Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have long fought to protect victims of violent crime. Victims of sexual assault, especially children who are victimized by sexual predators, must be safeguarded. I have worked to ensure the Violence Against Women Act is funded. I steered through the Senate and into law the Survivor's Bill of Rights in the States Act. And I have introduced the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to support victims of human trafficking. I have fought and will continue to fight for victims of violent crime. When I was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I convened the first congressional hearing on protecting young athletes from sexual abuse. I conducted aggressive oversight into the U.S. Olympic Committee's response following the scandal involving disgraced Olympic physician Larry Nassar. And I worked to ensure that the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act became law, which requires instructors, coaches, and others who work with young athletes to report cases of child sexual abuse to the authorities. But more needs to be done. I continue to press the Department of Justice for more answers on the FBI's handling of the Nassar case and why Nassar wasn't federally charged for his heinous physical abuse against our Olympic gymnasts. My oversight in this area has brought to the surface more information about how our legal system fails victims of abuse, especially children. Our outdated laws aren't keeping pace with how predators develop new tricks and use new technology. Children are a gift, but they are vulnerable. They must be protected--not taken advantage of. As a father and a grandfather, the safety and welfare of the next generation is a deeply personal issue to me. Today, I am pleased to announce that I, along with Senator Ossoff, am introducing the Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Act. We are confident this bill will make children--both at home and around the world--safer from the predators who want to sexually abuse them. I have worked extensively with the Department of Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section to get their feedback and hear about what legislative tools they need to protect children. I look forward to continuing this partnership with them as we improve this legislation. Victims and advocacy groups focused on this issue endorse this bill, including: U.S. Olympic medalist Tasha Schwikert, the Army of Survivors, the National and International Centers for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, Stop Child Predators, Rights4Girls, the Keep Kids Safe Movement, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and the Iowa County Attorneys Association. I appreciate their contributions and suggestions in improving this bill and their tireless efforts to keep children safe from the scourge of this kind of abuse. This bill gives prosecutors more tools in their toolbox to get child abusers away from children. One of the sections in my bill will now make it possible for Federal prosecutors to charge the likes of Larry Nassar with a Federal crime for his abuse of our gymnasts. Another section ensures that Americans who travel abroad under the guise of business or charitable work to abuse children will be held accountable. The final section of this bill modernizes our understanding of child sexual abuse in the digital age. I wish legislation like this wasn't necessary, but it is. We have to crack down on violent crime against children, and we shouldn't wait another minute to act. I look forward to working with my fellow Senators to pass this legislation quickly and keep our children safe from predators.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we all know that Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the executive branch executes the laws and uses taxpayers' money appropriately in accordance with congressional intent. It doesn't matter whether we have a Republican President, a Democratic President, a Republican Senate, or a Democratic Senate. We all have the constitutional responsibility of checking the executive branch. In furtherance of that constitutional responsibility, Congress has an obligation to investigate the executive branch for fraud, for waste, for abuse, and even gross mismanagement. And if Congress finds potential wrongdoing, we have an obligation to the American people to make sure that it is public because transparency of the public's business brings accountability to those who conduct that public business. Last week, I made public two oversight letters that I have sent to the Justice Department and to the FBI. These two letters are part of my investigation into a political bias that is infecting the Department of Justice and the FBI. These letters are based on information provided to my office by whistleblowers, and I hope everybody knows that I consider whistleblowers as patriots. And whistleblowers have to have guts, and they do have guts. And Director Wray has personally told me that these whistleblowers won't be subject to retaliation, as often, whistleblowers in the Federal Government are subject to retaliation, hurting themselves professionally and maybe even losing their jobs. Now, these letters that I sent follow up on a May 31, 2022, letter to the Justice Department, the FBI, and the inspector general. In those letters, I