a letter. That letter was very incomplete and a very insufficient response that failed to answer the essential question, using his words: What does ``strict oversight'' mean? The letter didn't deal with that, and it seems to be a pretty simple question. The State Department letter meekly said: ``The United States will have full visibility and will exercise strict oversight as to how and when the funds are used.'' This isn't an answer; this is lip service. We are talking about billions of dollars accessible by a terrorist regime. So as you would expect Senator Grassley to do, on November 21, I sent a letter, a followup letter, to Secretary Blinken, informing him of his failed response and then again renewing my request for Congress and the American people to know and understand what the Secretary meant by the words he used of ``strict oversight.'' (Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.) The Secretary made these oversight promises publicly in an international setting, and the Secretary has an obligation to explain himself what ``strict oversight'' is. If the State Department is engaging in strict oversight, then say what it is and give us, the Congress, the response, the details of that. The taxpayers deserve to know exactly how the Biden administration plans to ensure proper oversight of $6 billion to Iran. This Senator, obviously, won't stop demanding answers, especially when it comes to a terrorist regime's access to billions of dollars that the United States has something to say about.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeremy King, a Secret Service detailee from my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, you just heard Senator Durbin say that this bill has passed the Senate once. It is still not law. We are back here again, and I hope my fellow Senators will see that Senator Durbin and I don't give up on this very important issue of trying to bring a dose of sunshine to the airwaves. Lowering the cost of prescription drugs is a top priority of mine and most of the Senators here. Without prescription medication, millions of Americans would not survive. As a nation, we are incredibly blessed to live in a country where investment and innovation unlock cures and treatments. But the escalation in price of prescription drugs, partly caused by this advertisement that goes on, are a consuming concern for millions of Americans, including Iowans who bring up this subject regularly at my county meetings. I have come to the floor of the Senate to address the sticker shock that greets consumers when they pick up their medicine at the pharmacy or open their medical bills after a hospital visit. In recent years, I have worked in a bipartisan manner to pass the CREATES Act, another bill called the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act, and another one, the Right Rebate Act into law. Each of these bills lowered prescription drug prices for patients and taxpayers by stopping anticompetitive practices, putting sunlight on medications for consumers at the pharmacy counter, and to keep drug companies in check. I was chairman of the Finance Committee when we hauled Big Pharma in for public hearings. As chairman, I also partnered with the senior Senator from Oregon on a groundbreaking 2-year investigation of insulin pricing. That investigation focuses not only on insulin manufacturers but also powerful pharmacy benefit managers--PBMs. I have worked to hold PBMs accountable by putting sunlight on their practices and working to ban their anti-competitive behavior that increases the cost to patients, rural pharmacies, and the taxpayers. In this Congress, I have gotten passed the Prescription Pricing for the People Act out of the Judiciary Committee and with bipartisan support. I hope the Senate doesn't miss the opportunity to hold the Federal Trade Commission accountable by requiring the 6(b) study of drug middlemen to be produced within 1 year instead of the typical 3 to 5 years that it takes the FTC to do something. I have also worked with the junior Senator from Washington State to pass the PBM Transparency Act out of the Commerce Committee with bipartisan support. The FTC can play an important role in holding PBMs accountable in spread pricing and clawbacks across all health insurance. I have also contributed to and supported two Finance Committee markups this year that included six of my PBM accountability and transparency provisions. I am supporting the PBM provisions that have come out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to deal with this problem in the commercial insurance market. I hope the full Senate doesn't ignore the aggressive actions the four committees have taken this Congress to hold PBMs accountable. We must enact these bold committee-passed bills into law. If we are timid, we will be right back here a few years from now still fixing the problem. On top of PBM reforms and accountability, we need price transparency; so that brings me back to where Senator Durbin and I are right now. With that background, I now go to the purpose of this unanimous consent request and the Durbin-Grassley bill to bring important price information to prescription drug consumers. When patients complain about the high price of drugs, it is usually because they got their bill or found out how much it costs when they were at the pharmacy counter. They didn't have the ability to know the price before they bought it. Knowing what something costs before buying