Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, once again, I am here to discuss my constitutional oversight of the Justice Department and the FBI. It surely has been a very busy year thus far for congressional oversight, and let me say rightly so. That is the way it should be because we know, first, Congress passes laws, but Congress can't stop there. We have got to make sure that Congress follows up to guarantee, under our checks and balances of our Constitution, that a President will faithfully execute the laws. In many of my speeches on the topic of oversight, I have discussed how political infection has taken root in the Biden Justice Department and FBI. Such a political infection is catastrophic to the trust the American people must have in these institutions in order for those institutions to have any legitimate effect. To restore this country's confidence in the Justice Department and the FBI, these Agencies must come clean with a 1023 document that whistleblowers have approached me about. An FBI 1023 document is used to collect information from what the FBI calls a confidential human source. A confidential human source is not--I want to emphasize--is not a mere walk-in or a mere tip like some journalists have reported. Confidential human source purpose is to advance investigative activity, and the FBI takes great care to make sure that they can vet these people and know that they serve a useful purpose. The 1023 that I sought from the FBI references a criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and his alleged receipt of $5 million for a policy decision. Now, at first, the FBI refused to even admit that this document existed, let alone admit that this document was marked ``unclassified.'' Then I told Director Wray last week that Chairman Comer and I have reviewed the 1023. I told Director Wray that this 1023 is marked ``unclassified.'' I told him that it was dated June 30, 2020, and I and Chairman Comer demanded that he produce that document. Director Wray made one excuse after another to not produce it. I reminded Director Wray about how the FBI has a penchant for leaking classified information to the media and producing documents to the media. In fact, we all know that the FBI did exactly that in a May 18, 2023, New York Times article. The FBI, therefore, has no legitimate basis to refuse production of a nonclassified document to the Congress of the United States. Let's keep in mind that Congress has received 1023 documents in the past, and now the FBI is subject to a legitimate subpoena for that very document. In last week's phone call with Director Wray, I also asked him if the 1023 is part of an ongoing investigation. He answered that it is relevant to an ongoing investigative matter. From that vague answer, it is reasonable to conclude that it is part of an ongoing investigation, otherwise it wouldn't be relative to one. It is also reasonable to conclude that the FBI finds it reliable enough to continue using it several years later. Still--still--that doesn't preclude Congress from running a parallel investigation pursuant to our constitutional oversight responsibilities. You may remember that this Senator did the same thing during Crossfire Hurricane. If anything, this entire process is a lesson for the executive branch with respect to Congress's constitutional power of oversight. Now, remember, Congress funds the executive branch, not the other way around. Remember, the document referenced other details that I believe will be made public in time. We have duties to the whistleblowers who have provided legally protected unclassified disclosures to us. These whistleblowers are patriots and must be protected. Partisan media, most likely in conjunction with the Biden FBI, has misleadingly reported the 1023 is from a tranche of information provided by Rudy Giuliani. News reports last week dispel that notion and make clear that 1023 information that we request is independent of Giuliani. Those news reports also show that the source who formed the basis of the 1023 is a long-serving FBI source. The source reportedly received numerous validations from the FBI. The source reportedly operated even during the Obama administration. Based on what I have been told about yesterday's meeting, the FBI didn't contradict these findings. Today, I can say that based upon unclassified and legally protected whistleblower disclosures, the FBI source in the 1023 has been paid at least $200,000 by the FBI since the source was opened and operational. High-dollar payments obviously mean the FBI believes the source to be credible and reputable. That makes sense, since Director Wray said the 1023 is relevant to an ongoing investigative report. So is the FBI looking at bribery allegations against members of the Biden family? Is U.S. Attorney Weiss looking into this? Did the FBI follow normal investigative processes and procedures or did they just sweep this under the rug? For example, did the FBI try to improperly use the August 2020 Brian Auten assessment to shut down the 1023 reporting by falsely labeling it ``disinformation''? What exactly is the FBI doing with the information in this 1023 document that we request? A vague pronouncement that the 1023 is relevant to an ongoing matter is certainly not even close to enough information to satisfy Congress as well as the American people about what is actually being done with the information on this 1023 document. The Justice Department and the FBI no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. Just read the Durham report and its example after example of Justice Department and FBI failures that the Durham report points out. And since July of last year, I have raised one whistleblower allegation after another to Attorney General Garland and to Director Wray of the FBI relating to the Biden family investigation. Now, just remember this: The Justice Department and the FBI have failed to dispute a single whistleblower allegation that I have made public. They have also failed to provide any records that I have requested from the FBI or the Department of Justice. Here, with this 1023 document that I have 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 so do. Given the gravity of the issues at stake, the American people deserve nothing less. So to the Justice Department and the FBI: Quit playing games and recognize whom you work for. You are not working to protect the corporate interests of the FBI; you are working for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in recognition of Short Line Rail Advocacy Day, which was on May 17, I want to speak about the important services short line railroads provide to their customers and the entire economy. I also want to highlight the importance of the railroad track maintenance credit, otherwise known as the short line credit, for maintaining a robust network of short line rail. The short line credit is available to what are known as class II and class III railroads, which are categorized based on revenue thresholds set by the Surface Transportation Board. This tax credit is not available to the large national and international railroads most people are probably familiar with. While the short line railroads generally operate in a relatively small area, they have a massive impact. Short line railroads serve a key role in transporting manufactured goods and agricultural products from factories and farms to markets in the U.S and beyond. They often serve as the ``first and last mile'' in our Nation's freight transportation network. These links to the rest of the world are crucial to Iowa's economic competitiveness and communities across the country. Nearly half of Iowa's railroad miles are operated by 13 small railroads that transport more than 300,000 carloads of material a year. Support of short line railroads has been a long-standing bipartisan priority. Next year will mark the 20th anniversary of the short line credit. Though the credit has spent most of its existence as a tax extender, as then chairman of the Finance Committee, I helped to create the credit and later led a successful effort to make the credit permanent in 2020. I had a lot of support, which is reflected in the fact that legislation that was sponsored by Senator Crapo, current ranking member of the Finance Committee, to make the credit permanent had 62 cosponsors. The short line credit provides smaller regional and local railroads a tax credit for a percentage of amounts spent to upgrade and maintain miles of railroad track. However, these small railroads operate on tight margins, and many have insufficient tax liability to claim the credit against. To address this issue, the law allows short line railroads to assign the credit to another short line, or to a customer. The assigning railroad typically recognizes income for cash received and the assignee deducts payments made. This arrangement ensures that all short line railroads are able to fully utilize the credit. This year on Short Line Rail Advocacy Day, many of the Nation's 600 short line railroads visited offices on Capitol Hill to remind us of the critical role they play in the industry. According to the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, nearly 30 percent of our national rail network, or roughly 50,000 miles of track, is operated by short lines who at some point handle a quarter of all rail cars moving through the national rail system. It is important we understand and appreciate what these local and regional railroads do for our communities, and our whole economy.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for 2 years, Democrats had control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. They took the reins of power as the Nation began to emerge from a pandemic that had upended our economy and the lives of all Americans. Up to that point, Republicans and Democrats had worked together to pass multiple rounds of COVID relief with strong bipartisan support. That spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship came to a screeching halt when Democrats took total control in January of 2021. Rather than viewing the pandemic as a challenge that required temporary measures to overcome, Democrats saw it as an opportunity to permanently expand the size and scope of government. That was the exact opposite of what we needed as a nation. Our public debt as a share of the economy had soared to heights many would have viewed as unthinkable a few years earlier. What was sorely needed was a bipartisan focus on putting our fiscal house in order. Instead, Democrats rammed through a nearly $2 trillion partisan spending bill that prominent Democrat economists warned risked sparking inflation. Then, as inflation soared to 40-year highs, Democrats doubled down on their reckless spending with additional legislation and executive actions adding trillions more to our national debt. Thankfully, the American people had enough. They made their voices heard through the ballot box. Republicans were handed control of the House of Representatives based on a promise of a return to fiscal sanity. Speaker McCarthy repeatedly called on the President to negotiate a fiscally responsible and timely debt limit increase. Unfortunately, President Biden proved not to be a willing dance partner. He sat idly by for nearly 100 days watching the clock tick down to default despite the urgent need to raise the debt ceiling and begin to put our fiscal house in order. Speaker McCarthy thankfully never took no for an answer. He kept pushing and rallied House Republicans to pass a debt limit package to pair back spending excesses of the prior Congress and impose meaningful spending controls moving forward. House passage of the Limit, Save, Grow Act put a reasonable and fiscally responsible offer on the table that President Biden couldn't ignore. The bipartisan negotiations that ensued brought us to where we are today, a bipartisan agreement to address the debt ceiling while imposing meaningful brakes on government spending largess. As is the case with any bipartisan agreement, neither side got everything they wanted. I would have preferred an agreement closer to the House-passed bill. But in a closely divided government, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Fiscal Responsibility Act is a step in the right direction after years of unchecked Democrat spending. It will impose meaningful caps on discretionary spending that, over the next 2 years, will produce hundreds of billions of dollars in savings. The agreement also strengthens work requirements in social welfare programs and claws back tens of billions in unspent COVID funds. On the whole, over the next 10 years, this agreement will produce $1.5 trillion in savings. However, for all these savings to be realized, Republicans in the House and in the Senate will need to stick to their guns and vigorously enforce the spending caps. As the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, I am prepared to do my part to hold the line and expect the House chairman is prepared to do the same. As I said earlier, this agreement is a step in the right direction. However, we have a long road ahead to put our debt and deficits on a sustainable path. Even assuming all the savings in this agreement is realized, public debt as a share of our economy will exceed World War II era record levels in a matter of years, and annual interest costs will balloon to over a $1 trillion. We have a moral obligation to the Nation's youth to leave them a country that is on solid financial ground. Passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act is a start, but much remains to be done.