Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate Budget Committee is charged with the enforcement of budgetary levels and associated budgetary laws. This duty entails the review of measures through all stages of the legislative process. Consistent with the practice of previous chairs and ranking members of the committee, I have instructed my staff to review all bills and resolutions for which unanimous consent for passage is requested for any budgetary and programmatic effects. To help my staff perform their duties and avoid unnecessary delays during the unanimous consent process, Members are encouraged to provide Budget Committee staff with legislative text and corresponding budgetary information from either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation. I will use this information to weigh the budgetary and policy implications of each matter. If after considering this information I decide to object to legislation, I will file notice of that decision publicly.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the resolution designating January as National Stalking Awareness month will be voted on and pass the Senate. I thank my colleague and friend Senator Amy Klobuchar for her work and dedication to this subject. Approximately 1 in 6 women and 1 in 17 men in the U.S. have experienced stalking at some point in their lives. This bipartisan resolution sends a clear message: We will not stand for this egregious conduct. Millions of our fellow Americans have been victims of stalking. Oftentimes, their stories involve years-long episodes, drastic changes to their lives to secure their safety and, sadly, other criminal activity by stalkers. This month is a time for us all to reflect on the pervasiveness of stalking and the serious hardships and dangers faced by victims. As stated in the resolution, I also want to thank the advocates who are on the frontlines of this issue and stand ready to assist victims and provide them with the resources and support they need and deserve. The work of advocates raising awareness, of law enforcement and courts taking preventive and punitive action and of serviceworkers in providing help to victims are all worthy of our thanks. Our work doesn't stop here. I am once again recommitting to the fight against stalking, trafficking, and other conduct that targets our most vulnerable populations.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have historically supported disaster assistance to farmers and others who experience losses due to no fault of their own. However, I had to vote no on Senator Scott's disaster relief standalone amendment. As a lifelong family farmer and taxpayer watchdog, I have fought for many years to close loopholes that have allowed some farming operations to exploit Federal farm payments at taxpayer expense. Congress has been generous when it comes to supporting farmers. Farmers have federally subsidized crop insurance, commodity payments, and supplemental disaster payments. Farmers also had access to Market Facilitation Program during the Trump administration and Coronavirus Food Assistance payments in the past couple years. The Scott amendment would remove any payment limit to the disaster supplemental payments. This is a dangerous precedent to set. This amendment would release the spigot of disaster payments to wealthy farmers without regard to how much total assistance we are providing, which could mean less funding for family farmers who really need the help most. I want a strong farm safety net program that helps farmers weather downturns in the market and survive natural disasters, but I do not want an unending stream of payments with no caps. This amendment aims to help large farms get large bailouts while small farmers are left behind. Instead of fundamentally changing market dynamics, we should work together to make sure small and medium sized farmers do not get left behind in farm payment programs. This is especially true as we go into farm bill discussions in the next Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, earlier this summer, my Democratic colleagues got through on reconciliation--a strictly partisan way--a bill that provided that the IRS would get $80 billion in mandatory funding, which was meant to double the size of the IRS by 87,000 employees. This additional $80 billion, which comes on top of its annual appropriation, is over six times more than it received through annual appropriations in 2022. Now, I expect, in the new Congress, starting January 3 next year, there is going to be an attempt to reduce the $80 billion and not go for the 87,000 additional employees. I favor doing just that. However, in the meantime, the $80 billion and the 87,000 employees is law, and so this unprecedented increase in funding demands that Congress have a comparable increase in congressional oversight of the IRS--exacting and unyielding oversight, to be precise. After all, we are talking about 87,000 new employees. To begin this oversight, Finance Committee Republicans, including this Senator, sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office in October in pursuit of this oversight. In that letter, we asked for information on outstanding issues that the Government Accountability Office has identified at the Internal Revenue Service and the status of recommendations the IRS has failed to implement. The Government Accountability Office responded to that letter at the end of November, and, as you might quite expect, there are many ongoing and persistent issues. In the November letter, the Government Accountability Office notes that the IRS had 41 unimplemented recommendations related to information systems control deficiencies at the beginning of the fiscal year 2022 audit of IRS's financial statements. These outstanding recommendations related to information systems control deficiencies are especially concerning given the recent unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information, contrary to U.S. code section 6103, which guarantees the privacy--or is supposed to guarantee the privacy--of your IRS information. As you will recall, almost a year and a half ago, ProPublica, a publication, published stories based on ``a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data.'' We are no closer to understanding how ProPublica obtained this confidential taxpayer data now than we were in June of 2021. I have sent multiple letters to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Justice Department requesting updates on their supposed investigations on this matter of how did ProPublica get this private information of individual taxpayers. Yet these Agencies--the IRS and the Justice Department--have failed to provide any information concerning how confidential taxpayer information was disclosed or if additional taxpayer data remains at risk. In fact, just last week, we learned of another confirmed data breach. The IRS inadvertently redisclosed information from tax returns filed by tax-exempt organizations. This is after the information was already improperly disclosed in September. The IRS clearly has a problem, then, protecting taxpayer information, as the law requires. Now, the 41 information system deficiencies are only a fraction of the total open recommendations identified by the Government Accountability Office. GAO has said that ``as of November 2022, IRS had 176 open recommendations. Fully implementing these recommendations could significantly improve the IRS's operations.'' Despite IRS's shortcomings, my Democratic colleagues handed the IRS $80 billion in additional funding without seeing its plan for the funds or including the additional oversight. So that is why we are calling on additional oversight. It is very important to protect this $80 billion. Moreover, my Democratic colleagues have heavily weighted the additional funding toward enforcement rather than updating its systems or taxpayer services, because you can hardly call the IRS and get a live person. If you do, you probably don't get the right answers to your questions. So taxpayer service ought to be the No. 1 goal of this additional $80 billion instead of enforcement. Specifically, more than half of the additional IRS funding is dedicated to enforcement, while less than 5 percent is for taxpayer services. So you can see that taxpayer services isn't high on the agenda of the IRS. The lopsided nature of the IRS funding raises legitimate concerns of overly aggressive tax enforcement. This is especially true given that 3.2 million tax filers are still waiting for the IRS to process their 2022 tax returns. Countless others are trying to voluntarily comply with the law but can't get anyone at the IRS to answer the telephone. As a result, my office has been flooded with calls from frustrated Iowans requesting assistance in getting the services they need from the IRS. This is a recipe for disaster. While serving on the 1998 IRS Restructuring Commission, I heard firsthand from small businesses and from individuals about the abusive tactics the IRS can use when enforcement takes priority over taxpayer services. Given these and other concerns, Senator Thune and I introduced the IRS Funding Accountability Act. Our bill would place a moratorium on IRS spending its additional funding, other than for taxpayer services, until the IRS submits its spending plan to Congress for approval. Congress would then have the option to reject the plan. If Congress approves the spending plan, the IRS and the Treasury would be subject to regular reporting requirements and incur financial penalties for noncompliance--in other words, enhancing Congress's constitutional responsibility of oversight to see that the money spent is intended by Congress. As the former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I understand the necessity for enforcement. Taxpayers should pay what they owe and not a penny less or a penny more. During my time on the Finance Committee, I have worked to provide the IRS with additional tools to identify tax cheats and to collect tax debts that are already due and owed. For instance, I helped create the bipartisan IRS Private Debt Collection Program, which uses private contractors to track down and collect taxes owed to the IRS that they have shelved as a very low priority. This program has collected nearly $3 billion in net revenue since fiscal year 2019, including over 1.3 billion in the fiscal year of 2022 alone. Every year this program has operated, it has brought more revenue into the Treasury. Additionally, I offered improvements to the IRS whistleblower program in 2006. This program incentivizes whistleblowers to expose tax fraud by corporations and high-net worth individuals. Since 2007, this program has collected over $6 billion from noncompliant taxpayers. Both of these proven programs initially received resistance from the IRS. However, I appreciated former Commissioner Rettig's public support for both of these programs. If President Biden is really committed to closing the tax gap and going after wealthy tax cheats, he should encourage his nominee for IRS Commissioner, Daniel Werfel, to embrace both of these programs. The IRS has significant and persistent issues that need to be addressed. Congress must exercise robust and aggressive oversight. This is especially true given the outrageous infusion of $80 billion that is mostly geared toward enforcement against the taxpayer. The IRS must do a better job protecting taxpayer data, provide better taxpayer service, and use its existing enforcement tools and regular appropriations funding more efficiently. Simply put, that is what the taxpayers deserve.