is common sense. So working with the Senator from Illinois to require the disclosure of medication list prices and advertisements makes common sense. President Trump pursued this through regulations, and the Senate even passed this measure--as Senator Durbin has already said--a few years ago. Each year, the pharmaceutical industry spends $6 billion in direct- to-consumer drug advertising to fill the airways with ads, resulting in the average American seeing nine direct-to-consumer ads each day. Studies show that these activities steer patients to more expensive drugs even when a lower cost generic is available. The Government Accountability Office has found that prescription drugs advertised directly to consumers account for about 58 percent of Medicare spending on drugs. We ought to require the disclosure of this list price so that patients can make informed choices when inundated with drug commercials. Consumers and taxpayers would benefit from a dose of sunshine. By passing the Drug-Price Transparency for Consumers Act, we could begin the process of reforming the incentives in our prescription supply chain that reward high-cost drugs and their manufacturers, along with powerful middlemen. If you watch these commercials on television, you see a lot of information very quietly stated by the drug companies such as the side effects possible from using some of these drugs. You get all the information about what these drugs will accomplish, but you don't know what they cost. And that information ought to be available to the consumer. I thank Senator Durbin for giving me this opportunity to express my view on this piece of legislation. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1250

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, shortly after President Biden took office, I gave a speech wondering whether this new President Biden's tough-on-Russia rhetoric would be matched by his administration's actions. I wondered about President Biden because the actions of the Obama-Biden administration were dangerously weak. We all know that when it comes to Russia, weakness is provocative. It encourages aggression. Russians follow the maxim attributed to Lenin: You probe with bayonets: If you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw. The same is true when dealing with Iran and China. Only 6 months after Russia invaded and occupied portions of the Republic of Georgia, then-Vice President Biden went to Munich to deliver a speech calling for the United States to hit the ``reset button'' with Russia. When Russia invaded, the Republic of Georgia was westernizing and had gone out of its way to cement close ties with our country. Georgia even sent soldiers to fight and die alongside American soldiers, but that support from Georgia was quickly forgotten in order to reset relations with Russia. Secretary of State Clinton actually did hit the ``reset button'' in an embarrassing, chummy ceremony with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. As part of the Obama-Biden reset, the United States unilaterally canceled planned missile defense cooperation with our allies the Czechs and the Poles, and the administration did so on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. All of these actions then sent the exact wrong message to both Russia and to our allies. No doubt the Obama-Biden administration thought our unilateral show of goodwill would be warmly received and reciprocated by Russia. Instead, we know that Russia under Putin invaded and occupied Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula and chunks of eastern Ukraine. The Obama- Biden administration responded with angry words but refused to send Ukraine defensive weapons of any kind. President Obama urged Ukraine not to fight the 2014 Russian invasion. The priority was to avoid escalation. The Obama-Biden administration backed negotiations and a diplomatic solution. Now, we all know Russia has a history of using negotiations to create frozen conflicts that it can use then to destabilize and control its neighbors. Historically, Russia will snatch a piece of land and then demand a ceasefire and negotiations, allowing it to keep the ill-gotten gains indefinitely. Meanwhile, Russia builds up its next aggression while weakening its target. The Obama-Biden reset and subsequent Ukraine policy was a disaster for peace and security. In August 2013, the regime of Syrian President Assad used chemical weapons. By doing so, it crossed President Biden's redline--that famous ``redline'' that he spoke about. When nothing happened, then, the world took notice. Meanwhile, the Obama-Biden administration sought to strike an Iran nuclear deal at all costs, alienating regional partners and emboldening the Iranian regime. In June of 2019, President Trump repeated a version of President Obama's redline mistake. At that time, Iran had shot down a U.S. drone, and the U.S. military had prepared a retaliatory strike, as you would expect their defense to do. But President Trump stepped in, calling off the strike, and, then, you know, he publicly announced that he had done so 10 minutes before that attack was supposed to be launched. President Trump's aborted retaliation then led to further escalation by the Iranian regime, including attacks on U.S. soldiers; that is, until President Trump finally took some solid action, making that bold decision to restore deterrence by killing General Soleimani, as he was plotting further attacks against U.S. forces. Iran