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I hope everybody in this body knows that congressional oversight is a very important responsibility of all of us, and it is even a constitutional demand. We must ensure that our government truly does work for, of, and by the people. When fraud, waste, and abuse is discovered, Congress has the responsibility to the American people to make it public because transparency brings accountability. Today, we have an example of wrongdoing to discuss. It involves the former Architect of the Capitol's blatant misuse of government property. According to the Architect of the Capitol inspector general, during Brett Blanton's time as Architect, he engaged in unnecessary, very expensive, and impermissible conduct. For example, the report found unauthorized vehicle use; misrepresentation as a law enforcement officer; ethics violations; and, lastly, appropriations violations. Specifically, the inspector general found that Blanton should have driven approximately 10,438 miles using government vehicles. Instead, the inspector general said that Blanton racked up 29,291 miles. That is almost 20,000 extra miles of unauthorized benefit on the taxpayers' dime. The inspector general's October 6, 2022, report expressly noted that Blanton's actions ``have violated every pillar the [Office of the Inspector General] operates under including theft, fraud, waste and abuse against not only the [Architect of the Capitol] but also the taxpayer.'' In total, the inspector general identified $13,926 of inappropriate costs associated with Blanton's use of government vehicles. On February 22 of this year, I sent a letter to Mr. Blanton asking him when he would repay the money he impermissibly cost the taxpayers. As of today--now several months later--he has failed to respond to my inquiry and my staff's attempts to contact him. He has also made no effort to repay the money that he owes the American people. His actions show no respect for the taxpayer. But that isn't the last word on this sad story. On the same day that I sent a letter to Mr. Blanton, I also sent a letter to Acting Architect of the Capitol Chere Rexroat. I asked her whether she intended to seek repayment from Mr. Blanton. She and her team have worked to recover these payments, and as of April 21, the money Mr. Blanton owed the taxpayers was repaid in full: $12,517 has been withheld from Mr. Blanton's final annual leave payment and has been returned to the Treasury. The remaining $1,409 was contributed by an insurance company. When dealing with trillions of dollars in government spending, a dozen or so thousand can seem like a very insignificant amount. However, this amount would be important to a family struggling to make ends meet in a time of record inflation and price hikes. And the amount is important to me because it is about time that we see civil servants holding someone accountable for wrongdoing. So, obviously, before giving up the floor today, I want to emphasize that congressional oversight doesn't deal out victories every day. When wrongdoing is exposed and corrected, it should be noted. So let's give all due credit to the Acting Architect of the Capitol and also to her team for the recoupment of this taxpayer money. It may be a small amount of money, but it is the right action to take. And we ought to compliment it. And I compliment the Acting Architect today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1988, President Ronald Reagan first recognized May as National Foster Care Month. Every year since then, the month of May has been recognized as a time to bring awareness to the needs of America's young people who are placed in foster care. It is also important to recognize organizations in Iowa and around the country tirelessly serving kids and families in our foster care system. I salute these organizations and individuals for their year-round efforts to support the kids, kids who are most in need. In 2021, there were nearly 400,000 kids in foster care. More than 4,000 of those 400,000 are in my home State of Iowa. Older youth in foster care and adults who experienced foster care as a child can speak to what worked for them and what didn't work. They should have a seat at the table and a voice in making policy about foster care. When I founded the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth in 2009, the very special focus of the caucus was to hear directly from young people in foster care. We also wanted to hear from those who had been aged out of the system without having a permanent place to call home. Over and over again, I have heard an urgent point of view from these young people and also the teenagers who are in foster care. What I heard was that they would like some permanence. They would say it like they would like to have a mom and dad. They would like to have a family. They would want a place to call home, instead of being shuffled around--maybe two or three different schools in 1 year, which means two or three different foster homes in that year. All children, no matter of their circumstances then, deserve a permanent, loving home. They need consistent, caring adults in their lives. This year during foster care month, I want to give special recognition to families who answer the call to help vulnerable children and the teens in their communities. My resolution recognizing National Foster Care Month also marks May 31 as a very particular day to celebrate and show appreciation to foster parents. Throughout my years in the U.S. Senate, I have worked to keep families together. For example, I have expanded access to prevention services to help parents safely keep custody of their children during substance abuse treatment. The family, as we all know, is the bedrock of our society, so we must work to strengthen the family in the hopes of keeping vulnerable children out of foster care in the first place. At the same time, it is important that we support the very people who are taking care of these kids--the ones we call foster parents. They answer the call to take into their homes children and teens who have experienced trauma in their very young lives. Foster parents--all of them--deserve recognition and support. In Iowa, almost every county has a shortage of foster parents who are able to provide temporary homes for these young people. Without volunteer foster parents, kids who cannot remain safely at home often end up sleeping in hotels or in offices of social workers. I have introduced a bipartisan bill called the Recruiting Families Using Data Act. This legislation would improve how States recruit foster parents and help ensure that they are supported and actually heard. It would help States conduct targeted recruitment for specific areas of need and help kids get matched with the best families for their individual circumstances. We know that having at least one loving adult in the lives of these young people can meaningfully improve the academic, the social, and the emotional well-being of these kids. That positive experience lasts long into adulthood. When family reunification is not an option--and that ought to be the first option--we know that adoption can provide a permanent, loving home for a child in need. Recent data show that adoptions from foster care is declining, with 12,000 fewer children having been adopted in 2021 than in 2019. Currently, more than 100,000 young people in foster care are waiting for adoption across our country, including more than 1,000 in my State of Iowa. By improving support for foster families, we can help increase adoptions for kids who are placed in foster care. Moving forward, Congress must continue to work to find more solutions and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care. Whether the best choice is family reunification or adoption or living with relatives, the goal is always and must be the same: to protect kids from neglect and from abuse and to provide them with love and with support. I urge my colleagues to pass my resolution to recognize May as National Foster Care Month. Once again, I will continue to lead efforts with members of our bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth to help these young Americans achieve their full potential and have a place to call home for the rest of their lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, May 9, is National Fentanyl Awareness Day. In the last 12 months, over 108,000 Americans have died from drug overdoses, mainly from fentanyl and its analogues. Fentanyl overdoses are the number one cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 45, so I come to the floor to do two things. First, I am here to introduce a bipartisan resolution supporting the goals of National Fentanyl Awareness Day. The resolution aims to increase awareness of the impact of fake or counterfeit fentanyl pills on families and young people. And it applauds the work of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that combat the proliferation of counterfeit pills. And second, I am here to reintroduce my bipartisan legislation, the Stop Pills That Kill Act. This bill creates new penalties for counterfeit pill production. There is a surge throughout the United States of counterfeit pills laced with fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. People unknowingly take these counterfeit pills. Many of them die. Drug traffickers have been marketing and selling these fake pills using social media. The Stop Pills That Kill Act will ramp up criminal penalties to deter this illegal activity and save lives. Later this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will mark up another bill I cosponsor, the Cooper Davis Act. This bipartisan bill requires social media companies, the same places where these fake pills are being sold, to report information to Federal Agencies relating to illicit online fentanyl on their platforms. The reporting requirements will help law enforcement root out and dismantle international crime networks and save lives. I look forward to reporting the bill out of committee and quickly getting it to the President's desk. Whether it is at my roundtables in Iowa or during my 99-county meetings, parents continue to come up to me and tell me about the children they have lost to fentanyl poisoning. It is heartbreaking to see the pain on their face and hear it in their voice, as they share what the fentanyl crisis has done to their family. I hope we see action to move these bills and permanently schedule fentanyl related substances. I am as committed as ever to cracking down on fentanyl and its analogues, and I hope my colleagues will join me soon.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I don't think I really need to do this with the length of my speech, but just in case it runs up against the vote, I ask unanimous consent to be able to finish my speech.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in the past several years, I have come to this Senate Chamber to discuss my constitutional oversight of the Justice Department and the FBI. In many of those floor speeches, I have discussed legally protected and unclassified whistleblower disclosures that were made to my office relating to the Hunter Biden criminal investigation. These disclosures were made public in the interest of transparency and accountability because the public's business should be public, and we should know, as Senators or Congressmen and Congresswomen, whether the executive branch of government is faithfully executing the laws as the Constitution requires. Those disclosures that I have made have a very common theme: The Justice Department and FBI have allowed political infection to take root within each Agency's decision-making process. Such an infection is an existential threat to any government Agency, but to a law enforcement Agency that can interfere with our constitutional rights, such an infection is catastrophic. After Crossfire Hurricane, which was the definition of a political investigation, the whistleblower disclosures demanded congressional attention more than ever. So I wrote public letters asking questions. I directly asked the same to the Attorney General and the FBI Director at committee hearings. I have asked them about allegations that politics infected the Hunter Biden investigation. This sort of political bias erodes trust in government and prevents the equal application of the law as required by the Constitution. I have also asked them about allegations that the FBI used false claims of Russian disinformation to bury potential criminal investigations about Hunter and James Biden. Also, I asked them about allegations regarding specific records within the Department's possession relating to potential criminal conduct by the Bidens. I have asked about allegations regarding specific records that show Joe Biden may have been involved in Hunter Biden's business arrangements. The allegations my office has received are very precise, very direct, and very consistent. Accordingly, they are highly credible. These credible allegations raise important and fundamental questions, like these questions: Did the FBI follow normal investigative procedures to vet these claims? Did the FBI follow the facts wherever they led, or did they improperly shut down credible leads in advance of the 2020 election? Remember, I have been raising these questions for a long period of time. I have done it through many venues: letters, in hearings, in private calls with Agency leadership, and, like today, right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had plenty of opportunities to respond to