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong opposition to the nomination of Eric Garcetti to be Ambassador to India. I am compelled to vote against Mayor Garcetti due to the serious allegations that he enabled sexual harassment and racism to run rampant in the Los Angeles mayor's office. During my career, I have prioritized protecting victims of sexual harassment and sexual 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. Over several Congresses, I have co-led bills introduced by Senator Gillibrand to 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. I have also pressed the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security for more transparency and accountability on their handling of sexual misconduct in the workplace. Moving into the next Congress, Senator Durbin and I have agreed to jointly pursue these inquiries. With respect to Mayor Garcetti, several 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 allege that Rick Jacobs engaged in inappropriate physical conduct 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 toward Asians and other minorities. These allegations have also been publicly reported in the Los Angeles Times. Text messages made public by the Los Angeles Times indicate that these instances were common knowledge among the Garcetti staff. One picture that has been made public shows Jacobs inappropriately touching an individual next to him. In the picture Mayor Garcetti is standing on the other side of Mr. Jacobs. For Mayor Garcetti to claim that he didn't know what was going on defies reason. There is also a pending lawsuit by a Los Angeles police officer against the city of Los Angeles as a result of this type of disgraceful behavior. The kinds of behavior mentioned in the lawsuit include Jacobs subjecting the police officer to unwanted hugs, shoulder massages, and crude sexual language. 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 the Los Angeles Police Department officer assigned to protect him. Despite attempts by Mayor Garcetti and the Biden administration to frame complaints against him as a political hit job, some of the individuals who have come forward and shed light on misconduct are from Mayor Garcetti's own staff. How hypocritical is it for this administration to encourage victims of sexual harassment to speak out, yet when they do so against a powerful ally of Joe Biden, they are ignored? And they have been ignored in this matter even after providing evidence of harassment, including photographs and text messages. When convenient, Democrats have supported claims of harassment with far less. Just last week, President Biden signed into law a bill sponsored by Senator Gillibrand that I cosponsored which enabled survivors to speak out about workplace sexual assault and harassment. Continuing to push this nominee after signing that bill into law is the very definition of tone deafness. Unfortunately, the Biden administration is sending a message to victims of sexual harassment in the workplace that they will only be believed when politically convenient. As a result, the Biden administration and all those who support this nomination have no credibility when it comes to protecting victims of sexual harassment. I conducted a thorough investigation of the allegation irrespective of partisan politics. That is my reputation. The evidence is clear that Jacobs engaged in blatant sexual misconduct and racist behavior and did it for years. The evidence is clear that Mayor Garcetti either had direct knowledge of it or chose willful ignorance as a defense. Nobody is that brazen to engage in this type of outrageous behavior against other people unless they know that they have a powerful enabler protecting them. Based on the facts and the evidence, the enabler is Mayor Eric Garcetti. 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 were not taken under penalty of perjury. The report focused exclusively on allegations of sexual harassment made by the Los Angeles Police Department and--get this--failed to give due weight to other witnesses. For example, the report includes an interview with Jacobs in which he admits he used 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 Jacobs' actions weren't funny and embarrassed that person. That makes it clear. It makes it clear nonconsensual, physical contact occurred. It is evidence that sexual harassment occurred. Oddly, the report makes no attempt--no attempt whatsoever--to reconcile how it can conclude there was no sexual harassment after clearly describing sexual harassment throughout. These aren't acts of transparency; these are acts to sweep this whole thing under the rug. Although Mayor Garcetti may be indifferent to the allegations and the actions of his deputy chief of staff, my colleagues and I have a duty to take such concerning allegations and take them very seriously. Whether here in the United States or abroad, there is no place for sexual misconduct or racism. Mayor Garcetti has had countless opportunities over the years to stand up for victims by removing his deputy chief of staff, which he failed to do. These fundamental failures by Mayor Garcetti are incompatible with the office that he seeks. Therefore, I can't, in good conscience, vote for him. I strongly encourage my colleagues to review all of this evidence found in my investigative report as well as what is reported in the press. The facts and the evidence compel me to vote no, and I hope my colleagues will join me in doing the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Today, I come to the floor to pay tribute to the President pro tempore of the United States Senate. He is the longest serving Senator currently serving in this institution, and he is my friend from Vermont, Senator Pat Leahy. As many of you know, the Senator from Vermont also happens to be a talented photographer. His photos have been published in the New York Times, USA TODAY, and elsewhere. Senator Leahy has also appeared in front of the camera in Batman movies. But this shutterbug was bitten by the political bug, and he certainly made his mark in Vermont politics. At age 34, he became the youngest and very first Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate from the Green Mountain State, and today, he is Vermont's longest serving Senator, having put his name on the ballot two dozen times during his political career. A year ago in November, my friend and colleague announced that he would not seek reelection to a ninth term. At the Vermont statehouse, he happened to be there to announce his very first Senate campaign. It was at the Vermont statehouse that he did that, and Pat, at that time, recalled the words of Edmund Burke, the Dubliner who served in the House of Commons during America's Revolutionary War. The words that Burke imparted to the electors of Bristol in 1774 inspired Pat Leahy's approach to public service. Burke said: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment. Burke also said a representative ought to have ``the most unreserved communication with his constituents.'' Now, in my mind, that still is the essence of representative government. Although we serve on different sides of the aisle, find ourselves on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, and hail from different regions of the country, Pat and I are called to serve our constituents. Pat Leahy and I have battled together in the trenches countless times over the years. He is a worthy adversary and, countless times, a trusted legislative ally. It takes grit; it takes grace; it takes gravitas to score victories and stick to the courage of one's convictions. Indeed, Pat and I have more in common than might meet the eye. He is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal from New England, with a law degree from Georgetown. I am a Midwestern conservative and lifelong family farmer. As Senate colleagues, we share an abiding respect for this institution of the Senate. We value bipartisanship. For decades, we have earned the public trust of the voters of Vermont and Iowa. That tells me that Vermonters and Iowans prioritize hard work and constituent service. At his announcement last November, Pat shared that he and his wife Marcelle made the decision together and that it was, to quote his words, ``time to put down the gavel.'' First, I want to say how much Barbara and I cherish our friendships. Barbara and I celebrated 68 years of marriage last August 22. Two days later, Marcelle and Pat celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary. Barbara and Marcelle are both cancer survivors and have developed a close friendship over these many years. These wives are strong and resilient and use their voices to advocate for early detection and treatment to save lives. Now, I can only speak for myself--and I believe my friend would agree--the unconditional support of Marcelle and Barbara have made us better men and then better Members of the U.S. Senate. As I mentioned, Pat and Marcelle arrived at their heartfelt decision--made in partnership--to, using his words, ``put down the gavel.'' As you can see here from this photograph, Chairman Leahy certainly knows how to wield a gavel. He has had plenty of practice. In his nearly half century of service, Pat has chaired all of these committees: the Agriculture Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Appropriations Committee. This photo was taken in 2015 when then- Chairman Leahy presented me with an engraved gavel as I prepared to take the helm of the Judiciary Committee. By the size of this gavel he is firmly holding in his hands, I am awfully glad that Senator Leahy and I get along so well. Although we don't always see eye to eye on politics, we have found common ground on issues that matter. We respect each other's views and values and build consensus based on mutual trust. We have served many years together on the Agriculture Committee. Senator Leahy added tens of thousands of acres to the Green Mountain National Forest and is one of the few people on Earth who can explain Federal milk marketing orders--and, boy, did he go to bat for the Northeast dairy farmers. Senator Leahy has cultivated expertise in Foreign Affairs that is recognized here at home and around the world. He has leveraged his leadership to help ban the export of anti-personnel land mines and secure justice for war victims. For years, Senator Leahy and I partnered together to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act and also