responded with a token missile barrage, but the dramatic escalation of the conflict with Iran, predicted by some, fortunately, never materialized. In fact, Iran was deterred. Then, the Biden administration came into office and began negotiations to resurrect the Iran deal. Of course, who can ever forget the disastrous withdrawals from Afghanistan? In time, we will learn more about the decisions that lead to such enormous loss of American military equipment to the Taliban, while leaving many Afghans who worked with our military still under Taliban control--and still today. Both of these losses sting this very day and influence others to see us as weak or somebody who can't be counted on, as far as our friends are concerned. But there is another loss that is harder to quantify; that is, the loss of the reputation of the United States. Like it or not, stacked on top of the other expressions of American weakness that I have described, the Afghanistan debacle led to a perception that the United States is weak and unwilling to stand behind its commitments. After the Afghanistan embarrassment, our allies and partners worried that we were no longer reliable. Worse yet, those countries that have long sought America's downfall no longer feared us. Our enemies were emboldened. According to Russian opposition journalist Mikhail Zygar, in his recent book, the fall of Kabul was a turning point in Putin's mind. Putin became convinced then that he could conquer Kyiv, President Zelenskyy would flee the country, and the United States would do nothing to stop that takeover of Ukraine. Today, we face the consequences of an emboldened Russia and an emboldened Iran. And, two, China is increasingly aggressive in the South China Sea and the Strait of Taiwan. To be sure, our responses are being closely watched by all three of these adversaries: Russia, China, and Iran. This is a critical time when sending more messages of weakness would be very dangerous. Today, some people--even in my own political party--are reverting to the Obama-era stance, arguing that we cannot afford the actions necessary to deter all three would-be adversaries of our country. I am convinced that we must deter further aggression from our enemies. We must restore credible deterrence before we reach the point where we have to expend much more, both in American blood and American treasure. Estonia's Prime Minister is in town this week. Remember that little country that was taken over by the Soviet Union in 1940 and, until the early 1990s, was still under their control? Now they are a free nation. We ought to listen to them of what freedom really means. So I recommend to my colleagues to listen to Prime Minister Kallas, if you have any chance to do that. She has shown remarkable clarity and leadership since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. She often points out: If Putin wins, or if he even has the view that he has won this war, his appetite will only grow. Meanwhile, that old impulse to deter ourselves is still evident in this present administration when the U.S. National Security Advisor says he is worried about starting World War III. That is a way of convincing Putin to hang on a little longer. We should have learned by now that escalation of aggression happens when the United States demonstrates weakness. Telegraphing that we are afraid to give Ukraine what it needs to win is deeply counterproductive to freedom and, most importantly, to the Ukrainian people, but also encouraging Russia because, remember, for Russians, weakness, not strength, is provocative. I urge Members of both political parties to discard the failed Obama policies of weakness toward Russia and give Ukraine what it needs today. Reset didn't work, and ignoring Russia's ambitions in that area is harmful for peace around the world and, particularly, for national security. Our national security is tied, through NATO, with Europe. The more advanced weapons that Ukraine can obtain quickly, the faster that war will be over. When it comes to quick decisions to send needed weapons to Ukraine to defeat Russia, several countries have shown great leadership: the United Kingdom, Poland, and the three Baltic countries, for example. Now, for sure, yes, the United States has provided many advanced weapons to Ukraine--the most of any country helping Ukraine--but usually only months after they are needed to have the maximum effect that these good weapons provide. Ukraine didn't get the tanks needed to launch the counteroffensive until after the Russians had months to dig in and fortify their frontlines. After months of dithering, President Biden finally gave permission for the Dutch and Danish to send their F-16s to Ukraine, but it will still take months to train the pilots. The United States military would never launch a ground campaign without controlling the skies, but that is what Ukraine has been forced to do without the F-16s. After all the public hemming and hawing, President Biden finally approved sending a version of the ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, but shorter range cluster munitions were the variant that was sent, not the most destructive. Meanwhile, President Biden is still withholding the long-range versions needed to take out the Russian supply lines in the Crimean Peninsula. Now, I can only assume this is another example of self- deterrence that has proven so misguided a policy of the past. Ukrainians are making steady progress, but they