all of these questions I have raised. Not once--let me emphasize: not once has the Justice Department or FBI ever substantively disputed the whistleblower allegations that I have made public. I have given Attorney General Garland and Director Wray every opportunity to put our worst fears to rest and assure the American people, as they should, that everything has been done by the book. Both Agencies have failed to do so. Just think how simple it is to say that everything was done the right way--if they could say that. And that ought to tell you something. Even with their credibility on the line, the FBI and Justice Department have refused to cooperate when asked for basic information. So, as you know if you have been following all this stuff--and I don't expect people to have time to do that--yesterday, House Chairman Comer issued a letter accompanied by a subpoena from the House committee demanding one FBI document. Based on protected and highly credible whistleblower disclosures, the unclassified document exists, and it is allegedly referencing a criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden. Notably, it is a crime to provide false information to Congress during a congressional investigation. Most importantly, this very document was generated by the FBI themselves. It is time for the Justice Department and FBI to come clean to the American people. What did the Justice Department and FBI do to investigate the information in the document at issue? The answer goes to the heart of whether taxpayer-funded government Agencies proceed normally or whether that Agency cuts corners. Simply put, did the Justice Department and the FBI treat this information like they would if ``We the People'' were implicated, or did they sweep it under the rug to protect then-candidate Biden and now-President Biden? If the Justice Department and FBI have any hope of redeeming their once trusted position--and that is what the American people have long held, to trust the FBI--Attorney General Garland and Director Wray must answer. Their credibility is on the line. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today referring to a speech that Senator Biden gave on this Senate floor 39 years ago today. The scene was this: It developed over several months of that year before May 2, 1984. I had this idea which would be considered crazy today, that we need to get control of the budget by just freezing everything across the board. And I recruited Nancy Kassebaum, a Senator from Kansas, and Senator Biden to help in that effort. Senator Biden gave the longest speech that day on justifying it, and most of his comments at that time were trying to justify that you could actually freeze the defense budget, and also it included the freeze on the COLAs for Social Security. But Senator Biden spent most of his speech fighting off giants of the military industrial complex at that time, by the names of Senator Goldwater, Senator Towers, and Senator Stevens of Alaska. So that is the background of what I am talking about today. So on this day, 39 years ago, then-Senator Biden spoke on the Senate floor saying that he was ``outraged''--that is his words--that our national debt would soon be near $2 trillion. He urged fellow Senators to ``do something . . . before the debt limit increase comes up.'' The ``something'' that he advocated for was a Federal spending freeze. Today, our national debt stands at $31.5 trillion compared to that $2 trillion in 1984. But in a few years, public debt as a share of our economy is expected to exceed record levels set in the wake of World War II. However, instead of urging immediate action this year, President Biden wants to kick the can down the road. I think, today, we would all consider that to be irresponsible and unacceptable. In contrast, House Republicans are tackling our debt crisis head-on. Legislation the House passed last week would rein in excessive government spending, lift the debt ceiling, and impose meaningful fiscal controls moving forward. President Biden and Senate Democrats must get off the sidelines and negotiate. We can't continue to live high on the hog at the expense of future generations. To put our current national debt in perspective, a gross Federal debt of $31.5 trillion equates to $95,000 for each man, woman, and child living in the United States today. By comparison, the average cost of a 4-year public college degree in 2023 is about $90,000. Both are more than we should be asking young people to bear. Looked at in terms of the American taxpayers, our government debt comes to a staggering $247,000 per tax filer, and I think the number of tax filers would be close to 160 million or just a few more. That is $52,000 more than the average home value in my State of Iowa. Our growing national debt is unsustainable. In its most recent budget outlook, the Congressional Budget Office estimates interest on the debt will be near $1 trillion in 2028--an amount exceeding what our Nation is expected to spend that year on national defense. Absent action, interest costs will continue to mount at an alarming rate. Looking well into the future, by 2044, interest will exceed $2.9 trillion, surpassing what we are projected to spend on Medicare. By 2050, interest will become our Nation's single largest expense, even surpassing Social Security. Interest costs of this size would have been unfathomable to my then- Senate colleague Joe Biden. Remember how he said he was outraged that the national debt would reach $2 trillion? While Senator Biden was expressing outrage over a $2 trillion national debt, he was also lamenting the prospects of $219 billion in annual interest costs. Yet, today, President Biden barely bats an eyelash at interest projected to blow past $1 trillion, on a path to $3 trillion. At the same time our interest costs are set to soar, several major Federal programs are barreling toward insolvency. According to the trustees of Social Security and Medicare, in the report they introduced this spring, Social Security's primary trust fund will become insolvent in 2033, while Medicare's trust fund will go broke in 2031. Contrary to what some Democrats claim, doing nothing to address these programs is not an option. The Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees, which consists solely of President Biden's administration officials, has made it clear that congressional inaction means automatic benefit cuts within the next 10 years. Yet President Biden has accused any Republican who mentions the words ``Social Security'' of wanting to gut the program, although nothing could be further from the truth. In 1984, Senator Joe Biden sang a much different tune. He understood that a dire fiscal situation required bold action from this Congress. The Federal spending freeze he advocated for applied across the board. It would have frozen spending on Social Security, Medicare, defense, and much more. Nothing any Republican has proposed today comes close to the broad- based spending cuts advocated by then-Senator Biden. What Republicans have put forward likely wouldn't go far enough for the 1984 Joe Biden. Today, our debt, our deficits, and our interest costs are all on a far bleaker path than they were in 1984. Yet President Biden refuses to entertain even modest spending cuts. That should be unacceptable and is unacceptable to most Americans. We can't continue to ignore our current fiscal trajectory. We must get our fiscal house in order. Failure to act puts children born today in a position that they will never be able to recover from financially. This Congress must come together to fix our broken budget system and return to regular order. As the ranking member of the Senate's Budget Committee, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put us on a more sustainable path. Unfortunately, the White House doesn't seem to want to address the issues we are facing. The President's budget request continues our Nation on a path to fiscal ruin. Under the administration's budget proposals, public debt as a share of our economy will set a new record in 2027. We owe it to the Nation's young people to leave them a country that is on solid financial ground. We cannot ask the generation of tomorrow to pay for the gluttony of today. Here are the words of then-Senator Biden in 1984: ``I, myself, am outraged . . . I hope that all those other Senators who share my outrage will also share my determination to do something'' about our unsustainable debt. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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, I am here to discuss the Defense Department's financial audits--or, more accurately, the lack of credible audits. My colleagues know that I am as stubborn as a mule when it comes to my oversight work of the Pentagon's accounting system--or lack of system. I wish I could stop sounding like a broken record when talking about the Pentagon's financial track record. The fact is that the Pentagon is pigheaded when it comes to accounting for taxpayer dollars. It keeps pouring billions of dollars into an antiquated accounting system that doesn't work. Late last year, I read an article that appeared in a national security blog. The blog is called War on the Rocks. This blog article is called ``The Pentagon Can't Count: It's Time to Reinvent the Audit.'' It was written by Steve Blank, a business professor at Stanford University. As a former member of the Defense Business Board, the professor calls for a whole new approach to defense auditing. The Pentagon is spending $1 billion a year--and these are his quotes--``to get incrementally better'' and still, according to him, clean opinions are nowhere in sight. He raises a legitimate question: Why is the Pentagon spending so much money for so little results--meaning money on audits? Thinking outside the box was not in the Defense Business Board's charter, but Professor Blank allowed himself the luxury of thinking outside the box. He dreamed about doing the impossible, and he wrote this fairly long quote: What if we could invent the future? It dawned on me. Continuing to quote: If we tried to look over the horizon, we would discover that the department could audit faster, cheaper, and more effectively by inventing future tools and techniques rather than repeating the past. The professor envisioned a ``5th generation of audit practices'' to break the cycle of audit failures at the Department of Defense. I give the professor very high grades for creativity and his search for new solutions but disagree with some of his thinking. However, when it comes to pinpointing the root cause of unending audit failures, the professor hits the nail on the head. So I quote from him: [The] Department of Defense needs to lead the audit industry to create a 21st century integrated finance and accounting system, including a U.S. Standard General Ledger that provides reliable and complete data. ``Integrated systems'' and ``reliable data'' are the magic words. The experts, like the auditors, the financial managers, the inspector general, have known this truth for 30 years or more. They dutifully report it, wringing their hands in frustration, and then rinse and repeat the cycle from 1 year to the next year. Now, see here. We have the mighty Pentagon that develops the most advanced weapons systems the world has ever known. Yet, when it comes to deploying basic technology like an accounting system, it is buffaloed--or is it? Maybe they want the system to work that way so nobody knows what is going on and how the money is spent. After hundreds of billions have been poured into patching up old audit systems, the Department of Defense still can't perform the most elementary accounting tasks in the book. They don't capture transactions as they occur and post them to the correct accounts. So just go figure what is wrong. Well, there once was a true sage consigned to an attic cubbyhole at the Pentagon who claimed to know the answer. That person was A. Ernest Fitzgerald. We called him Ernie. Ernie was the Management Systems Deputy of the Air Force in the Comptroller's office. He blew the whistle on the C-5A cost overruns and, of course, got fired when President Nixon didn't like what he testified to before the Congress of the United States. Some years after being restored to his post--and he was restored only by court order--he was detailed to my staff for several years to lead a joint review of the internal controls over vendor payments. Ernie believed the Pentagon barons lorded over their financial fiefdoms for one reason and one reason only: They did not want to see the status quo go away. It is pretty simple. Keeping the books in disarray gives the Department of Defense the so-called flexibility to hide overspending and other financial shenanigans. Once upon a time, a promising fix lent credence to Ernie Fitzgerald's theory. It was called the Defense Corporate Database/Warehouse System. It was at the threshold of success when it got torpedoed--and torpedoed by whom? By the bureaucrats in the Defense Department. That system could have been a building block for a modern accounting system that might have delivered a victory to the American taxpayer. If the brass were truly committed to cleaning up the books, it would have happened long ago. The technology is there for the taking. To break out of the cycle of failures, we need to step back, hit the audit reset button, and chart a new course. As a first step, Secretary of Defense Austin should hold the Chief Financial Officer accountable for failing to have an accounting system that meets statutory requirements. That is as simple as accounting 101 and accountability 101 in my book. If Secretary Austin holds the CFO's feet to the fire, just maybe we will finally see a course correction. As a lifelong family farmer, I can tell you that hope springs eternal at the start of every planting season. After four decades of working to weed out the fiscal mess at the Pentagon, it is a tall order to be optimistic. I am not going to give up. I am not going to give up this fight. With the help of a team of auditors under the leadership of the Government Accountability Office's general counsel, Emmanuelli Perez, and support from our allies, maybe together we can nudge the Department in a new direction. Otherwise, expect more of the same--a colossal waste on failed audits. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Leader Schumer said since last week that he intends to introduce a resolution purporting to support law enforcement. In 2020, ``defund the police'' became the rallying cry of the radical left. Every day for the next 2 years, officers reported to duty despite a campaign saying that they didn't deserve money for even bulletproof vests; and 1,146 of those officers died protecting Americans. I don't remember Democrats taking to this floor to defend law enforcement back then. Instead, they blocked resolutions that condemned attacks against officers. By April of 2021, antipolice protests and Democrat silence were all but routine. And we know what happened: Police morale plummeted. Still, officers rushed toward danger that those of us in Congress should thank God that we never have to face. Iowa Sergeant Jim Smith was one of those officers. On a Friday night in April 2021, he got a call for backup. It took him to the house of Michael Lange. Lange had just assaulted another police officer and barricaded himself inside with a shotgun. Sergeant Smith led the entry team. They had just cleared the basement and were about to reach the main floor when Lange ambushed them. Lange fired two shots into Sergeant Smith's chest. Then he gloated to the other officers, and this is what he said: I'll kill you like I killed your buddy. All Sergeant Smith ever wanted was to be a police officer. When the antipolice rioters came, he and his tactical team guarded the Iowa State Capitol. They were spat on and insulted. They had frozen water bottles and rocks thrown at them. But they held the line. And when the time came, Sergeant Smith laid down his life holding a thin blue thin. He never got to see this pro-FBI resolution. He didn't witness the uptick in police popularity as blue cities descended into violent crime. But I would imagine that the folks who loved Officer Smith must be wondering where this all was back then and why the FBI seems to matter more than State and local officers. Of course, this isn't to say that there aren't good FBI employees. There are plenty of them. I and my Republican colleagues have made our support for law enforcement clear time and again. I would, however, like to know where our Democratic colleagues have been with respect to the blatant political bias in the leadership of the FBI and the Department of Justice. On March 1 of 2023, Senator Graham and I wrote to Attorney General Garland and Director Wray regarding the more than 130 attacks on Catholic churches since the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs and the fact that the FBI has largely failed to investigate those violent attacks by leftist extremist groups. Instead, as we wrote to Director Wray, elements of the FBI have labeled Catholics as extremists and lumped them together with violent White supremacists with no justification. There is nothing extreme or suspicious about worshipping God according to the dictates of your conscience. Our letter also pointed out that the Biden Department of Justice has aggressively targeted pro-life advocates for selective prosecution. This includes the Department's political prosecution of Mark Houck for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. He had an altercation with an abortion clinic volunteer who allegedly verbally harassed his 12-year-old son. Even though local authorities declined to press charges, Mr. Houck was arrested--arrested at gunpoint--by the FBI in front of his terrified family. He was eventually found not guilty by a jury after a very short deliberation. Let's also not forget that, for many years, our Democratic colleagues politically weaponized the FBI against my and Senator Johnson's Biden family investigation. On July 13, 2020, then-Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, then-Speaker Pelosi, and then-Chairman Schiff sent a letter with classified attachments to the FBI. The letter targeted the Grassley-Johnson Biden family investigation to try and falsely tie it to Russian disinformation. On July 16, 2020, mere days after the July 13 letter, then-Ranking Members Wyden and Peters wrote a letter to me and Senator Johnson asking for a briefing from the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. The FBI did the bidding of our Democratic colleagues and briefed us, accordingly, on August 6, 2020. The contents of the FBI briefing were later leaked to the Washington Post, even though the FBI promised us confidentiality. The leak was just another act in a long line of efforts to falsely label the Grassley-Johnson good government oversight work as--you guessed it-- Russian disinformation. The Wall Street Journal editorial board hit the mark with their piece that they entitled ``The FBI's Dubious Briefing: Did the bureau set up two GOP Senators at the behest of Democrats?'' As I noted in the last Congress, protected whistleblower disclosures to my office make clear that the FBI has within its possession very significant, very impactful, and very voluminous evidence with respect to potential criminal conduct by members of the Biden family. Based on protected whistleblower allegations, I know the FBI falsely labeled that evidence as Russian disinformation to bury it. To date, the Biden Justice Department and the FBI haven't challenged the accuracy of these allegations. They can't because my staff has independently reviewed records to support the allegations. And you can't forget the now-debunked Steele dossier, a document funded and created by Democrats and the Clinton campaign, a document that was actually subject to Russian disinformation. The FBI's willing and disastrous use of it to investigate candidate and then-President Trump sent our country into a tailspin for years. So let's not kid ourselves right here, right now, as we are talking about a resolution to back law enforcement. The facts bear out that it is our Democratic colleagues who have consistently used Federal law enforcement to their political benefit, and, in the process, they have degraded the trust the American people once placed in Federal law enforcement. Accordingly, this resolution offered by my Democratic colleagues reeks of political gamesmanship. It is not a serious effort. Let's truly honor the heroes in law enforcement and the daily sacrifices they make for the American people by offering more than a tone-deaf political resolution that further divides the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will vote no on the nomination of Joshua Jacobs to be Under Secretary for Benefits at VA. I will do so for reasons I have already stated publicly in the Record when I paused consideration of his nomination last month. I placed that hold to bring attention to serious ethical lapses and the VA's complete stonewalling of my inquiry into those issues. Veterans Affairs, for 2 years, has chosen the path of inattention and disrespect, not just to this Senator from Iowa, but more importantly to the Senate, the people I represent, and all Americans who believe in honest government. I began my inquiry 2 years ago into serious conflicts of interest at the VA, concerns that it had failed to protect sensitive and confidential information about publicly traded companies, and the shocking and potentially illegal--and fully documented--termination of a person the VA suspected of being a whistleblower. The VA failed to cooperate on all counts. These are matters that are in the VA's own best interest to resolve. It doesn't do the VA or anyone else any good, and it certainly does no good for our veterans, for these serious matters to be swept under the rug. At my request, VA's inspector general investigated the serious allegations I raised of potentially criminal conflicts of interest and confirmed them to the extent possible. However, he wasn't able to finish his investigation and determine whether criminal activity occurred because the subjects refused to cooperate. The conflicts of interest were known to senior VA officials, who did nothing to stop them and instead assured the conflicted official they would make the issue go away, and they did, until I raised my inquiry. Documents show a VA official berated the whistleblower, removed their key duties, and then fired them. VA did not cooperate with my investigation, and that has left serious questions unanswered. It waited nearly 9 months and after four letters to respond at all, and even then, it was only to refuse to provide answers. After 2 years, we are still waiting for those answers. And if you think this is all old news, just last month, I raised new allegations obtained by my office about potential contract irregularities at VA. It appears from public records that the VA has awarded lucrative contracts to former VA officials who resigned under ethical clouds. We need answers to that and all the other questions I have raised, and I will not stop pushing for those answers. My staff counts over 30 questions that VA to date has not fully responded to, after six oversight inquiries from my office and multiple attempts to gain their cooperation. Mr. Jacobs, the nominee before us today, served as a senior adviser to various VA Secretaries and was there as the VA obstructed my inquiry. He had a front row seat at VA through a string of failures and crises, from the Phoenix wait list scandal, to VA's failures in processing claims for victims of sexual trauma, veterans' claims backlogs, delays in the GI Bill modernization initiative, and a host of challenges and scandals. Mr. Jacobs has never adequately explained his role in these matters or what potential role he may have played in VA's lack of responsiveness to congressional inquiries. In addition, for reasons I explained in my public hold statement on his nomination March 14, I found his responses to my questions for the record to be woefully inadequate and evasive. Where is the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in making sure the VA and this nominee are held accountable? After 2 years of that same pattern from the VA, the Senate should not confirm this nominee. VA can and must do better in responding to congressional inquiries and fulfilling its role of serving veterans and the American people. I will vote no.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on behalf of the Hawkeye State, I am proud to congratulate the Iowa women's basketball team for a historic run in the NCAA Division I basketball tournament. All season long, the Hawkeyes played before sellout crowds at Carver-Hawkeye Arena in Iowa City. Fans from across the State got swept up in the adrenaline rush of remarkable athleticism and a fast-paced offense that delivered high- scoring games and thrilling victories throughout the regular season, from the home court buzzer beater against second- ranked Indiana on February 26, to bringing home the hardware on March 5 from the Big 10 Championship game at ``Carver North'' at the Target Center in Minneapolis. Leading the team to its fifth Big 10 Conference Tournament title, Iowa's homegrown guard Caitlin Clark wowed the world all season long, setting the bar higher and higher and delivering one of many historic firsts yet to come in postseason play, namely the first 40-point triple-double in NCAA tournament history. Only after, the West Des Moines native and stellar student-athlete from Dowling Catholic High School registered the third triple-double in Big 10 tournament history, the first time ever in the championship game. Clark's phenomenal ability to connect with teammates in transition, net 3 pointers from half court, and score lay-ups and jumpers while being double-teamed captured the attention of the entire country. From one game to the next, Clark's trademark ability to swish a basket from the logo mesmerizes spectators, bewilders the defense, and opens up opportunities for her teammates to shine. A sensational athlete, Clark earned player of the year from multiple outlets this season. Throughout the thrilling contests during Iowa's deep run in the NCAA tournament, Hawkeye fans from around the world and across the State of Iowa were thrilled with pride to be along for the ride. The journey began at home on St. Patrick's Day with a resounding win over Southeastern Louisiana 95-48. In the second round, the Hawkeyes beat Georgia 74-66 before a sellout crowd in Iowa City before advancing to the Sweet 16 against Colorado and on to face Louisville in the Elite Eight at Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle, WA. The spellbinding teamwork the Iowa Hawkeyes brought to the court broke attendance records for Women's NCAA tournament regional play as they locked in 87-77 and 97-83 victories, respectively, to punch their ticket to the Final Four at the American Airlines Center in Dallas. Next up, a contest against the defending champion South Carolina, who was on a 42-game winning streak. In a