the very important whistleblower protection laws. We have worked together to root out fraud and protect national security with reforms to the EB-5 investor visa program. We share a fierce commitment to securing our States' fair shares as champions of small, rural States in America. From broadband to infrastructure, to the opioid crisis and pandemic relief, Senator Leahy and I have rolled up our sleeves and put in the work to ensure the people of Iowa and Vermont don't get short-ended. For decades, Senator Leahy and I have served together on the Canada- U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group to advance bilateral economic and trade issues. In May of 2000, we held our annual conference on the steamboat Delta Queen along a route from Memphis to New Orleans. I cochaired the committee discussing international trade, and Senator Leahy cochaired the panel on international affairs. In May of 2011, our group met with international partners in Belgium and traveled to Russia, where Senator Leahy gave a very important speech on the judiciary and the rule of law, and then to Ireland to advance in all of these places diplomacy, peace, and prosperity. I have enjoyed working together to forge fruitful relations around the world. As I reflect on our years of service together here in the U.S. Senate, some observers might actually suggest times sure are different than when we first came to Washington. Pat was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1974, the same year that Iowans elected me to the U.S. House of Representatives--at that time, the only Republican in the Iowa delegation. Despite the partisanship and polarization that is defining civic life this year and for the last few years, I have great hope for America. Senator Leahy and I share an abiding fidelity to uphold the promise of America. I am honored to have served these many years in Senator Leahy's company. Vermonters placed their trust in Senator Leahy's judgment. They counted on his vote, his voice, and his leadership to represent their values, and Senator Leahy has delivered. Barbara and I wish Pat and Marcelle joyful days ahead in each other's company on their farm, and we wish them that for many, many years to come. Godspeed to my friend from Vermont. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last Friday, Elon Musk released documents and very good information relating to Twitter's interference in the 2020 Presidential election by censoring the New York Post Hunter Biden reporting. Just yesterday, Musk reportedly fired Twitter's general counsel, Jim Baker, for his involvement in the censorship scandal. Baker, you might remember, was general counsel at the FBI and was involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. You can't make up these stories. Musk also released information that showed that the Biden campaign was involved in the censorship efforts. The information shows that Twitter employees knew--actually knew--that they had no legitimate basis to censor the Hunter Biden reporting but proceeded to do it anyway. Twitter also removed links and blocked the reporting from being shared by direct messaging on its platform. Folks that fought the good fight against Twitter's extraordinary censorship were also locked out of their accounts. These documents that Musk made public made very clear that Twitter was effectively an arm of the Democratic Party and the Biden campaign. Twitter essentially gave the Biden campaign a massive in-kind campaign contribution. What Twitter and other big tech companies did in 2020 with respect to censorship was as much an outrage then as it is today. Simply put, what they did is expected of communist China, not the United States of America. Reports also indicate that the FBI warned Twitter during weekly meetings before the 2020 election that hack-and-leak operations involving Hunter Biden material were likely to occur in October of 2020. Well, the FBI had the Hunter Biden laptop since December of 2019, almost a year before the election. Information on it has been verified by liberal news outlets. It took a long time for those liberal news outlets to admit that this wasn't Russian disinformation. So, then, I ask this question: Did the FBI do the same or did they fail to do their due diligence? I find the FBI's action in advance of the 2020 election to be more than suspicious. It is too bad that just now, 2 years later, we get this information from a person that bought Twitter and wants the public to know what actually went on. Now, some of you remember that Senator Johnson and I released our first report on the Biden family connections to communist China on September 23, 6 weeks before the 2020 election. And you know, if you remember, at that time it was swept up into the Hunter Biden censorship fiasco not long after. So, too, was our second report, which we released on November 18, 2020. But we were more than just censored. Before we even made the first report public, the liberal media and even some of our Democratic colleagues tried to smear us with false claims that our work was connected to you know what--Russian disinformation. My Senate colleagues went into full Joe Biden protection mode. So here we have four elements to this fact pattern that ought to shake up every Member of the U.S. Senate and shake them up to their very core. No. 1, the FBI got their hands on Twitter via these weekly briefings--the weekly briefings that I have already expressed existed-- and planted seeds regarding future hacked material relating to Hunter Biden. No. 2, the FBI improperly labeled information it possessed on Hunter Biden as you know what--disinformation. No. 3, the FBI provided an unnecessary August 2020 briefing to me and Senator Johnson that was used by some Democrats and by the liberal media to try to undermine our investigation that started well before the 2020 election. No. 4, the liberal media repeatedly and falsely labeled my and Senator Johnson's investigation as you know what--Russia disinformation. Now, all of that happened in the runup to the 2020 Presidential election. In the long run, these false allegations and bad faith efforts against me and Senator Johnson didn't work, as everybody knows now but didn't know at the time. For example, in this Congress, Senator Johnson and I gave floor speeches on these dates in 2022: March 28, March 29, and April 5. Through those speeches, we introduced bank records connecting Hunter and James Biden to the Chinese communist regime. We sent hundreds of pages of bank records to U.S. Attorney Weiss on October 26 of this year, showing those very same connections--the same connections that Johnson and I made in our 2020 report. These are authentic bank records. They aren't Russian disinformation. President Biden still owes the American people answers about his connections to Hunter and James Biden's business deals and arrangements. He owes the American people an explanation as to how much he knew about their businesses and personal relationships with communist China. On October 13 of this year, I wrote to the FBI telling them that I know it possesses documents that indicate Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden's business arrangements and may have been involved in some. In conclusion, since Senator Johnson and I began our Biden investigation August 2019--now, remember, 14 months before the 2020 election--now, after all that, our work has been substantiated. Big Tech censorship may have succeeded in the short term; however, the truth eventually sees the light of day. And I thank the new Twitter owner for his transparency. Accountability should follow.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to share some words of wisdom with my colleagues. These words of wisdom come from 13 former top civilian and military leaders. I am going to start with the list of eight former Defense Secretaries: Dr. Ashton Carter, recently deceased; William Cohen, also a former Senator; Dr. Mark Esper; Dr. Robert Gates; Charles Hagel, also a former Senator; Gen. James Mattis, besides being Secretary of Defense; Leon Panetta, also a former Congressman; and Dr. William Perry. Also added to this list are five former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: GEN Martin Dempsey; GEN Joseph Dunford, Jr.; ADM Michael Mullen; GEN Richard Myers; and GEN Peter Pace. They offer some very sage advice for improving civil-military relations. Everybody knows where this principle came from of civil control of our military. It happened December 1783 when GEN George Washington surrendered his papers to the Continental Congress and gave up being commander in chief at that particular time. These words of wisdom appear in an open letter that was published September 6 in a national security blog, and that blog is entitled ``War on the Rocks.'' I intended to speak about this letter at the time that I first read it, but due to our extended recess, I am just now getting to it about 2 months late. These former leaders warn us about what they call ``extreme strain'' in civil-military relations coming from all directions, and these are the directions that this strain is coming from, affecting civil- military relations: the pandemic, with social disruption; wars that ended with unachieved goals; military withdrawal from Afghanistan; rising great-power rivalries; ``extremely adverse'' political environment caused by the divisiveness of polarization in our American society, evidenced here in the Congress of the United States; and lastly, contested elections and the shaky transfer of power. After listing these points, these defense leaders then predict rising tensions. This is a red flag that we all ought to observe. Civil-military relations are out of balance. Although alarming, the open letter is both educational and reassuring. It offers guidance and remedies. Sixteen what they call ``core principles and best practices'' are spotlighted for restoring ``healthy American civil-military relations.'' Most of these remedies hinge on the all-important principle of civilian control of the military. By the way, I spoke on that very subject from a different angle on July 14 of this year. The letter that I am referring to views civilian control as I do: ``the bedrock foundation of American democracy.'' It is ultimately ``wielded by the will of the American people as expressed through elections.'' That core constitutional principle keeps our ``powerful standing military'' from threatening democracy. ``Healthy civil-military relations''--those four words are in quotes--``Healthy civil-military relations'' are instrumental to civilian control. They must rest on a rock-solid foundation of ``mutual trust.'' Mutual trust and respect between civilian and military leaders are essential for healthy civil-military relations. They are fostered in part by honest deliberations over policy choices. According to this open letter, mutual trust is cultivated when civilian leaders ``rigorously explore alternatives that are best for the country regardless of the implications for partisan