could be doing it faster and at less cost in American dollars and Ukrainian lives if President Biden would not be so hesitant, as he is, to take bold action. The United States has spent roughly $44 billion on military aid to Ukraine. That happens to be roughly 5 percent of the U.S. military's own budget. Ukraine remains in control of roughly 83 percent of its territory, and the U.S. intelligence community believes the war has severely degraded Russia's military power and its ability to threaten NATO allies. That is a victory not just for Ukraine's independence but for our own national security, as it is tied to the invoking of article 5 of the NATO alliance. The Russian invasion of Ukraine sent a wake-up call to our military that we need to increase our capacity to produce munitions. We have ramped up production and are already investing in new capacity so we will not be caught flatfooted in any future conflict. I am glad to say this is already in evidence at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in West Burlington in my State. The dedicated workforce in Iowa is cranking out 155-millimeter howitzer shells and a host of other key munitions. Ground was recently broken for $1.2 billion in upgrades to the Iowa plant, paid out of the Ukraine funding package passed by the Congress. I know people talk like the money Congress allocated was literally sent over to Ukraine and every dollar was spent within that country, but the reality is that most of the money stayed right here in the United States to produce arms and ammo and to build production capacity. I am proud that the portion of the Ukraine funding sent to Iowa will help keep the United States the ``arsenal of democracy'' for years to come. Ramping up our military production capacity is good news for our U.S. military readiness. It is also good news for Taiwan. The closed production line for the Stinger air defense system has meant Taiwan's orders have gone unfulfilled for years. That Stinger line is now reopening. I do not believe the United States is incapable of addressing the multiple international challenges we face, and I fear the consequences if we don't face strongly those challenges. The United States believed that it could ignore World War I and World War II until those wars became so large that we got dragged into those conflicts. Once the United States joined the fight, our participation was decisive but at enormous cost in American lives and American dollars. We learned our lesson after World War II and took action to make sure it wasn't repeated, and it hasn't been repeated. We did that by helping form NATO to keep the peace in Europe for now 70 years. Putin's Russia is continuing the Russian tradition of imperial conquest and will not stop unless they are stopped. All you have to do is look at what Putin himself has said. In addresses going back to 2008 and a couple of times since then, he said that his goal was to reestablish the old Soviet Union. I guess he put it in the strongest terms when he said that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. So you know he is going to welcome the support he is getting from Iran, and Iran happens to be sending drones to Russia to attack the civilian areas of Ukraine. Iran also funds and backs Hamas as it inflicts a reign of terror on innocent Israeli citizens. And for all those people who are demonstrating around the country that you see on TV over the last 4 weekends against what is going on in Israel and Gaza, it seems to me it ought to be pretty clear that there wouldn't be a single killing going on today in that region of the country if Hamas had not invaded Israel. That seems to be forgotten by all the people who are demonstrating. I know they are peacefully demonstrating for the most part, and that is their constitutional right, and I defend that right. But we have Iran involved in this as well because it funds and backs Hamas as it inflicts a reign of terror on innocent civilians. Iran is firing rockets at U.S. soldiers in the region, resulting in injuries--I guess if you believe the TV reports, about 48 instances of attacks against American soldiers. Thankfully, nobody has been killed at this point, but there have been injuries and some of them very serious injuries, and we have not responded accordingly, showing weakness. Iran respects our weakness and attacks more. China is backing Russia diplomatically, economically, and with technology that is being used to attack in Ukraine. So I hope you see this China-Iran-Russia axis against the interests of NATO, against the interests of peace, against the interests of liberty and the independence of countries as something we should take very seriously. China is deterred also from attacking Taiwan and dominating other neighbors in Asia largely based on its assessment of America's military strength and political will. So whether it is Russia, Iran, China, it ought to be a concern for all of us. It is just not Russia v. Ukraine. What would China make of the United States throwing in the towel again so quickly? It is pretty clear from history, we must not find out. We know what Russia is up to. We know what China is up to. We know what Iran is up to. We have to make sure they don't succeed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, recently, I had the opportunity to meet with a group of religious leaders from Ukraine. They represented multiple Christian denominations, plus Islam and Judaism. They spoke of the role faith is