provided evidence of extreme leftwing bias shown by a special agent in charge by the name of Tim Thibault. He is special agent in charge of the FBI's Washington field office. Now, he has since been referred to the Office of Special Counsel for potential Hatch Act violations. Thibault is at the center of my two letters sent last week. The first letter relates to an FBI investigation that Thibault opened on the Trump campaign and its advisers. He allegedly had help from Richard Pilger, an official in the Justice Department's Election Crime Branch within the Public Integrity Section. During Chairman Durbin's investigation into the Justice Department misconduct, Pilger really stood out. The committee interviewed Richard Donoghue, the former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General during the Trump administration. He was also a key January 6 Committee witness. Donoghue testified to the Judiciary Committee that Pilger's conduct frustrated the Department's ability to properly operate the Elections Crime Branch. Thibault and Pilger played a major role in opening the criminal investigation into the Trump campaign. And this isn't a preliminary investigation; it is a full investigation, which requires heightened standards to go forward with that investigation. According to the whistleblowers that contacted my office, the opening memo for that investigation is based, in substantial part, on liberal news reporting. Liberal news reports are not enough for a full investigation. The Washington Post reported on the investigation last Tuesday. However, the Post did not report that Thibault and Pilger were involved in opening that case against Trump and his advisers. Yet Attorney General Garland and Director Wray allegedly approved opening those investigations. Now, as I have said in my letter to those two people, if you are going to open an investigation, you have to do it in the right way. So let's contrast this investigation with what the FBI has done with the information received from sources relating to Hunter Biden. Whistleblowers have told my office that the FBI maintains many sources that have provided extensive information on Hunter Biden. That information allegedly involves potential criminal activity, such as money laundering. That is the same criminal concern that Senator Johnson and I raised in our 2020 Biden report. To clarify, that was way back in 2020. According to the whistleblowers' allegations, the underlying information was verified and was verifiable. Now, here is where it is appropriate to raise questions about politics and political interference in investigations. However, instead of green-lighting the investigative activity, the FBI shut down the Hunter investigation. So, now, how did they do that? According to allegations, in August 2020, FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment. That assessment was used by the FBI officials to improperly discredit Hunter Biden's information as you know what? Disinformation. Those officials allegedly included Thibault. Then, in October 2020, an avenue of additional Hunter reporting was ordered closed at the direction of Special Agent Thibault. It has been alleged that Thibault and others suggested to FBI agents that the information was at risk of being you know what? Disinformation. However, according to allegations, the source reporting was either verified or verifiable via criminal search warrants. Thibault allegedly ordered the matter closed without providing a valid reason as required by FBI guidelines. In other words, Thibault shut down an allegedly legitimate avenue of information. So in order to shut down Hunter Biden sources and investigative leads, the FBI engaged in a disinformation campaign against itself and its own agents. If these allegations are true and accurate, the Justice Department and the FBI are and have been substantially corrupted. Before I conclude, I want to know four things regarding the summer of 2020. Yes, the summer of 2020: The opening of Auten's assessment in August 2020; secondly, efforts by the FBI officials to shut down Hunter Biden's investigative activity; third, efforts by the FBI to provide a really unnecessary briefing to me and Senator Johnson in August of 2020--that reading was purportedly about our Biden investigation, but it had nothing to do with the Biden investigation--fourth, and lastly, leaks relating to the briefing and the liberal media and Democrats falsely accusing me and Senator Johnson of advancing Russian information. All of those four data points happened as Senator Johnson and I prepared to finalize our September 2020 Biden report. These data points show a plan was in place at the FBI to undermine anything related to Hunter Biden. Attorney General Garland and Director Wray, you both have an obligation to the country to immediately investigate these allegations and to clean house. And my oversight work on this and related matters will certainly continue.