politics.'' A ``dynamic and iterative process'' for policy development helps ``civil-military teams build up a reservoir of trust.'' That extra measure of trust will defuse friction when the military must ``faithfully implement directives that run counter to their professional military preference.'' When tensions rise over disagreement with the Commander in Chief's policy choices, the former Pentagon leaders offer this guidance in their very own words. And this is a fairly long quote: Elected (and appointed) civilians have the right to be wrong, meaning they have the right to insist on a policy or direction that proves, in hindsight, to have been a mistake. This right obtains even if other voices warn in advance that the proposed action is a mistake. Military officials are required to carry out legal orders the wisdom of which they doubt. Civilian officials should provide the military ample opportunity to express their doubts in appropriate venues . . . members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private views--limits that would be unconstitutional if imposed on other citizens. Civilian and military officials should also take care to properly characterize military advice in public. Civilian leaders must take responsibility for the consequences of the actions that they direct. Now, the advice of these former chiefs of staff and former secretaries of defense is honest, it is direct, and squares very much with the Constitution of the United States. The Commander in Chief's orders must be obeyed. The military must refrain from criticizing the President in public. And the President is accountable for policy choices. On partisan political activities, the former chiefs and secretaries of defense offer a straightforward piece of advice: There are significant limits on the public role of military personnel in partisan politics, as outlined in longstanding Defense Department policy and regulations . . . military and civilian leaders must be diligent about keeping military separate from partisan political activities. The final best practice that they offer us covers the responsibility of military leaders during the transfer of power after Presidential elections. They--meaning the military--have a dual obligation. First, they must assist the incumbent Commander in Chief in the exercise of his or her constitutional duty. And, second, since the voters choose the new Commander in Chief, they must prepare to assist whomever the voters pick. They carry out their responsibilities regardless of who sits in the White House. To summarize, this open letter provides sound advice that could help to moderate civil-military strife. It telegraphs a message to the top brass: It is time to hit the reset button and rebalance civil-military relations. Now, I don't know the motive behind this letter, because there wasn't any indication of it, but the sum of it may be pointed directly at Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Milley. My advice to him: Take their sage advice to heart. A dose of humility burnishes one's integrity. As the Nation's most senior military officer, General Milley has a responsibility to set an example of excellence and cease all partisan political activity. Partisan political activity is harmful to civil-military relations and has the potential for creating dangerous divisions within the ranks of the Armed Forces. Military personnel must stay out of politics. Period. End of story. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as a leading advocate for lower drug prices in the Senate, No. 1, I have hauled Big Pharma and pharmacy benefit managers' executives before my committee of Congress; second, I led a 2-year bipartisan investigation into insulin price-gouging; and three, introduced bipartisan reforms to lower the cost of insulin and many other prescription drugs. In the past few years, legislation I have championed into law has saved the taxpayers $9.6 billion. Right now, the Senate is not acting on bipartisan legislation to lower drug costs. I support a bipartisan plan by Senators Collins and Shaheen that establishes a $35 out-of-pocket cap on insulin for patients with private insurance while also reforming PBMs, the powerful middlemen who are behind rising drug prices. If you don't address PBM reform, a cap on out-of-pocket costs will only result in shifting patient costs somewhere else. In my 2-year bipartisan insulin investigation, we found that a drug's list price is tied to rebates and other fees that drug companies have to pay the PBMs. The scheme encourages drugmakers to spike the list price of the drug to offer a greater rebate. And then do you know what happens in turn? Secure priority placement on a health plan's list of covered medications. We have to hold PBMs accountable, then, if you really want to lower prescription drug costs. In 2018, I called on the Federal Trade Commission to assess consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain and its impact on drug prices, but I didn't wait for the FTC to act. I introduced the Prescription Pricing for the People Act with Senator Cantwell, and it was approved out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously last year. A few months ago, the FTC agreed to conduct a study of PBM business practices. This is very welcomed news, but the FTC needs to complete this study and do it in a timely way. Last week, I asked FTC Chair Kahn about when the PBM study would be completed. Chair Kahn didn't commit to a date. While we need more sunshine on the PBMs, we don't need to wait to take some action. Senator Cantwell and I have introduced the PBM Transparency Act, and it has been approved by the Commerce Committee on a 19-to-9 vote. The bill prohibits PBMs from engaging in spread pricing and clawbacks. Both spread pricing and clawbacks are actions that game the system and hurt consumers. When the majority party pursued a partisan, reckless spending-and-tax package that they called the Inflation Reduction Act, I filed the Grassley-Wyden Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an amendment that had 10 Republican cosponsors. I did that in order to show that the majority party could have chosen to pass drug pricing reform on a bipartisan basis if the majority wanted to do that. The bill establishes PBM accountability and transparency, something missing from the Inflation Reduction Act. So, Madam President, we have bipartisan prescription drug legislation awaiting action. We don't have to wait until 2026 for what happened in August in the Inflation Reduction Act to get anything done because that doesn't take effect until 2026. This includes the bipartisan plan to lower insulin prices and my two bills to hold PBMs accountable. That is what we need bipartisan action on in the U.S. Senate. I have also led out of the Judiciary Committee three bipartisan bills to establish more competition to lower prescription drug prices. They save taxpayers a combined $1.9 billion. So the Senate must act on six bipartisan bills. Collectively, they lower insulin costs, secondly hold PBMs accountable, and lastly establish more competition to lower prescription drug prices. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, home should be the safest place in the world for a child. It used to be that parents could breathe a little easier once they locked the front door, knowing that their child was safe on the inside. For some reason or other, not anymore is that the case. Drug dealers have found ways into our homes through social media. Now, more and more children are dying alone at night in what should be the safest place for them, in their own bedrooms. That is where Deric and Kathy Kidd found their son Sebastian, unresponsive, on the morning of July 30, 2021. He was slumped on his bed, still in his street clothes. Sebastian was a high school senior in Des Moines, IA. He took half of what he thought was a pain pill. It was actually fentanyl. Sebastian's parents should have had the rest of their lives with him. Instead, they buried their 17-year-old son. Congress has responded in the worst possible way to parents like the Kidd family. We have responded with inaction. I am disappointed that my Democrat colleagues have tried to block fentanyl analog scheduling. Under this Democrat-led Congress, the reauthorization periods of fentanyl analog scheduling keeps getting shorter and shorter, and bipartisan talks about permanent scheduling have all dropped. And if you don't have bipartisan talks, nothing happens in the U.S. Senate. That is what it takes to get things done in a body that takes a supermajority of 60 to stop debate to get to finality. It doesn't matter if you are a rank-and-file Democrat or Republican, fentanyl is a problem for all of us. It is time that we start treating it like the problem it is. We can't keep ignoring law enforcement's requests for fentanyl analog scheduling. Police are the folks responding to fentanyl poisoning. Police are the ones putting their lives on the line facing off with cartels, and police are asking us to extend classification of fentanyl analog as schedule I substances. Who are we to deny the police when they say what they need? We all agreed that fentanyl analog scheduling was necessary in 2020 when we unanimously extended it by 15 months. Even career officials in the Biden administration agreed that fentanyl analog scheduling was necessary when they asked Congress. The Biden administration asked Congress to permanently schedule it. But here we are on the brink of fentanyl analog scheduling--the expiration of it. Families and law enforcement alike are panicked that we let this authority disappear. Temporary fentanyl analog scheduling cannot lapse while we hash out more permanent solutions. We have all voted this provision into law before. We have been warned that more parents will have to bury their children if we do not pass it. So, I have this motion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 45, S. 1216; further, that the Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's right to do that. I appreciate his position on this whole problem that we are trying to deal with. I am just sorry that Senator Booker had to have people object for him. It is not right. How many people have to die before we do something about it? Last year, there were over 107,000 overdose deaths, with 70,000 due to fentanyl-related substances--200 opioid overdoses in the State of Iowa. Somebody has got to wake up around here and realize that we can do something about it. The Biden administration wants us to do something about it, and one person--not Chairman Durbin, but other people--stands in the way. It is just not right. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think you all might remember when the Biden administration's so-called experts claimed that inflation was ``transitory.'' It ended up that they couldn't have been more wrong by using that word. Since President Biden took office, Iowans have seen prices rise 13.7 percent. That adds an extra $666 to their monthly budget. Couple that with falling real wages, and Iowans have been strapped very thin. This combination of rising prices and falling real wages has hit rural Iowa communities particularly hard. As a result, according to a report issued by Iowa State University, the disposable income of rural Iowans fell 33 percent over the past 12 months alone. It is no wonder, then, that the high cost of living is the number one concern that I hear about from Iowans as I travel all of our 99 counties. However, here in DC--and remember, DC is an island surrounded by reality--here in this town, the primary concern of President Biden and congressional Democrats has been enacting their very partisan agenda. They have refused to work with Republicans on sensible policies to tame inflation and provide targeted relief. In the process of doing that, they haven't even followed the advice of their own brethren. And I will use Larry Summers as an example, that Harvard professor and former Secretary of Treasury. He said, way back in January, before this President was sworn in, that the economy was turned around: Don't spend any more money or you are going to have inflation. And, immediately, within 60 days of being in office, this new President and this new Congress passed a $2 trillion appropriations bill to feed the fires of inflation. So instead of taming inflation, they rebranded the reckless tax-and- spending spree that they had pursued for more than a year as a bill recently passed called the Inflation Reduction Act, which I call the ``Inflation Enhancement Act''--never mind that outside experts uniformly concluded the bill's hodgepodge of the Green New Deal and the subsidies that go with that program and the tax hikes would do nothing to address inflation today. Of course, if you want to stop inflation, now caused by excessive government spending, the first thing you should do is stop spending; or another way you can say it--and common sense dictates this: When you are in a hole, quit digging. Instead, Democrats doubled down with Big Government spending and coupled it with job-killing tax hikes. The National Association of Manufacturers said they would lose about 217,000 jobs. Democrats' policy decisions made even less sense given that, only a week before, we learned our economy had shrunk for two straight quarters, indicating recession. And everyone knows, as President Obama once said--and this seems to be the third term of the Obama Presidency, but this is what he said when he was actually President: The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. And yet it was done in that bill in August by more than $300 billion. The last thing our economy needed was another tax-and-spending spree, but Democrats just couldn't let go of their wish list. What is more, at the height of hypocrisy, Democrats touted the Inflation Reduction Act as an example of fiscal responsibility. Yet the supposed savings they claim will result from the bill was then immediately dwarfed in just 1 day of actions by President Biden's unilateral student loan announcement, which will cost American taxpayers at least $500 billion. And some people are saying it could cost up to $1 trillion. When President Biden announced that he was wiping out $10,000 to $20,000 of student loan debt for people making as much as $150,000 or $250,000 for households, that likely illegal action will send the bill for this student loan giveaway to Americans who did not attend college or people who graduated from college already paying off their college expenses. And at the same time, it is going to fuel the fires of inflation. So much, then, for the lip service about deficit reduction and inflation. But we now know that that inflation was not transitory. It is persistent. Iowans are sick and tired of paying the price for the failures of this Biden economy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, roughly 175 Americans will die from fentanyl poisoning. Many of them won't even know that they have taken the fentanyl. They will think they have taken Xanax for anxiety or oxycodone for pain. That is what Devin Anderson--you will see his picture here in a minute--of Shelby, IA, thought when he took a fentanyl pill marked like an oxy. Devin had fought hard for his sobriety. He had enrolled in treatment and moved back home, but he was struggling with anxiety. To cope, he took a pill from a friend. Devin's coworker came to pick him up for work in the early morning of February 24 of this year. Devin wasn't ready, so his coworker called him. When Devin didn't answer, he called again. Devin's 14-year-old brother heard the phone ringing. He went downstairs to investigate and found Devin unresponsive. Devin was 23 years old when he died. His mom wants you to know that Devin was a kind person and he was loved by his friends. In 2021, fentanyl killed more Americans between the ages of 18 and 45 than any other cause. That is more than COVID-19, cancer, and car accidents combined. Six months ago, I stood where I am now and asked for a permanent solution for fentanyl scheduling. Today, we are absolutely no closer to a permanent solution than we were back then, 6 months ago. While Congress has been waiting to take action, the cartels have not. The cartels have simply rebranded, coloring fentanyl like candy to addict America's children. Fentanyl is in our schools, like in Blackwood, NJ, where a 12-year-old overdosed on a schoolbus after his uncle made him clean a fentanyl trap house; or in Chipman Junior High School in California, where a 13-year-old brought 150 fake Percocet pills laced with fentanyl, with 4 out of every 10 fake pills containing a potentially lethal dosage of fentanyl. Both of these schools are hours away from the Mexican border, but despite Customs and Border Protection's efforts, fentanyl has reached our children's hands. So when the Vice President tells the press that our border is secure, we all know that is just plain wrong and irresponsible, and that attitude, that the border is secure, ends up killing. In the Federal Government's absence, parents like Arletha and Robert Gilliam have been forced to fill the void. Their daughter Ciara died last month because of fentanyl. And you see Ciara right here. By all accounts, Ciara had a big heart. As her dad puts it, if you were in a bad mood, Ciara would make sure that that bad mood didn't last very long. Even though she had graduated from Iowa's Ankeny Centennial High School and lived on her own, she still FaceTimed her mom every day. But on August 23 of this year, no one could get hold of Ciara, so her grandparents drove by her house. Her car was in the driveway. Ciara's grandparents knocked, both on her doors and her windows, with no response. Finally, Ciara's grandpa crawled through her bedroom window. There, he found her dead on her bedroom floor. Fentanyl shut down her organs, and she went to sleep. She never woke up again. She was only 22 years old. Ciara's parents are now searching for answers they never should have had to find in the first place. They have offered a $50,000 award to locate the dealer who supplied the fake pill that killed their daughter. They deserve better than that. They deserve congressional action, and they deserved it in 2017 when the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, first scheduled fentanyl. Grieving parents are the unsung heroes in the fight against fentanyl. Time after time, they push through their heartbreaks to share their stories, as you have heard me tell for two families, and now they demand action so that more kids don't die. It is time for Congress to match the efforts of those parents. The Department of Justice has been very clear: The permanent scheduling of FRS is critical to the safety and health of our communities and class-wide scheduling provides a vital tool to combat overdose deaths in [America]. End of quote from the Department of Justice. For those whom we have lost, like Ciara and Devin, and for the countless lives that we will save if we take action, it is time that we give them the tool they need, and that is the scheduling of fentanyl--and on a permanent, long-term basis. Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act Mr. President, on another subject--and a shorter subject for anybody waiting to talk--it is dangerous to live in many places in America, especially in blue cities. Like inflation, violent crime remains very high. For example, compared to 2019 midyear figures, America's largest cities have seen a 50-percent increase in murders and a 36-percent increase in aggravated assaults. And it is no mystery what is causing this spike in crime. Blue city progressive, pro-criminal prosecutors and radical bail reform laws fuel this spike, a spike in violent crime, by letting dangerous, repeat criminals go unpunished and, in some cases, even uncharged. The recent tragedies in Memphis, TN, earlier this month underscore the dangers that families face at the hands of chronic criminals. And remember the words ``chronic criminals'' because the fact is that the majority of violent crimes are committed by a relative handful of repeat offenders like the two in Memphis. For example, criminals in Chicago charged with shootings and murders have, on average, 12 prior arrests. In Oakland, CA, only around 400 people, or just one-tenth of 1 percent of Oakland's population, were responsible for a majority of the city's murders. Now, just think, one-tenth of 1 percent of the population of that city is responsible for a majority of the murders in Oakland. Federal law enforcement has a unique and very vital role in targeting repeat violent criminals, but for the last 2 years, the Senate's ability to actually pass bills that expand criminal law to reduce violent crime and target repeat violent criminals has hit a brick wall. It is just impossible to get any consensus even though we all know it is a very major problem. In July, as part of my effort to promote a solution to this problem of major crime caused by a very small number of people in each community, I introduced a bill that I entitled ``Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime,'' which is cosponsored by 26 of my Republican colleagues in the Senate. The House companion bill was introduced September 15, with seven Republican cosponsors. The bill has seven simple solutions that will help to reverse this violent crime spike by putting dangerous criminals in jail and keeping them there. These commonsense solutions will fix real problems and bring immediate relief and increased safety to communities plagued by the scourge of violent crime. Given the unprecedented increase in murders, we can and we should make it easier to prosecute murders. This bill will do that. Mr. President, 2021 was the deadliest year to be a law enforcement officer since 9/11. We should make it easier to prosecute people who attack law enforcement. This bill will do that. Carjackings are way up nationwide--200, 300, and even 400 percent in some cities. We should deter carjacking with sufficient sentences. This bill will do that. Dangerous drugs are being marketed to young people as colorful candy--I just spoke about that--and these children are dying from overdoses. We should make it so that no children die from fentanyl made to look like candy. This bill will do that. Bank robbery, kidnapping--the list of violent crimes that would be strengthened by this bill goes on and on. I stand ready to work with Democrats who want to provide relief to their constituents from this crimewave. So if any of them are open to any of these provisions, I want them to know that I am ready to work with them. Let's partner together to make the American people safer. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as of 12:01 tomorrow morning, our Nation's transportation system was set to come to a screeching halt. It now sounds like we have a bit of a reprieve, but we still have a threat. Since 2019, railroads and unions have been negotiating a new contract. Two months ago, President Biden appropriately appointed members of what is called the Presidential Emergency Board. This Board recommended the largest pay increase in industry history at 24 percent, in addition to an annual bonus and healthcare changes. President Biden promised to be the ``most pro-union president'' in history, but even President Biden's recommendations weren't enough for these unions. A few unions continued to hold out and, in fact, took us to the verge of a nationwide strike. A railroad strike would really plunge us back into the supply chain issues that have just now started to somewhat improve. These trains that would be stopped actually carry the food we eat, the gas for our tanks, and the energy that heats our homes. Already, I am hearing from grain elevator operators in my State that they are having trouble transporting their grain. Hazardous cargo, like the chlorine cities need to purify drinking water, stopped moving earlier this week. Amtrak has canceled long-distance routes. Maybe they are going to be up and running now, but at least they were getting ready to stop. But what I just described is the tip of the iceberg unless these unions agree to a long-term deal. The last thing we need is for grain shipments to grind to a halt right as farmers are going to the fields to harvest their grain. Iowa corn and soybeans can't feed the world if they are stuck on the farm or in the local elevator. That is why I cosponsored Senator Burr's joint resolution to prevent all of this. The resolution would mandate that both sides adopt the recommendations of President Biden's emergency Board. Then, of course, if we pass that, the trains would keep running. We are just learning about a tentative deal that would let unions back away from the cliff. If they don't, then Congress must step in and pass the joint resolution to keep our economy going. The alternative is unacceptable. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, more than a year ago, a news website by the name of ProPublica published stories that it claims are based on ``a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the nation's wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.'' Since then, ProPublica has continued to publish articles that appear to use data leaked or hacked from the IRS. Despite questions from Congress and immediate expressions of concern from the Treasury Department, as well as the IRS, we don't know any more today than we did a year ago. Even though these apparent leaks of confidential taxpayer information appear to target the wealthy, not just the wealthy but all taxpayers and anyone who cares about effective tax administration should be very concerned. The fact is, until we get answers, we don't know if anyone's tax return or other information submitted to the IRS is actually secure. At the end of the 2022 filing system, more than 145 million individual income tax returns had been filed with the IRS. Right now, we don't know if there is a current vulnerability to the IRS's systems that makes this personal information accessible within the IRS or to bad actors outside of the IRS. We do not know if a foreign nation with hostile intentions is responsible for a leak or a hack of taxpayer information or the full scope of the IRS's information that may be involved. Just because ProPublica hasn't found it politically useful to publicly disclose your private taxpayer information doesn't mean that your tax information hasn't been compromised. As I said earlier, in June of 2021, concern was immediately expressed in the Congress and at the Treasury Department. Almost on that very day, Commissioner Rettig appeared before the Finance Committee. In fact, it was on that very day that the first story was published. Commissioner Rettig said: I think that trust and confidence in the Internal Revenue Service is sort of the bedrock of asking people and requiring people to provide financial information, and we have, as I said, turned it over to the appropriate investigators, external and internal. Attorney General Garland was quoted as saying: This is an extremely serious matter. People are entitled, obviously, to great privacy with respect to their tax returns. With this level of concern expressed so quickly, now a year ago, you would expect action to have been taken quickly. If you expected that, you would be wrong. Despite several letters sent by this Senator and other Members of Congress, we don't know any more today about what happened than we did last year on June 8, when this situation began. When testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, Secretary Yellen said: I am as anxious as you are to find out what happened. As a strong proponent of congressional oversight--as I am--of the executive branch, I have always been frustrated when the executive refuses to share relevant information that we need in Congress and are entitled under the Constitution to have. Secretary Yellen's statement suggests a more disturbing possibility where the executive branch completely lacks the sought-after information. Now, consider how shocking it is if the Secretary of the Treasury actually has no insight or any knowledge into a possible massive leak or hack of taxpayer information that occurred under her watch. In order to determine if any action had been taken, I, along with other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, wrote to Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray on June 24 of this year to ask what the status was of any investigation. This was the second time we tried to get this information. I know the Department of Justice is capable of taking action quickly when the Department of Justice wants to. I have written to the Attorney General several times about the memo that he issued in response to a letter from the National School Boards Association. That school board letter compared parents to domestic terrorists. It took the Department of Justice only 5 days, which included a weekend, to inject Federal law enforcement into local debates with concerned parents. Clearly, the Attorney General is capable of taking action very quickly, but that seems to only be when an administrative priority is of concern. I hope the Biden administration and the Garland Department of Justice would be as concerned about the protection of confidential taxpayer information as they are about monitoring concerned parents who testify before a school board. If the Department of Justice and the FBI want to show that they take the confidentiality of taxpayer information seriously, they can start by fully and completely responding to my letter of June 24, which hasn't yet been responded to. More than a full year, with a complete filing season, is too much time to have gone by without having any information on this leaking of taxpayer information being provided to any extent. Democrats constantly spoke of the need for fairness in the tax system as they pushed through partisan tax-and-spending bills. Yet we have heard barely a peep out of our Democratic colleagues on what may be the largest unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information in history. While we continue to wait for answers, we have learned of another massive breach of taxpayer information. On the first Friday of September, we learned the IRS mistakenly published on its website private information from about 120,000 taxpayers. According to Politico, the disclosure consisted of ``details from business tax returns filed by tax-exempt organizations and retirement accounts, included people's names, business contact information and income produced by certain investments.'' Clearly, the ability of the IRS to safeguard taxpayer information is still an ongoing issue. This new revelation should light a very big fire underneath the FBI to get at the bottom of the ProPublica leak or hack. Attorney General Garland and FBI Director Wray must fully respond to my letter and help all of us really understand if our tax system is safe and secure. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that James Carmany, a detailee in my office, be granted floor privileges until August 31, 2023, and that another detailee in my office, Dave Lewen, be granted floor privileges until March 3, 2023.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last week, while I was meeting with constituents in Iowa, news broke here in Washington, DC, about Assistant Special Agent in Charge Tim Thibault's retirement. Since May 31 of this year, I have highlighted Tim Thibault's partisan bias and how it infected major FBI investigations. That included a July 18 letter of this year that highlighted his role in opening a criminal investigation into Trump's campaign and advisers. That investigation is the electoral investigation that has been in the news. For example, on July 26 of this year, the Washington Post reported on that very same Trump investigation. Now, however, the Post failed to note that Thibault was the prime mover in opening it. Now get this: The Post failed to note that Tim Thibault predicated the investigation, in a substantial part, on liberal news articles, as well as information derived from a liberal nonprofit. Attorney General Garland and Director Wray approved a full investigation anyway, which, as we all know, was contrary to standard procedure for moving ahead on an investigation. That Washington Post article occurred 1 day after I made the Trump investigation letter public and 1 day after I made the July 25 Hunter Biden investigation letter public. Since Tim Thibault's exit from the FBI, I have noticed more news articles and reporting that haven't been accurate with respect to the allegations that I have made public. Let me take this opportunity, then, to correct the record with respect to that inaccurate reporting. Some reports have noted that the Hunter Biden criminal probe is ongoing; therefore, how can the allegations of Thibault shutting down investigation activity relating to Hunter Biden be credible? Well, this is the difference: The whistleblower disclosures to me relate to investigative activity and avenues of information that