spectacular upset on Friday, March 31, the Iowa Hawkeyes secured a spot in the national championship game with a 77-73 victory over the Gamecocks. The electrifying victories and hard-fought contests during the 2022/ 23 season made household names of Hawkeye starters Caitlin Clark, Monica Czinano, Gabbie Marshall, McKenna Warnock, and Kate Martin, led by an outstanding coaching team captained by head coach Lisa Bluder and associate head coach Jan Jensen, both homegrown products of Iowa women's basketball. I am proud to share an alma mater with Coach Bluder, where she earned her way into the Panther record books at the University of Northern Iowa. Widely respected as workhorses through their high school and collegiate careers, this dynamic coaching team has built a program for the ages that will inspire and attract future basketball players for years to come. With nearly 10 million viewers for the championship game against the LSU Tigers, this historic match-up offered both teams their first opportunity in program history to bring home the national title. It was the most-watched women's basketball game in history. If what is past is prologue, the sellout crowds and record-breaking TV ratings will continue. This magical season started at home on November 7, continuing with an exhilarating run through March Madness all the way to April 2, taking the Iowa Hawkeyes to the second Final Four in program history and its first appearance in the NCAA title game. The electrifying ride unified our State, even coalescing fans with die-hard rivalries in their bloodstreams. To be sure, I watched every minute and couldn't take my eyes off the game when the Hawkeyes were playing. Iowans cloaked themselves in Black and Gold to cheer for the Hawkeyes and women's basketball on the national stage. Although the final score in the championship game didn't deliver the victory the coaches and players worked their tails off to bring home, the State of Iowa, the University of Iowa, and future generations of players received a priceless victory from this extraordinary season. The Iowa Hawkeyes women's basketball team made Iowa proud. This team has earned a place in our hearts, and we can't wait to watch and cheer for you next season and for generations to come. On behalf of the Hawkeye State, I congratulate you for an outstanding season that made history, put all eyes on Iowa, and catapulted women's basketball to soaring new heights on the horizon and beyond. Go Hawks.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been glad to see that Lena Santos Ferguson is finally gaining recognition for her work to desegregate the Daughters of the American Revolution. In 1980, Mrs. Ferguson was turned away when she tried to join DAR. She was discriminated against even though she could trace her ancestry to Jonah Gay, who had supported the Revolution through the town committee of Friendship, ME. According to the Washington Post, one of Ferguson's White sponsors was told that, if Mrs. Ferguson was admitted, the DC chapter ``will probably fall apart.'' However, last month, the DAR renamed its Washington, DC, nursing scholarship as the ``Daughters of the American Revolution--Lena Ferguson Scholarship,'' doubled its size, and announced the upcoming placement of a plaque in honor of her work. It is a testament to the work of those such as Ferguson that the DAR has gone from threatening dissolution to naming a scholarship in her honor. Ferguson represented a much larger group of under-recognized Black Revolutionary War patriots. In 1984, when Ferguson was finally allowed to join the DAR, the settlement agreement had an impact well beyond one woman's effort for recognition. It led to new research and the identification of over 5,000 of the estimated 10,000 Black Revolutionary War participants. However, highlighting the contributions Black patriots made in the American Revolution does not end with DAR. That is why I worked with Senator Murphy to pass into law the National Liberty Memorial Preservation Act. Our bipartisan bill allows the National Mall Liberty Fund D.C.--a group founded by Maurice Barboza, Ferguson's nephew--to continue its work getting a monument to Black patriots on or near the National Mall in Washington, DC. Both this monument and the work of Mrs. Ferguson display the founding purpose of our Nation. Unlike almost every other country on Earth, Americans are not bound together by a common ethnicity or geographical ancestry. We are all Americans because we believe in the principles our country was founded upon. This is the common heritage of all Americans of all backgrounds. It is vital that we do not forget that bond and even more vital that we preserve the principles themselves and honor those of all backgrounds who fought for them. The construction of the National Liberty Memorial by July 4, 2026-- the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding--would serve as another important reminder of that bond we share as Americans. I urge my fellow Americans to come together around that goal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to commemorate Sunshine Week. Sunshine Week coincides each year with March 16, one of our Founding Fathers' birthdays: James Madison. Madison is widely known as the father of open government. The sunshine I am talking about isn't the kind that helps the corn grow in Iowa. Sunshine Week is dedicated to promoting government accountability to the source from which all government derives its power: the people. Before joining the Supreme Court in 1916, Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: ``Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants: electric light the most efficient policeman.'' As a longtime champion for an open, accessible government, I speak today in support of those enduring principles. In great works of literature, readers often remember a novel's opening line even if they forget the rest. When one hears that line, it immediately calls to mind the entire book. Well the same is true of our Constitution, a document that both defines the powers of the Federal Government and, at the same time, carefully limits those powers. ``We The People.'' These are not the opening words of a novel, but they are just as memorable as the best opening lines in literature. These solemn words form the opening line of our framework of our government, the Constitution. This is not an accident. Our Founders and Framers made a conscious choice to open our sacred charter by calling to mind the source of all government powers, from local school boards to the deliberations of this Chamber: the people of our United States, as James Madison said, acting in their sovereign capacity. These are truths we must repeat often, so that we never forget them. The people in this framework are in control. To use the analogy of the sun, whatever promotes self- governance, spoken of in our Declaration of Independence, is sunshine. Whatever hinders the people in their right to govern their communities is darkness. As the Federal Government has grown in size and scope, all too often bureaucrats prefer to live in the shadows of the bureaucracy. They forget that they are ultimately accountable to the people. Because of this, Congress has passed a series of laws requiring openness and accountability to citizens and taxpayers. Just like we need information from government agencies to decide how to cast many of our votes in Congress, so too do the American people need this information to fulfill their role, and to cast theirs. This week is meant to draw attention to this need for openness, especially the Freedom of Information Act, which requires government Agencies to produce documents enlightening citizens as to what Agencies are doing. There is also the inherent constitutional power that Members of Congress have to conduct oversight and launch investigations. Despite this framework of laws and the bedrock principles of our Constitution, Agencies day in and day out fight tooth and nail so they won't have to turn over records when people file Freedom of Information Act requests and even when Members of Congress make requests for information. The Freedom of Information Act is a key law for providing transparency in government. Exemptions that allow records to be withheld should only be used when necessary and not as an excuse to withhold potentially embarrassing information. Federal Agencies must also reverse the trend of ever-increasing FOIA backlogs. For example, according to annual FOIA reports, the Department of Homeland Security saw its FOIA backlog double at the end of fiscal year 2022 from the previous fiscal year. They are not alone. The Justice Department, Defense Department, and State Department all saw increases in their FOIA backlogs from the prior year. Federal Agencies need to do better. I continue to work for laws that strengthen the Freedom of Information Act and other measures that will ensure the people's business is conducted in public, not in private. I am planning to reintroduce a bipartisan bill to ensure FOIA remains a useful public tool and to push back against recent case law that erodes greater transparency. This bill will restore pro-transparency principles and will make it crystal clear where Congress stands on the public's right to know what our government is doing. To mark ``Sunshine Week,'' I am also introducing the bipartisan Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, which would permit and encourage all Federal courts to welcome cameras into the courtroom. I am also cosponsoring, with Senator Durbin, a companion bill which would require the U.S. Supreme Court to televise the arguments heard before them. I thank my Senate colleagues who are joining me as cosponsors on these important pieces of legislation. I have supported the long overdue release of records on the assassination of President Kennedy. I support efforts and conduct oversight on a daily basis that bring information on our government's operation to the light of day. I have also long supported whistleblowers, who play a vital role in shining the light on waste, fraud, and abuse. By reintroducing the SEC Whistleblower Reform Act, I am working to ensure whistleblowers who report possible violations of our Federal securities laws are fully protected, whether they take their concerns to the SEC or to someone in their company. My office has worked with whistleblowers and groups protecting their rights for decades. It is an essential part of our work. As Agencies all too often resist turning over the information we need to do our jobs, whistleblowers fill that gap with firsthand accounts of potential wrongdoing. To those whistleblowers: You are true patriots. Corruption is a problem in our own government, but it is also a global problem. I support the rights of whistleblowers everywhere in their efforts to bring sunshine to corruption and aid people in their rightful quest to govern themselves. Finally, I have been a long-time supporter of the False Claims Act. Since 1986, when I led the effort to update the False Claims Act, that law has helped the government recover $72 billion in taxpayer money from fraud and likely saved billions more by deterring would be fraudsters. The False Claims Act is a tool by which we can--and must-- hold fraudsters accountable. That is why I also reintroduced the bipartisan Administrative False Claims Act again this Congress. That legislation raises the statutory ceiling on claims that can be handled with administrative procedures from $150,000 to $1 million, expands the number of Justice Department officials who can review these claims, and allows the government to recoup costs for investigating and prosecuting these frauds. The legislation makes pursuing fraudsters more efficient. We need to take all possible steps to let the sunshine in. If we do, we will have a better and more accountable government that serves the people as it should.