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today is a very important date for the relations between the United States and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Today marks 100 years of continuous, uninterrupted diplomatic relations between our country and each of the Baltic countries. Let me explain why I emphasize continuous, uninterrupted diplomatic relations. Last Saturday marked 82 years since Acting Secretary of State Sumner Welles issued a declaration that is remembered to this day in each of the Baltic countries. Soviet troops had entered the Baltic states, arrested leaders, and organized rigged elections to create pro- Soviet government. The Welles Declaration decried the ``devious processes whereunder the political independence and territorial integrity of the three small Baltic Republics--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--were to be deliberately annihilated by one of their more powerful neighbors.'' It was a clear, principled statement that the United States would not recognize Soviet control over these countries as legitimate. During the 50 years the Soviet Union forcibly occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, diplomats from each of the Baltic states continued their work in the United States, and we continued to recognize them as independent, sovereign countries under foreign occupation. The Soviet Union justified sending troops to the Baltics on the basis of the threat from Nazi Germany. However, just a year before, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between the Nazis and Soviets contained a secret protocol whereby Hitler and Stalin agreed to carve up their neighbors into ``spheres of influence.'' Under this agreement, the Baltics, Finland, eastern Poland, and what is now Moldova would be controlled by the Soviet Union, and the rest of Poland would go to Germany. Finland was able to fight back in the Winter War, retaining its sovereignty, but losing significant territory to Russia. The rest of the pact played out just as Stalin and Hitler agreed. This isn't just history. This is directly relevant to Vladimir Putin's rhetoric, attitude, and actions in Ukraine. He believes he has a right to a sphere of influence over his neighbors just like Stalin and Hitler thought. To this day, Putin maintains that the three Baltics joined the Soviet Union in 1940 and ceased to exist as countries until the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Russian Duma has even threatened to repeal a Soviet law recognizing Lithuania's independence from the USSR--what a joke. Let's be clear: The Baltic states are not former Soviet republics. They have been independent countries for over a century. Following in Stalin's footsteps, Putin justifies attacking Ukraine, at least to audiences outside of Russia, as a reaction to NATO encroaching on Russia. Putin casts NATO as a threat, even making up a claim that NATO was planning to put missiles in Ukraine targeting Russia. The fact is, even our eastern flank allies in NATO do not currently have the kinds of defensive missiles they would need to repel a Russian invasion, which is unfortunate. Currently, we have meager ``tripwire'' forces that are insufficient to stop the kind of invasion we saw in Ukraine in February. Russia's military leaders know that NATO cannot begin to threaten Russian territory. There were no allied reinforcements in any NATO country bordering Russia until the invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine was militarily neutral then, but seeking economic ties with the European Union, thus slipping away from economic dependency on Russia. The fact that NATO has become attractive to Ukraine since Russia seized Crimea and part of the Donbas is a threat not to the territory of the Russian Federation, but to Russia's imperial desire for a sphere of influence. Putin blames Ukraine's westward turn on provocations by western intelligence agencies, failing to recognize that Ukrainians are making their own choices. Just like in 1940, the United States has refused to recognize another Russian occupation of a sovereign country as legitimate. We were once a small collection of colonies seeking to chart our own, independent course free from European empires. That is why the Welles Declaration expressed admiration for the Baltic countries as they pursued self-government and democracy. That is why the Welles Declaration made clear that the people of the United States oppose intervention or the use of force by large or powerful countries on smaller, weaker ones. That principle applies today to Ukraine. No one should decide Ukraine's fate except the Ukrainian people. True to our principles, the United States can never, directly or tacitly, consign Ukraine to Russia's sphere of influence. As we celebrate 100 years of excellent diplomatic relations with our Baltic allies, there is no doubt in retrospect that we were right to stand up for their sovereignty, even when that seemed hopeless, even foolish. Fifty years of Russian occupation could not turn them into Russians, just as centuries of Russification policies have not convinced Ukrainians to accept the Russian view that they are just ``little Russians.'' The Baltic countries are thriving democracies with strong Western values and some of our closest allies. Thank God they regained their independence and are now in NATO.