originated entirely separate from the ongoing Hunter Biden criminal probe. That is why the allegations that I made--that I brought forward--are so very, very important, because we are dealing with a separate category of potentially criminal information relating to Hunter Biden that the FBI has within its possession and the information received by the FBI was either verified or verifiable. Even so, based on allegations, the investigative activity was shut down by Special Agent Thibault and, of course, by others based on the false assertion that it was disinformation. How many times do we have this ``disinformation'' coming up as an excuse all the time with Grassley's investigations? Now, to be precise, FBI officials want to take action with respect to this separate investigative information that the FBI had in its possession related to Hunter Biden. However, Thibault blocked the FBI from doing what would normally be done. Accordingly, the investigative activity and the information cannot be advanced as it should have been, which means the FBI could have gathered more evidence with respect to Hunter Biden but cut bait instead. And the FBI and Thibault cut bait right before the 2020 Presidential election. Since the information and activity was shut down, it wouldn't have been initially shared with any ongoing criminal probe. That calls into question, then, what U.S. Attorney Weiss is actually investigating. It also calls into question what the FBI's Baltimore field office is reviewing and whether it is the full scope of evidence. Now, I have asked Director Wray about that whole issue. I asked him: How can verified and verifiable information relating to the Hunter Biden's potential criminality be shared with U.S. Attorney Weiss if it is shut down? We have no answer from Director Wray. At the Judiciary Committee's August 4 oversight hearing, Director Wray said that it is his expectation that such information would be shared with relevant offices. So, Director Wray, I have this question: What have you done to ensure that your expectation has been met? Because of Director Wray's failure to answer, Congress is unaware of whether or not the FBI has finally shared full and complete information and investigative activity with any ongoing criminal probe. Therefore, without additional transparency from the government, there is a very real chance the Hunter Biden criminal probe doesn't include the full evidentiary picture. Now, how can the American people trust the results? Some have also questioned how an assistant special agent in charge like Thibault can have so much power--power to open and close investigative activities. Well, that is exactly what he did. And that power is often abused within the FBI. For example, on March 28 of this year, Chairman Durbin and I wrote a letter to the FBI about an audit. That audit showed widespread violations of internal policies designed to ensure proper handling of the FBI's most sensitive investigations. To read from my letter with Chairman Durbin: The FBI reviewed 353 Sensitive Investigative Matters--just under half of all such matters that were pending during this 18-month review period--and identified 747 violations. In 45 investigations, the FBI didn't conduct or document a legal review prior to opening it. In 40 investigations, the FBI officials who opened a sensitive investigative matter didn't obtain approval from the relevant special agent in charge or even the assistant special agent in charge. Now, with those statistics, I fear that is just the tip of the iceberg. In conclusion, let's look at Thibault's recent statement and the allegations he didn't address. I think we have five or six. First, he didn't address his role in opening a Trump investigation based on liberal news articles and information derived from a liberal nonprofit. Secondly, he didn't address his collaboration with Richard Pilger with respect to that investigation. Third, he didn't address efforts to water down the Trump investigation memo sent to Attorney General Garland and Director Wray which they ultimately approved. Fourth, he didn't address the shutting down of the investigative activity and avenues of information relating to Hunter Biden. Fifth, he didn't address the alleged criminality within the information provided to the FBI about Hunter Biden. Sixth, he didn't address the August 2020 assessment opened by Brian Auten that was used to falsely label Hunter Biden's information as ``disinformation.'' Seventh, he didn't address his actions to try and improperly mark investigative closings so that they couldn't be opened in the future. Lastly, Thibault said that he ``welcomes any investigation'' into allegations against him. Well, Mr. Thibault, come on in. Sit for a transcribed interview with me and my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this body has a long record of coming together to improve healthcare for Americans. In 2003, when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the Medicare Part D benefit. More recently, I have worked with my colleagues on the Finance Committee on oversight and investigations to hold EpiPen manufacturers accountable that were misusing taxpayer dollars and insulin manufacturers and PBMs accountable that were unfairly increasing the list price of insulin. We can work together and meaningfully improve healthcare. This Congress, I have worked with my Democratic colleagues to pass five of my bills out of committee in a bipartisan way. These bills will lower drug prices, create more competition, while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. Unfortunately, the leader hasn't brought any of these bills up for a vote, even though they would easily pass the U.S. Senate. But this hasn't stopped me from trying to find other ways to help bring down the cost of medications. In 2019, as Finance Committee chairman, I began a bipartisan committee process with the ranking member from Oregon to lower the costs of prescription drugs. That bill is entitled the ``Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.'' We held three committee hearings to learn from policymakers and advocates, while also holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We held a committee markup, where the bill passed 19 to 9 on a bipartisan basis. We continued to hold additional negotiations to make improvements in the bill, even after it got out of committee. It contained stuff that I like. It also contained stuff I didn't like, but that is the way we do bipartisan legislating. Today, it is still the only comprehensive prescription drug bill that can garner more than 60 votes on the Senate floor. I recently outlined on the floor the bill's details in case the majority party has forgotten. I won't restate every part of my July 20 speech, but here are some of the bill's key highlights: One, it lowers costs for seniors by $72 billion and saves the taxpayers $95 billion. Two, it establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the doughnut hole, and redesigns Medicare Part D. Three, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma by capping price increases of Medicare Part B and D drugs at inflation. Four, it establishes accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. Five, and most important in this body, the bill is bipartisan. Now, believe it or not, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is possible. Compare this to what the majority has offered us. Their partisan bill includes more reckless spending and tax increases. Their partisan bill reduces the number of new cures and treatments. Their partisan bill fails to enact any bipartisan accountability for Big Pharma and, in particular, for PBMs. Even while the majority party has decided to pursue a purely partisan bill in secret over the past 20 months, I have continued to meet with Democrats and Republicans to advance a bipartisan and negotiated bill. I would prefer a bipartisan bill to pass the U.S. Senate. We could still pass the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. My colleagues know it. Several of them have thanked me publicly on my bipartisan work to lower prescription drug prices. Sadly, the majority party has chosen a different route. They have chosen a bill that contains zero--zero--PBM accountability. It gives middlemen a pass. They have chosen a bill that contains none of the 25 accountability and transparency provisions that had bipartisan consensus in my bill. Finally, one last thing I would like to address about my colleagues' reckless tax and spending. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say this bill's prescription drug provision is what I have described today as Grassley-Wyden. This is untrue. This is a reckless tax-and-spending bill. It is not bipartisan, and no reporter should accept or repeat that notion. I oppose the partisan bill because it is a long list of reckless tax increases and spending. It is not the bipartisan prescription drug bill that passed out of the Finance Committee 19 to 9. I will file the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an amendment today. We could strike and replace this reckless tax-and- spending spree with comprehensive drug pricing reform that could garner more than 60 votes and lower drug prices while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We could actually enact meaningful accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. I will file that amendment as well. We could pursue PBM transparency and accountability, and I will file that amendment as well. I have said throughout this Congress that I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan-negotiated Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. To continue on the bill today, the Democrats' most recent reckless tax-and-spending spree suffers from some serious policy whiplash. Just last week, all but one Democrat voted to provide nearly $80 billion in subsidies to some of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world. The goal then was to make America a more favorable business environment to attract investments from a critical industry. But mere hours later, they unveiled a huge tax hike on domestic manufacturing. Democrats tried to justify this 180-degree policy turn by claiming their tax hike is necessary to make corporations ``pay their fair share.'' However, this claim is laughable, given the so- called CHIPS+ bill nearly all Democrats enthusiastically supported last week. As I pointed out at that time, the CHIPS+ bill ensures many large, very profitable semiconductor manufacturers will pay zero tax or even receive payments from the IRS exceeding any tax liability. Yet Senator Sanders was the only Democrat to express any concern about these profitable companies paying nothing in taxes. Under the Democrats' so-called book minimum tax, large, profitable corporations favored by Democrats can still escape paying any Federal tax. While they claim their reckless tax-and-spending bill will ensure companies pay their fair share, they include carve-outs and expanded subsidies for their favorite