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last Congress, I spoke of my strong opposition to the nomination of Eric Garcetti to be Ambassador to the Republic of India. I opposed the nomination due to the serious and credible allegations that he enabled sexual harassment and racism to run rampant in the Los Angeles mayor's office. When the nomination expired, I had hoped President Biden would recognize his egregious mistake, believe the victims, and change course. President Biden failed to do so. Indefensibly, at the same time the Biden administration decries sexual harassment and racism, it has now twice nominated an individual to represent our country abroad who has enabled those very same disgusting acts. Accordingly, I continue to oppose Garcetti's nomination and ask this question: What will it take for the Biden administration to believe the victims? That same question should be posed to every Member in the Senate that is considering voting for him. During my career, I have prioritized protecting victims of sexual harassment and abuse. In 2005, I cosponsored the Violence Against Women Act. That bill provides vital aid to the Justice Department's Office on Violence Against Women and to law enforcement to protect victims of sexual harassment and abuse. Last Congress, I cosponsored bills introduced by Senator Gillibrand to protect and defend victims of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. I cosponsored resolutions introduced by Senator Feinstein to raise awareness of sexual assault. These include the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act of 2021, the Speak Out Act, the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, and a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month. This Congress, I have sent several bipartisan letters to the Department of Justice seeking information regarding sexual misconduct by Bureau of Prisons personnel and inmates against staff. With Senators Durbin and Padilla, I met with the Bureau of Prisons Director to further investigate sexual misconduct and discuss reforms to enhance prevention, reporting, investigation, prosecution, and discipline of these matters. With respect to Mayor Garcetti, I have made clear to my colleagues and the American people that credible whistleblowers approached my office about concerning allegations that he was aware of and enabled his deputy chief of staff, Rick Jacobs, to sexually harass several employees within the mayor's office. These men and women alleged that Rick Jacobs engaged in inappropriate and degrading physical contact without their consent. They alleged that Rick Jacobs made crude sexual remarks and gestures towards staff and others. They alleged that he made blatantly racist remarks towards Asians and other minorities. These allegations have also been publicly reported by many news outlets. Text messages made public by the Los Angeles Times indicate that these incidents were common knowledge among Garcetti's staff. A now infamous picture shows Jacobs inappropriately touching an individual next to him. In the picture, Mayor Garcetti is standing on the other side of Jacobs. Mayor Garcetti said under oath during his nomination that ``I want to say unequivocally that I never witnessed, nor was it brought to my attention, the behavior that's been alleged, and I also want to assure you if it had been, I would have immediately taken action to stop that.'' How can that statement be true when there is a photo with Jacobs inappropriately touching an individual next to Garcetti? How can that statement be true when text messages exist from his own staff discussing the toxic work environment within the mayor's office? In total, my office identified over 19 individuals who have either witnessed Jacobs' behavior or were the victims of it. So who are these brave and courageous individuals who made these allegations? Are they Republican operatives? No. They are his former communications director, senior staffers, junior staffers, businessmen, civic leaders, and a Los Angeles Police Department officer assigned to protect him. This isn't a political hit job. This is a bipartisan endeavor to stop an inadequate nominee. To defend himself, Mayor Garcetti has pointed to a report which inconceivably purports to clear Jacobs of any wrongdoing. The report was conducted by a law firm hired and paid for by the city of Los Angeles. Mayor Garcetti and the city of Los Angeles would be liable if the report concluded sexual harassment occurred. The report was also delivered to the city of Los Angeles under attorney-client privilege, apparently in the hope that no one outside the city would ever see it. The report failed to interview multiple firsthand witnesses. The interviews weren't taken under penalty of perjury. The report focused exclusively on allegations of sexual harassment made by the Los Angeles Police Department officer and failed to give due weight to other witnesses. For example, the report includes an interview with Jacobs in which he admits to using racist language, kissing, hugging, and squeezing people's shoulders. The report also identifies the individual in the lewd photo I mentioned earlier. The report says that the individual stated that Jacob's actions weren't funny and embarrassed that person. That makes it clear nonconsensual physical contact occurred. It is evidence that sexual harassment occurred. And it literally occurred right next to Mayor Garcetti. The last time I spoke about this matter was right after President Biden signed the Speak Out Act into law. I cosponsored that bill, which Senator Gillibrand led. The law enables survivors to speak out about workplace sexual assault and harassment. So, on the one hand, the Biden administration says it supports victims. Yet, on the other hand, the Biden administration supports a nominee who enables misconduct that creates more victims. The Biden administration's positions are irreconcilable. They are the very definition of tone deafness. The Biden administration and all those who support this nomination have sent a message that victims will only be believed when politically convenient. The Biden administration has no credibility when it comes to protecting victims of sexual harassment. To my Senate colleagues, do you support victims of sexual harassment and racism or a man who enabled it for years, leaving many victims in his wake? You can't support both. Mayor Garcetti's own staff have spoken out to stop this nomination at a risk to their careers. One of them is Naomi Seligman, who was Mayor Garcetti's former communications director and one of the many whistleblowers who worked with my office regarding this nomination. She said that Garcetti's vote out of the Foreign Relations Committee ``on International Women's Day no less, shows a real disconnect between the rhetoric we hear from elected leaders who claim to support victims of workplace sexual harassment and the pass they give to party loyalists in the next breath. It's disheartening to say the least.'' I agree. Mayor Garcetti is incompatible with the office that he seeks. I, again, strongly encourage my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--to review the evidence found in my investigative report, as well as in the press. Most importantly, listen to the victims. The facts and the evidence compel me to vote no, and my colleagues must join me in doing the same.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Joshua D. Jacobs, to be Under Secretary for Benefits at the Department of Veterans Affairs, PN195. Mr. Jacobs, if confirmed, would lead the Veterans Benefits Administration at VA. This VA component is at the heart of my many congressional oversight requests dating back 2 years, which the VA has failed to adequately respond to. The whistleblower allegations raised in my oversight inquiries that the VA Office of Inspector General-- OIG--investigated have been vindicated, with the OIG issuing a report last year identifying potential conflicts of interest by the senior VA official at issue, Ms. Charmain Bogue. That official left Federal service and failed to cooperate further with OIG, as did the organization her husband worked for, Veterans Education Success, which had business before VA. This leaves questions open that VA has yet to resolve. I raised other issues as well that the OIG did not investigate, but which VA needs to respond to. This includes allegations that VA failed to protect sensitive and confidential information about publicly traded companies. The OIG decided that this was more properly investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, but to my knowledge, they have not investigated the matter either. It falls upon VA to provide transparency on the issue. I have also raised questions regarding FOIA records that show a senior VA official, Mr. Thomas Murphy, admitting to firing the person he suspected of being a whistleblower to my office in 2021. VA has not adequately responded to this apparently egregious violation of whistleblower-protections laws. I have raised serious additional questions as to what knowledge VA officials had of the underlying conflicts of interest at issue in my inquiry, how those conflicts were allowed to exist, why VA obstructed my investigation, and like issues. To date, VA has failed to provide a full and complete response to any of the five oversight letters I have sent to them since April 2021. And today, I am sending two more, to the VA and OIG, raising allegations whistleblowers have brought to my office concerning potential contract irregularities and illustrating the VA's failure to answer the many outstanding questions I have raised in the past. There are at least 27 outstanding requests and questions raised in these letters that VA has inadequately addressed and, in many instances, not addressed at all. In instances where they have provided records, those have been heavily redacted with citations to FOIA exemptions, even though FOIA does not apply to Congress. In some instances, I have even had to rely upon third-party FOIA productions to provide information. It was only through a FOIA production, for example, that I learned that VA had begun drafting a response to me soon after my initial oversight letter, but never sent it. Instead, VA waited nearly 9 months to respond and even then declined to answer any of my questions other than requests for records, which it heavily redacted, and many of which it withheld in full. In other words, the draft response that I would have never received but for FOIA included more information than what VA eventually sent me. Because of my concerns with VA's obstruction and because the nomination relates to a position at the center of my oversight requests, I submitted questions for the record to Mr. Jacobs. Although I appreciate his response to my questions, I found a number of his answers unsatisfactory. For instance, he was provided with sufficient background in my questions with respect to my VA inquiry. I asked him, given the fact that he currently is exercising the powers of Under Secretary for Benefits, if he would commit to opening an investigation now into the serious questions I raised. He declined to respond, instead stating what he would do in certain hypothetical circumstances, even though the questions pertained to matters directly under his current purview. After I provided the names, dates, and specific allegations that need to be addressed but have failed to be for the past 2 years and after repeating many of those details in my questions to Mr. Jacobs, it was unacceptable for him to answer in hypotheticals. Many of his other responses were equally disappointing. My staff has also identified at least one document that seems to contradict Mr. Jacobs' claim that he did not play ``any role'' in VA's response to my inquiry. While I make no claim that Mr. Jacobs intentionally misled me in his responses, this document at least raises serious questions as to the accuracy of his blanket assertion. In the document, Mr. Jacobs reaches out to a senior VA legislative affairs official, multiple officials from VA's Office of General Counsel, and others, relaying information on a call he received about a matter related to my oversight, which he believed was the same issue that prompted my letters. This shows that he took at least one phone call on what he thought was the same matter and provided this information to those preparing a response to me. It is difficult to imagine that nobody ever responded to Mr. Jacobs, either by email or in-person conversations, in which he would have had additional conversations about VA's response. Accordingly, the email undercuts his assertion that he did not play ``any role'' in the matter. Moreover, VA's redaction-filled productions make it difficult to bring transparency. Because of VA's lack of transparency on these critical issues and Mr. Jacobs' evasive answers on a number of my questions, I must therefore object to any consideration of this nominee. I am more than willing to discuss with the VA and Mr. Jacobs how they can remedy the deficiencies in their responses. This hold is a reminder that executive agencies have an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a full and timely manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I would like to extend best wishes to the former Senator from New York, James L. Buckley. One hundred years ago today, on the 9th of March, Jim was born the fourth of 10 children, just as the Roaring '20s were getting underway. As he celebrates his 100th birthday, an impressive milestone by all accounts--I am also told he is the oldest living former U.S. Senator among us--Barbara and I wish Jim and his family a happy celebration. Jim Buckley was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1970 as a candidate of the Conservative Party, making him the first third party candidate to win election to the U.S. Senate in four decades. Representing the State of New York in the 92nd through 94th sessions of Congress, he served during a rocky period in U.S. history that included the Vietnam and Watergate era. Before ever putting his name on the ballot for public office, Jim enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1942, serving our country in uniform during World War II. He received his law degree from Yale University in 1949 and, from there, pursued a career in the law as an attorney and in lawmaking as a U.S. Senator. Our congressional service overlapped during the 94th Congress, when I was a freshman Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. We didn't have the opportunity to serve together here in the upper Chamber. Senator Buckley ran for reelection as a Republican in 1976, losing to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with whom I served until his retirement in 2001. As conservatives, Senator Buckley and I share a commitment to shared principles, limited government, sanctity of life, States' rights, and safeguarding constitutional rights, including political free speech. In fact, his name will be attached for posterity to a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo. Then-Senator Buckley led a coalition of free speech advocates to challenge amendments made to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 because they interfered with First Amendment