playing in the resilience and determination we have seen from the Ukrainian people. One of the religious leaders who spoke to me was Dr. Ivan Rusyn. He is president of the Ukrainian Evangelical Theological Seminary. His seminary trains evangelical ministers from various Protestant backgrounds. It was hit by six Russian rockets when Russia invaded. Dr. Rusyn lives in Bucha, and we all see that as being infamous by the atrocities that were committed against civilians by the Russian occupiers and also some of those people being brought before the world court for inhumane treatment. In fact, Russian soldiers even occupied Dr. Rusyn's home. Under the Soviet Union, Ivan and his family had to practice their faith in secret because evangelicals were imprisoned if caught. In today's Ukraine, he and fellow Ukrainians are free to practice their faith. In fact, he told me that the relief work his seminary has been doing since the full-scale invasion has been bringing more and more people to the church. Dr. Rusyn is a humble, soft-spoken man with a clear and powerful message. He said that in the midst of war, it is sometimes hard to feel the presence of God, but in coming to the United States with this delegation and meeting people who care about the suffering of the Ukrainian people, he felt God's presence more than ever. His strong faith in God and his deep concern for his fellow Ukrainians impressed me. Dr. Rusyn also told me about the persecution of his counterparts in the Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. That is about 20 percent of Ukraine. Religious leaders are kidnapped, and evangelicals are singled out for persecution just like in the days of the old Soviet Union. A Ukrainian priest among the group told me that most of the faith leaders sitting in my office are on Putin's hit list to be singled out for persecution or death if they fall into the hands of the Russian military. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has passed a law as recently as 2016 requiring all religious organizations and churches to be registered with the Russian Government. The law bans what the law calls ``missionary activities'' like preaching, like praying, like disseminating religious materials outside of officially approved sites within Russia. According to a special report by the Institute for the Study of War, Russia has used this 2016 law to prosecute American Baptists and Pentecostal missionaries operating in Russia and also to outlaw most Mormon missionary work and to burn foreign-distributed Bibles not properly registered with the state. According to this report by the Institute for the Study of War, the Russian state has also persecuted Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, and Orthodox church groups that are not affiliated with the Russian state. Russia's Prosecutor-General's Office declared four evangelical Christian groups as ``undesirable'' organizations as recently as 2021. Now, that effectively had banned these organizations from operating within Russia. Russian authorities in occupied Melitopol raided a Ukrainian evangelical pastor's home in August 2022 and accused the pastor of being associated with the same undesirable organizations that Russian authorities banned in Russia in 2021. The former head of Russian-occupied Donetsk declared in May of 2015 that Ukrainian Orthodox Church members, Greek Catholics, and evangelical Christians were ``sectarians'' and that occupation authorities would only recognize the Russian Orthodox Church, Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism. The Russian Orthodox Church plays a role in the Russian state that is hard for Americans to understand. Most importantly, with all the killing going on in Ukraine, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church has blessed that war by particularly saying Putin is doing the right thing. In our country, we know, under our Constitution, the Founding Fathers prohibited the establishment of a state church and enshrined a right to the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment. This was done to allow religion to flourish independent of our government. Now, by contrast and great contrast, the Russian Orthodox Church has always been not just a state church but an instrument going back as far as the tsars of Russia. Under the Soviet Union, it became an instrument of the KGB, the Russian secret police. In fact, the current patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church was a KGB agent. As I have indicated already in these remarks, that individual has blessed this war, and with his being a KGB agent, it is no wonder he is so close to Putin, who also worked for the KGB. That same Russian patriarch has vocally, as I am saying again, supported the brutal invasion and has told Russian soldiers they will be absolved of all sins should they die in the Ukraine military operation. Because the Russian Orthodox Church acts as a tool of the Russian state, many Orthodox churches in Ukraine have joined the restored Independent Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Some church officials in Ukraine who remained loyal to Moscow have been documented to act as agents of influence and espionage on behalf of the Putin regime, so naturally some have been arrested by Ukrainian authorities. One Ukrainian Orthodox priest who was captured by the Russian military shortly after the full-scale invasion back in February 2022 tells how his captors tortured and interrogated