industries. For example, business tax credits are carved out from Democrats' book minimum tax, including a myriad of souped-up green energy tax breaks. This is despite the fact that research by the liberal Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy confirms these credits are a significant reason why seemingly profitable companies pay little or no tax. The Democrats' bill not only carves out certain tax credits, it doubles down with $270 billion in corporate tax subsidies in the name of their Green New Deal agenda. Along with a new provision that allows green energy developers to sell their credits to others, a host of businesses and industries will be able to use this new loophole to pay little or no tax. This could include financial institutions, private equity firms, tech firms, and wealthy private investors. Democrats' message to the business community is very clear: If you are a large, Democrat-aligned green industry, you have nothing to worry about; paying your ``fair share'' of taxes is optional. But if you are a domestic textile or electronics manufacturer, prepare to be taxed into submission. This mindset is especially concerning given our increasingly fragile economy. Late last week, we learned our economy contracted for the second straight quarter, indicating, as we know, we are in a recession. The last thing businesses and families need right now are tax hikes and a rash of poorly vetted policies creating even more confusion and uncertainty in the economy. Nonpartisan analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation and outside groups show this is exactly what Democrats are offering. During the election, Democrats promised not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $400,000, but the Joint Committee on Taxation confirms their proposal does exactly the opposite. For 2023 alone, Democrats propose a $17 billion tax hike on families and individuals making less than $200,000. While Democrats' tax hikes hit Americans of all incomes, their proposed benefits are targeted at a privileged few, like helping wealthy Americans purchase $80,000 electric SUVs. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the original version of their bill had a whopping $155 billion tax hike on domestic manufacturing stemming from their so-called book minimum tax. The National Association of Manufacturers estimated that this tax hike would cost more than 200,000 jobs, reduce labor income by $17 billion, and reduce GDP by nearly $70 billion. Now, I understand Senator Sinema has since secured changes to the book minimum tax that may lessen the burden on domestic manufacturers. However, even if we assume all the relief secured by Senator Sinema accrues to manufacturers, the best-case scenario is manufacturers will still see a $100-billion-plus tax hit. Democrats' inflation act still throws blue-collar workers overboard for their Green New Deal. The Democrats' war on manufacturing is mind- boggling. Members of both parties have stressed a need to reshore manufacturing to address supply chain disruptions and delink from China for national security reasons. Saddling manufacturers with a giant tax bill will hurt, not help, our efforts. Targeting manufacturers for tax hikes makes even less sense in the face of our surging inflation. Democrat tax hikes will curtail investments necessary to increase the supply of goods needed to meet consumer demand. This mismatch between supply and demand is what is actually driving our inflation. The potential harm to our economy is underscored by Penn Wharton's analysis of the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree. They called out the novelty and uncertainty surrounding Democrats' book minimum tax saying more work is needed to understand its impact on capital market efficiency and the economy. Penn Wharton's analysis also shows Democrats' proposals will do nothing to bring down inflation and are more likely to make inflation worse in the near term. Essentially, Democrats are gambling on untested and unproven policies while our economy is in a recession, real wages are falling, and inflation is soaring. The truth is, Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree is bad for jobs, bad for the economy, and won't do anything to address what Iowans care about the most: the rising cost of inflation. I urge my Democrats to rethink your approach. Stop gambling with our Nation's economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this body has a long record of coming together to improve healthcare for Americans. In 2003, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the Medicare Part D benefit. More recently, I have worked with my Finance Committee colleagues on oversight investigations to hold: EpiPen manufacturers accountable who were misusing taxpayer dollars, insulin manufacturers and PBMs accountable who were unfairly increasing the list price of insulin, and our organ donation system accountable and investigate its troubling underperformance. We can work together and meaningfully improve healthcare. This Congress, I have worked with my Democrat colleagues to introduce eight bills to lower drug costs. In the past year alone, we have passed five of my bills out of committee on a bipartisan basis. They will lower drug prices and create more competition while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. Unfortunately, the leader hasn't brought any of these bills up for a vote, even though they would easily pass the Senate. But this hasn't stopped me from trying to find other ways to help bring down the cost of medications. In 2019, as Finance Committee chairman, I began a bipartisan committee process with the ranking member from Oregon to lower the cost of prescription drugs. The bill is called the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. We held three committee hearings to learn from policymakers and advocates while also holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We held a committee mark-up where the bill passed 19 to 9, on a bipartisan basis. We continued to hold additional negotiations to make improvements to the bill. It contained stuff I liked and didn't like. But that is bipartisan legislation. Today, it is still the only comprehensive prescription drug bill that can garner more than 60 votes on the Senate floor. I recently outlined on the floor the bill's details in case the majority party has forgotten. I won't restate every part of my July 20 speech, but here are some of my bill's key measures: No. 1, it lowers costs for seniors by $72 billion and saves taxpayers $95 billion. No. 2, it establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the donut hole, and redesigns Medicare Part D. No. 3, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma by capping price increases of Medicare Part B and D drugs at inflation. No. 4, it establishes accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. No. 5, and the bill is bipartisan. Believe it or not, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is possible. Compare this to what the majority has offered: Their partisan bill includes more reckless spending and tax increases. Their partisan bill reduces the number of new cures and treatments. Their partisan bill fails to enact any bipartisan accountability for Big Pharma and PBMs. Even while the majority party has decided to pursue a purely partisan bill in secret over the past 20 months, I have continued to meet with Democrats and Republicans to advance my bipartisan and negotiated bill. I have met or spoken with: President Biden and White House staff, Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, HHS Secretary Becerra, House Democrats who wanted a bipartisan bill, Problem Solvers Caucus Health Care Working Group, Congressman Welch, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, Democrat Senators Sinema and Carper, and others. I wanted a bipartisan bill to pass this Senate. We could still pass the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. My colleagues know it. Several of them have thanked me publicly on my bipartisan work to lower prescription drug prices. Sadly, they have chosen a different route. They have chosen a bill that contains zero PBM accountability. It gives middlemen a pass. They have chosen a bill that contains none of the 25 accountability and transparency provisions that had bipartisan consensus in my bill. This includes ending DIR clawbacks that are hurting patients pocketbooks and small/independent pharmacies; ending ``spread pricing'' in Medicaid that is drive up taxpayer costs; requiring sunshine on PBMs through financial audits, so we knows the true net cost of a drug; requiring sunshine on excessive drug price increases and launch price of new high-cost drugs. None of these bipartisan accountability and transparency provisions--and more--are included in their bill. Finally, one last thing I would like to address about my colleagues' reckless tax and spending bill: I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say this bill's prescription drug provision is Grassley- Wyden. That is untrue. This is a reckless tax and spending bill. It is not bipartisan, and no reporter should accept or repeat that notion. I oppose the partisan bill because it is a long list of reckless tax increases and spending. This is not the bipartisan prescription drug bill that passed out of the Finance Committee 19 to 9. I have filed the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an amendment today. We could strike and replace this reckless tax and spending spree with comprehensive drug pricing reform that could garner more than 60 votes and lower drug prices while holding Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. We could actually enact meaningful accountability and transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. I have filed that amendment, too. We could pursue PBM transparency and accountability. I have filed that amendment, too. I have said throughout this Congress, I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan and negotiated Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask to call up amendment No. 5421, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is 4:50 a.m., and I want all the people who thought that inflation was going to be transitory to understand that it is persistent, and that persistence of inflation has hurt the Tax Code that tries to help middle-class America. So my amendment fixes this by providing inflation relief to the middle class by increasing family and education tax provisions to account for Biden inflation. Moreover, the bill includes important savings incentives that will enable middle-class Americans to save tax-free, ensuring that they aren't taxed on phantom income resulting from inflation. So I urge my Members to support this. Particularly when you have in this Tax Code things that benefit the rich who can afford Teslas for $80,000, you can surely do something for middle-class America.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Do I have some time left?