rights. Students of history, political junkies, and legal scholars recognize that this case has shaped the landscape of free speech and campaign finance for the last five decades. In 1976, the High Court arrived at two important conclusions regarding campaign finance laws. On the one hand, the Supreme Court found that contribution ceilings on individual contributions did not violate the First Amendment. However, in a vote of 7-1, it struck down restrictions on campaign expenses and found they did violate the First Amendment as an infringement on free expression. Following his time in the legislative branch, Senator Buckley went on to serve in the Reagan administration in the U.S. State Department. From 1982-1985, Senator Buckley served as president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Germany, essentially a clarion of the airwaves fighting communism. From there, he continued his lifelong devotion to public service when he was nominated by President Reagan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Buckley was confirmed by the Senate on December 17, 1985. He served for the next 11 years and assumed senior status on August 31, 1996. I have served on the Senate Judiciary committee every year I have been honored to represent Iowa in the Senate, including 6 years as chairman. My colleagues here in the Senate understand that I take seriously my constitutional role to vet nominees to the Federal bench. In our system of checks and balances, I strive to uphold this fundamental cornerstone of our democratic republic. Lawmakers write the laws and set policy. Judges interpret the laws; they don't exercise their value judgments or impose their own policy preferences. As Judge Buckley himself said at his portrait ceremony in December of 2003: ``I hope, though, that my service on this court has been able to establish, if nothing else, that it is possible for a person to have the strongest views on questions of public policy and still understand and observe the sharp distinction between the constitutional role of a legislator and that of a judge.'' I couldn't say it better myself. I salute this great American for his public service to our great Nation, from the U.S. military and spanning all three branches of the Federal Government. Senior statesman, Senator, and judge may not be his most exalted titles. For someone whose humility and commitment to family are well known, those honors are husband, dad and grandfather. I extend my best wishes to Jim for a happy 100th birthday. Thank you for your patriotism, principled leadership, and service to America.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to expand on my recent comments on the need to stand up to Putin to prevent future aggression and the death and suffering it causes. Specifically, I would like to address the calls from well-meaning people for a diplomatic solution. Many people understandably want an end to the killing in Ukraine. I certainly do. So why not sit down and talk? As I have said before, we tried that after 2014, and it didn't work. We ended up with a full- scale invasion a year ago. More fundamentally, it is important to consider what there is to negotiate over. To start with, what is the nature of the disagreement? In other words, assuming you could get Putin or his representative to a negotiating table, what are the opposing positions and the potential middle ground? Vladimir Putin has continued to repeat his original stated war aims, ``demilitarization and denazification.'' Denazification in the context Putin uses it clearly means regime change. It is pretty clear that Putin thought he could take out the current elected government and install a puppet regime. President Biden publicly released the intelligence we had to that effect before the war began, which I think was a smart move. Demilitarization means that Ukraine has to give up its right to defend itself, allowing Russia a free hand to intervene with force if Ukraine ever again tries to assert its right to act independently of Russia. Obviously, President Zelenskyy cannot ever agree to meet those two demands. No President of a sovereign country could. Of course, in Putin's mind, Ukraine is not a sovereign country. That is the problem. Putin repeats a false version of history that says Ukraine is an artificially created country and rightfully part of Russia. Ukraine has a long history of independence before it was ever conquered by Russia, in fact long before Russia even existed. But, for decades, Putin has pushed a warped, imperialistic view of history that is all too common among Russians. When Putin repeatedly invokes Peter the Great, we should be concerned. Remember, Peter the Great was a Russian expansionist emperor who conquered lands like Finland and the Baltics from Sweden. It may be comforting to buy into Putin's propaganda that he feels concern for the people in parts of Ukraine where they speak Russian and that perhaps those people want to be Russian. That makes his motives seem like they might have some justification. It also lulls us into the belief that Putin will be appeased once he cleaves off a chunk of eastern Ukraine. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, nor has Putin actually said that. The Russian Federation in its current borders has subsumed many non-Russian ethnicities and languages from past imperial conquests. Not speaking Russian never stopped them before. In 1939, the Soviet Union attacked Finland in the Winter War despite its language and culture being very, very different from Russia. It was a nakedly imperial quest to reconquer lost territory of the Russian empire. Finland fought back and kept its independence, but Russia kept a big chunk of Karelia. This is an area that spoke a dialect of Finnish and was not historically Russian in any deep cultural or linguistic sense. Sadly today, in that region, Karelians maintaining their native language and culture represent a tiny minority of the population. Over the years, it has been thoroughly russified. In Ukraine, mass graves and reports of widespread rape from areas liberated from Russian occupation should suffice to dispel the myth that Ukrainians welcome occupation or that Russians see Ukrainians as brothers. The fact that many people in eastern Ukraine speak Russian never made them Russian, just as English-speaking Irish citizens do not long to be governed by London. Eastern Ukraine was subject to a policy of russification under the Russian Empire and then under the Soviet Union, when many Russian workers were imported to the area. But it should be clear to everyone now that the Ukrainian national identity cannot be easily suppressed, regardless of the language they speak at home. Still that does not stop Russians from trying. Thousands of Ukrainian children from Russian occupied areas in eastern Ukraine have been forcibly deported to Russia and adopted into Russian families. Members of the Putin regime talk openly about how these children came with pro-Ukrainian attitudes but have now been brainwashed to adopt pro-Russian sentiments. This alone meets the definition of genocide. In Putin's 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, his critique of the United States included the assertion that we seek a unipolar world where we impose our values on others, and called for a multipolar world--in other words, one with different spheres of influence. When Putin talks about countries like Ukraine and other formerly Russian dominated countries, it is clear that he sees them as either in his sphere of influence, or someone else's. Putin cannot accept that Ukrainians might want to leave behind the corrupt, Russian dominated post-Soviet system where oligarchs get rich and the average person's economic and political freedom are limited. Putin talks about ``NATO expansion'' into the Baltics as though NATO is a rival empire. In reality, the Baltic countries begged to join NATO. And they were admitted at a time of naive optimism in the West that Russia was becoming a peaceful democracy. The Baltic countries are actually a useful case study to understand how many Russians think about their former imperial subject countries. This month, Estonia and Lithuania celebrate the 106th anniversary of the birth of their republics in their current independent form. It is important to understand that the Baltic countries are historically Western in their culture and outlook. Like Ukraine, they experienced attempts at russification, during the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, including importing of Russian-speaking workers, threatening their unique cultures and languages. After regaining their freedom from Soviet occupation in 1991, the Baltics quickly built thriving, free market democracies. Given their history, it is natural that they sought to protect their way of life from Russian domination by joining the most successful defensive alliance in history. Putin and many Russians speak with resentfulness about the Baltics. Their very existence as prosperous, Western-style free-market democracies not dependent on Russia politically or economically is clearly threatening. Russian state media tries, absurdly, to convince Russians that their prosperity is due to development efforts under the Soviet occupation or that they are about to become failed states any day now. Many Russians are convinced that their joining NATO makes them U.S. puppets, reflecting the spheres of influence worldview. Again, joining NATO was their fervent wish, not some policy of expansion for expansion's sake on the part of NATO, and their populations are some of the most pro-American anywhere in the world. Putin dismisses the wishes of his smaller neighbors as irrelevant to great power geopolitics. He thinks they are inevitably pawns to be bartered over by big empires. Given our origin as a tiny collection of Colonies seeking independence from a powerful empire, Americans ought to think differently. Putin is threatened by NATO expansion not because he believes NATO countries might attack the Russian Federation. Our NATO allies bordering Russia did not host any long-term deployments of troops from other allies before Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Multiple NATO allies have since provided small rotational forces to our eastern flank allies intended to deter Russian aggression. Those forces have naturally grown since the full scale invasion of Ukraine in February. But, frankly, they are still insufficient to repel the kind of full- scale invasion we saw in Ukraine, much less pose any kind of threat to Russian territory. Putin's military leaders, for all their mistakes in Ukraine, are not stupid. They do not see NATO as a military threat to current Russian territory. Rather, Putin sees NATO as a threat to his dream of reconstituting the Russian Empire. President Macron of France has suggested offering Putin security guarantees. That plays into Putin's false propaganda that he faces any kind of threat from NATO. When Putin talks about security guarantees, he has made clear that he means a dismantling of NATO in areas he sees as his rightful sphere of influence, enabling him to bully them. Keep in mind that, when he invaded Ukraine initially in 2014, Ukraine was militarily neutral, but seeking closer economic relations with the European Union. In February 2014, months of popular protests by ordinary Ukrainians culminated in what Ukrainians call their ``Revolution of Dignity.'' The Ukrainian President at the time yielded to pressure from Putin and refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union after it passed overwhelmingly in the Parliament. The Ukrainian Parliament ultimately voted to remove the President. He then fled to Russia, but not before violent confrontations between special riot police and protestors. Putin has falsely claimed this was a U.S.-sponsored coup rather than a grassroots rejecting of his meddling in Ukraine's sovereign affairs. Russia then invaded Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. To be clear, the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO, the U.S., or any military threat to Russia. Rather, Ukraine's decision to seek closer economic ties to Europe threatened Putin's sense of entitlement to have Ukraine dominated by Russia. Putin has said ``true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia.'' This reflects his notion that Ukraine can never be truly independent. In his mind, Ukraine is either in Russia's sphere of influence, which he sees as its natural state, or it is somehow controlled by shadowy Western forces. We should not fall into the same imperialistic trap of sidelining or minimizing the wishes of Ukrainians. President Biden has said, ``nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,'' and he must stick to that. We must also be clear-eyed about what is and is not possible to negotiate with Putin. As I have said before, Putin only understands strength and weakness is provocative. As Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission President and former German Defense Minister under Angela Merkel said, ``We should have listened to the voices inside our Union-- in Poland, in the Baltics, and all across Central and Eastern Europe- they have been telling us for years that Putin would not stop.'' President Biden should take that lesson to heart as well. Estonian Prime Minister Kallas puts it this way: ``History shows that appeasement only strengthens and encourages aggressors and that aggressors can be stopped only with force. As the prime minister of Estonia, a frontline NATO country that endured half a century of Soviet occupation, I know what peace on Russia's terms really means. Russian peace would not mean the end of suffering but rather more atrocities.'' I wish it was possible to negotiate with Putin to put an end to Ukraine's suffering. But what he wants is domination of Ukraine, and that is not ours to offer. We have only two options left. We could sit on the sidelines and watch Ukraine get slowly crushed, which would embolden Putin and open the possibility that he would eventually attack one of our allies. Or we can support Ukraine's victory and independence. As I have said before, backing a Ukrainian victory comes with costs and risks. But the risks and costs of not stopping Putin now will be much higher. That makes repelling Russia's invasion of its sovereign neighbor in the U.S. national interest. The Russian threat will not go away, so for our national interest and in the interest of long term peace in Europe, supporting a decisive victory for Ukraine is the right thing to do.