him, demanding to know what part of the Ukrainian secret service he worked for--you know, assuming that they do in Ukraine like they do in Russia: that the church might be part of some government scheme to narrow freedoms or whatever, for that matter. These Russians assumed that because their priests are tied to a successor to the KGB, Ukrainian priests, then, must be agents of the Ukrainian state, which is not the case. The Ukrainian Government also canceled a lease with the Russian- affiliated Orthodox Church at the Kyiv Lavra Monastery--a national historic landmark owned by the Ukrainian state right there in the center of the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv. The lease cancelation led to false reports of the Ukrainian Government's persecuting Christians. However, 2 weeks after the Russian-aligned church officials left, a member of my staff visited this same monastery and received a blessing from a Ukrainian Orthodox priest. So I can confirm that Christian services are still performed there; only now it is in the Ukrainian language. Incidentally, the former Russian Orthodox head priest at the monastery was apparently nicknamed ``Mercedes'' because he collected Mercedes cars. That is not the hobby you would expect of a lot of spiritual leaders. Putin likes to pretend that Russia is some kind of defender of the Christian faith, but in reality, Russia is one of the most secular countries in the world. The Soviet Union, as we know, was an atheist state, so most countries that share a Soviet past have lost much of their religious life. That is doubly true in Russia, where, according to a 2018 Pew Research poll, only 7 percent of the people attend weekly church services, only 18 percent of Russians pray daily, and only 16 percent feel that religion is very important in their lives. By comparison, in Ukraine, these people are significantly more religious than Russians, with well over twice as many people attending weekly services at 17 percent, with 30 percent of the Ukrainians reportedly praying daily, and with 23 percent saying that religion is a very important part of their lives. Russia has been designated by our own State Department as a ``country of particular concern'' and, according to that designation, is ``engaging in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.'' By contrast, Ukraine has religious freedom, and there is no state church, so it is no wonder that Ukrainians are more active in their faith. I was encouraged by Dr. Rusyn's account of his own growing ministry. He also said he has contributed chaplains from his seminary to the military since the full-scale invasion--something that was not previously a tradition of Orthodox countries. As a result, evangelicals are particularly well represented as military chaplains. Now, I am sad to say, one of his students has already been lost while serving as a chaplain at the frontlines. I am going to go back to this report by the Institute for the Study of War that I referenced earlier. [T]he most common victims of Russian religious persecution after Ukrainian Orthodox are Protestants, particularly evangelical Baptists. Protestants of all denominations were the victims of 34 percent of the reported persecution events that [the Institute on the Study of War] observed. Baptists made up 13 percent of victims--the largest single group after Ukrainian Orthodox. . . . Russian forces' persecution of Protestants is most intense in southern Ukraine. Protestants were the victims of 35 percent and 48 percent of the reported persecution events in occupied Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts respectively. Protestants suffered two-thirds of the reported repression events in occupied Mariupol City. The Institute for the Study of War report also cited an incident where Russian troops ``commandeered a Kherson-based Ukrainian evangelical Baptist educational institute from March-November of 2022 and established a garrison and crematorium there to cremate killed Russian soldiers. The institute's rector stated that Russian soldiers repeatedly harassed the Baptists, calling them `American spies,' calling them `sectarians,' and [calling them] `enemies of the Russian Orthodox people.' One Russian officer reportedly told workers at the institute, `Evangelical believers like you should be completely destroyed . . . a simple shooting would be too easy for you. You need to be buried alive,' and another Russian soldier reportedly said, `We will bury [Baptist] sectarians like you.' Russian soldiers raided and closed another Baptist Church . . . in September 2022. Congregants reported that armed Russian soldiers interrupted their worship service and stated, `Your feet will not be here after referendum. We have only one faith, Orthodoxy.' '' Nearly 500 religious sites and spaces were damaged, destroyed, or looted during the first year of the Russian invasion. People of faith in Ukraine are suffering. Dr. Rusyn's ask of Americans is a simple thing: ``Please hear our cry.'' Toward the end of my meeting with the Russian faith leaders, the rabbi in the group made another ask of me. He said the Ukrainians need our prayers. This was echoed by other Ukrainian faith leaders in my office. I agreed to keep the Ukrainian people in my prayers. I ask that my fellow Americans of faith also surround the Ukrainian people in prayer at this very difficult time. And I pray that they feel the very real presence of God amidst their suffering. I yield the floor.