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I don't know how many years in a row I have been doing this, but this week in July, I always come to the Senate floor to honor whistleblowers. I expect this week that the Senate will unanimously pass my resolution designating this Saturday, July 30, as National Whistleblower Appreciation Day. This year the resolution has 21 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, more cosponsors than this resolution has had ever before. Now, that should serve as a very important reminder that protecting and celebrating whistleblowers is not a partisan issue. It is just as simple as it being good government. This Congress, I have been working on several pieces of whistleblower legislation that also have bipartisan support. One of those bills, which I introduced last December along with Senators Warren and Warnock, relates to money laundering. In 2020, Congress established the first-ever anti-money-laundering whistleblower program. Under this reward-based program, whistleblowers who provide actionable information to the government that exposes money laundering may receive a percentage of the funds recovered as a result of their disclosure. While that is an important step forward, the current program has its issues. First, there is no minimum award amount, so the government isn't obligated to pay a whistleblower anything at all, even if the information that the whistleblower provides leads to a successful enforcement action. Second, the program doesn't provide the Treasury Department with a mechanism to pay whistleblowers and, instead, relies on yearly congressional appropriations. My bill addresses these issues. It raises the cap on whistleblower rewards from 25 to 30 percent, and it sets a 10-percent base minimum on rewards to ensure that if the government collects as a result of the whistleblower's disclosure, the whistleblower isn't left holding the short end of the stick. It also establishes a funding mechanism to ensure that the Treasury Department has funds readily available to pay whistleblowers independent of congressional appropriations. These improvements will ensure that whistleblowers have the confidence to come forward and assist law enforcement in cracking down on money laundering. The bill also expands the whistleblower disclosures that are eligible for the award. Current whistleblower laws don't offer anything to whistleblowers who report violations of sanctions against individuals. That would include sanctions placed on Russian oligarchs following Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. That is a missed opportunity. I have it on good authority that there are some whistleblowers who might have come forward to report sanction violations associated with the Russians if only the reward system were in place to cover their disclosure. My bill fills the gap by expanding the list of covered disclosures to include sanctions violations. Another bill which I am introducing this week strengthens the FBI whistleblower protections. For years, the FBI has argued that the FBI and the Justice Department should retain tight control over FBI whistleblower-retaliation cases. The FBI has its own separate whistleblower law that leaves authority for settling FBI whistleblower- retaliation complaints to the FBI and to the Department of Justice. The bill that I introduce will allow FBI employees to appeal their whistleblower retaliation cases to the Merit Systems Protection Board. This bill gives them outside review by a neutral third party. The bill also includes a kickout provision. That will mean that, if the FBI doesn't act in a timely manner, the whistleblower can take their cases straight to the Merit Systems Protection Board. This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by Senators Durbin, Hawley, Whitehouse, and Blackburn. I want to thank each of those cosponsors for their support. Those are just two of several legislative initiatives before Congress that will ensure whistleblowers remain protected. I urge Congress to consider and pass this legislation before the end of the year. Support for whistleblowers is something that we can all get behind. It can and should unite every Member of the Congress who believes government needs to remain transparent and accountable to people. This week, I encourage my fellow Senators to remember that important fact. Let's renew our shared commitment to strengthening the Nation's whistleblower laws by taking up and passing this important whistleblower legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate AM 600 WMT- NewsRadio on celebrating 100 years of broadcasting to Iowans in the Cedar Rapids area. Iowans look to broadcasters at WMT as trusted leaders in the community, relying on their programs each morning, noon, and night to stay up to date on local events, learn more about breaking news, and get critical information during emergencies. As an elected Representative, I particularly want to thank everyone at WMT for their work to provide a way to communicate with constituents. I have the pleasure of speaking with Doug Wagner at least once a month, where I answer questions on any subject and update Iowans on how I am working on their behalf in Washington. WMT's work every single day to report the events that matter to listeners keeps Iowans safe, informed, and engaged. I look forward to my future conversations with WMT to achieve this shared goal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate News Talk 1540 KXEL on celebrating 80 years of broadcasting to Iowans in the Waterloo and Cedar Falls area. When I was younger, I remember joining my father at the National Cattle Congress and was excited to see one of the early on-location broadcasts of the new KXEL radio station. Iowans look to broadcasters at KXEL as trusted leaders in the