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the media likes narratives that split issues neatly into two opposing positions and often Republican against Democrat. There is one narrative that has been repeated so often it has become conventional wisdom. It holds that President Biden and Democrats in Congress have been 100 percent committed to opposing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but Republican support is softening. That misleading narrative was briefly scrambled when the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a horribly naive letter calling for President Biden to engage in direct diplomacy with Russia. Clearly, there are factions on both sides of the aisle hesitant about backing a Ukrainian victory. There is also confusion about who in U.S. politics is most behind Ukraine winning the war. Let's be clear, the most fervent supporters of victory for Ukraine are Republicans. Meanwhile, the Biden administration gets credit for being all in for Ukraine, when in fact it is more accurate to say that it is, at best, three-quarters of the way in. And it has been dragged this far by events, public opinion, and some of our bolder European allies. Speculation about future Republican support for Ukraine is often framed in terms of Biden's chances to get the aid he might want, but no one asks why President Biden let $2.2 billion worth of authority passed by Congress to draw down existing weapons for Ukraine expire on September 30 unused. I have been pleased for the most part with President Biden's rhetorical defense of Ukraine's right to self-defense. But I have been puzzled by some of the delays in sending crucial military aid. I see signs that the Biden administration is afraid of what will happen if Ukraine is helped to push Russia back into its own borders. It is understandable to be concerned about the risks when dealing with a nuclear armed aggressor. But Putin has backed away from his nuclear saber-rattling in the face of Western resolve. And there are even greater risks in not stopping Russia's aggression now. In fact, in my view, we got where we are now because we acted too timidly in the past. Repeating that mistake now will only invite more aggression in the future. In early February of 2021, shortly after President Biden took office, I gave a speech wondering whether President Biden's tough-on-Russia rhetoric would be matched by his administration's actions. I reminded the Senate that 12 years earlier, in the early days of the Obama-Biden administration, then-Vice President Biden went to Munich to deliver a speech calling for the United States to hit the ``reset button'' with Russia. Two years prior to Biden's speech, at the same annual conference, Vladimir Putin had sharply criticized the United States and suggested we were a threat to world peace. Moreover, just 6 months prior to calling for a ``reset,'' Russia had invaded and occupied a significant portion of the Republic of Georgia, which it still occupies to this day. Calling on the United States to ``hit the reset button,'' as Secretary of State Clinton later symbolically did with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, strongly suggested that the breakdown in relations with Russia was somehow our fault. President Reagan's Ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, famously identified a tendency among some of her fellow Democrats to ``blame America first.'' I put the shameful Obama-Biden Russia reset policy squarely in that tradition. Relations with Russia became bad because Putin saw the United States as an obstacle to his imperial aspirations. That is not our fault. I am concerned that some corners of the Biden administration have not fully dispensed with the naivety behind the so-called Russia reset. Let's recall just how mistaken the Obama-Biden Russia policy was. Many people remember the arrest of Anna Chapman and nine other deep cover Russian spies living as normal Americans. The FBI had been monitoring this spy network until agents saw signs that Chapman suspected the jig was up. The FBI needed to arrest the whole network before she had a chance to warn them and they all fled the country. However, it just so happened that Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian President--at least in name--was in town. Medvedev was meeting with President Obama about all the areas of cooperation between the U.S. and Russia made possible by the reset, plus a photo op eating hamburgers together. To not upset this chummy meeting, the arrests of the Russian spies were postponed until Medvedev was on a plane back to Moscow. Remember, in order to get around term limits, Vladimir Putin drafted his loyalist, Medvedev, to be the puppet President until Putin could run for President again. This was a transparent shell game. But there was naive hopeful talk that Medvedev was a reformer who might steer Russia in a more democratic, pro-Western direction. Anyone following Medvedev's recent rhetoric about Ukraine knows that is far from true. He remains totally loyal to Putin and has been serving as his rhetorical attack dog. When Russia invaded and occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014, the Obama administration had angry words for Putin. The reset was on the rocks. But the practical response of the Obama administration was to deny Ukraine defensive weapons, sending only non-lethal aid. President Obama urged Ukraine not to fight to avoid escalation and to settle the matter diplomatically. Russia has a history of using negotiations to create frozen conflicts. Russia will snatch a piece of land, then demand a ceasefire and negotiations, allowing it to keep the ill-gotten gains indefinitely. Obviously, maintaining the status quo with Russia occupying parts of Ukraine did not result in a lasting peace. It just led Putin to think he could get away with it again. Perhaps he would have if he hadn't gone big. Having succeeded in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, Putin figured he might as well go big and grab the whole country. It hasn't worked out for him as he hoped, but he hasn't given up on his initial goals either, even now. Those who had put hope in resetting relations with Russia have been mugged by reality. But behind the current tough talk, I worry that some in the Biden administration, maybe President Biden himself, still cling to a hope that we can reach an understanding with Putin. Like Jeane Kirkpatrick, who remained a Democrat throughout her service in the Reagan administration, there are many Democrats today who have a clear-eyed view of Russia, including many colleagues in this body. I just wish President Biden would listen to them rather than those in his administration who let concerns about antagonizing Putin keep us from doing everything we can to save Ukrainian lives. The administration has eventually relented and given Ukraine many weapons systems it had repeatedly said ``no'' to. But there are still weapons we could transfer to Ukraine today that would bring the end of the war closer and save lives; yet the administration is refusing because of fear of ``escalation.'' We have seen that our HIMARS system has allowed the Ukrainian military to destroy ammunition depots and supply lines, making it possible for the Ukrainians to liberate significant territory. We have seen the videos of Ukrainian soldiers greeted with tears of joy by liberated civilians who have endured brutal Russian occupation. However, we did not transfer the HIMARS until June, months into the war. And we denied the Ukrainians longer range missiles for the HIMARS. There are reports that we even modified the systems before delivery to make sure they could not shoot longer range missiles. This is apparently based on a misguided concern about threatening Russian territory. Recently, the Biden administration has announced it will send Ukraine the ground-launched small-diameter bomb, which is double the range of the current HIMARS rockets, but which still fall far short of the range of the Army Tactical Missile System that Ukraine has been asking for. Despite its success in retaking some of its own territory, Russia cannot seriously claim to be concerned about a Ukrainian invasion. Ukraine is the one that is being brutally invaded and occupied by Russia. And Ukraine has every right under international law to target Russian bases from which Russia is launching missiles at electrical plants and apartment buildings. Moreover, as the Lithuanian Prime Minister pointed out on her most recent visit to the United States, Ukraine needs these longer range missiles to attack Russian positions inside Ukraine itself. The most clear-eyed leadership about the war is coming from those who know Russia the best, like the leaders of our Baltic allies. When Americans see Iranian-made drones and Russian cruise missiles crashing into apartment buildings, killing old women and young children, our hearts break. But knowing that many of these attacks are being launched from Russian-occupied Crimea, within range of the missiles we have been denying to Ukraine, makes the death and destruction even more heartbreaking. The more advanced weapons Ukraine can obtain quickly, the faster the war will end. The U.S. and many of our allies have now announced delivery of tanks to Ukraine, something previously off the table. But it isn't clear if this decision was taken in time for the tanks to arrive in sufficient quantity to play a role in a spring counteroffensive or to help Ukraine defend against Russia's renewed offensive efforts, which are underway now. We should not be afraid of Ukraine winning. President Macron of France has expressed concern about humiliating Putin. It is true that a defeated Putin would be dangerous, but a victorious Putin would surely be even more dangerous. Precisely because Russia has long been dangerous, we have built up military stockpiles in case we need to defend our allies in Europe from a possible attack by Russia. Some of those stockpiles are now being used very effectively to degrade the Russian military and the threat it poses. This is being done by the Ukrainian military without a single American soldier in battle. Some people have expressed concerns that we could give too much military aid, reducing what we need in case we have to fight a war. Obviously, we need to ensure our own potential defense needs are taken care of. I have been following closely what we have left and what we have given. Our military stockpiles are not public, but I can say that do not see any cause for alarm. Keep in mind that the level of stocks our military has determined we need is based on possibly having to fight the Russian military, but the Russian military as it existed before the full scale invasion on February 24. Since the Ukrainians have significantly diminished the Russian military, the threat to the United States is greatly reduced. So our requirements for ammunition and equipment are also now also lower. The Russian war against Ukraine has also shaken us from our peacetime complacency about the state of our defense industrial base. Efforts are now underway to rejuvenate our ability to replenish our stockpiles of arms and ammunition. This will help not only with our efforts to aid Ukraine, but will greatly improve U.S. readiness to deal with potential threats in the near future, such as from China. There are also understandable concerns about the cost to the American taxpayers of replacing the equipment given to Ukraine. Aside from the fact that some of this would be replaced with upgraded versions soon anyway, the cost benefit of a Ukrainian soldier destroying a Russian tank with one of our Javelins is enormous. The Russian military is being destroyed for pennies on the dollar and zero cost in American blood. Then just think of what the cost in American blood and treasure would be if Russia did attack one of our NATO allies. And make no mistake, Russia's imperial ambitions do not stop with part, or even all of Ukraine. Estonia's Prime Minister often points out ``If Putin wins, or if he even has the view that he has won this war, his appetite will only grow.'' That is exactly what happened after Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. Putin's background is in the overlapping world of the KGB and Russian organized crime. In that world, only strength is respected, and weakness invites aggression. Let's not repeat past mistakes. Preventing future Russian aggression will greatly enhance American security and avoid major costs down the road. That makes it in America's national interest to support a decisive Ukrainian victory as soon as possible.