community, relying on its programs each morning, noon, and night to stay up to date on local events, learn more about breaking news, and get critical information during emergencies. As an elected Representative, I particularly want to thank everyone at KXEL for their work to provide a way to communicate with constituents. I have the pleasure of speaking with Jeff Stein at least once a month, where I answer questions on any subject and update Iowans on how I am working on their behalf in Washington. KXEL's work every single day to report the events that matter to listeners keeps Iowans safe, informed, and engaged. I look forward to my future conversations with KXEL to achieve this shared goal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am hearing a lot of news reports, and if they are correct, it sounds like the majority party has a very partisan bill that they want to call a drug pricing bill. And I am also told that this is moving along because it looks like the Parliamentarian is currently reviewing that proposed legislation to see if it fits into the process of reconciliation. If the majority party passes its partisan bill, it will be bad policy for patients and taxpayers, but that doesn't mean we don't have answers to the problems that they are trying to solve. But first of all, let me say what the Senate-proposed legislation-- what we know about it--would do. It would put taxpayers at risk for more spending. It would fail to enact any bipartisan accountability of Big Pharma and powerful middlemen that we call pharmacy benefit managers or PBMs for short. Yes, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is possible. And their bill has been developed in secret, with no markup or open debate. Now, this partisan bill and this process are a far cry from bipartisan drug pricing ideas that I have developed over the past few years. In the past 12 months alone, I have passed five bipartisan drug pricing bills out of committee that will lower prices and create more competition and hold Big Pharma and PBMs accountable. In addition, I have a comprehensive bill to lower prescription drug prices that could pass the Senate with at least 60 votes. My bill is bipartisan; it has been negotiated; and it is comprehensive. The bill is called the Prescription Drug Pricing Act. It is also known as Grassley-Wyden, but I want to be fair to Wyden. I am not sure that he would claim that he negotiated that bill, but I still like the bipartisan part of it. The Senate should act today on this bipartisan bill to lower drug prices because this is what Grassley-Wyden would do: It would lower costs for seniors by $72 billion. It would save the taxpayers $95 billion. Those are CBO figures. It establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the donut hole, and it redesigns Medicare Part D, that needs some redesigning after 19 years. This legislation will hold Big Pharma and powerful PBMs accountable. Now, too often, cheaper alternatives like generics are available, but Big Pharma and these middlemen have an incentive to push the patient into higher-cost drugs, and patients pay the cost. My bill ends that incentive and is very pro-consumer. A third point I want to make, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma. It does it by capping annual price increases of Medicare Part B and D drugs at inflation. In other words, drug companies can't raise prices two or three times a year 5 to 10 percent--once a year at no more than CPI. A Kaiser Foundation study found that half of the drugs in Medicare Part B and D increased higher than inflation over the period of time that Kaiser study covered. Over 600 drugs during the study increased 7.5 percent or more. Another point of the bill: It establishes accountability and transparency. There are 25 major provisions to my bill to reform how the pharmaceutical industry operates. Accountability in my bill includes, one, ending clawbacks that drive up costs at pharmacy counters for the patient. Second, ending ``spread pricing'' in Medicaid contracts that drive up taxpayers' costs. Three, requires sunshine on powerful PBM financial audits so the public knows the true net cost of a drug. Everything with PBMs is opaque. You don't know what goes on between the manufacturer and the consumer. And, four and lastly, requires sunshine on excessive drug price increases and sunshine on the launch price of a new high-cost drug. Big Pharma and powerful middlemen benefit from the current system that we have today, and at the same time, patients and taxpayers suffer. My bill's bipartisan reform will change all of that. Finally, the bill is bipartisan. I suppose Democrats get tired of me talking about a bipartisan bill when they are in the secrecy of their rooms drawing up their own bill. We have 11 Republicans who supported this bill in the Finance Committee markup or are cosponsors of the bill. Thirteen Democrats supported this bill in markup. It was debated and negotiated in public. But don't take my word for it, take it from some of my Democratic colleagues. A few months ago, the senior Senator from Delaware said this: Senator Grassley did, I thought, a masterful job in drafting a bill with broad bipartisan support. And the chairman of the Finance Committee and senior Senator from Oregon--and he is probably going to hate me for saying this, but I am going to quote him: Big Pharma was relentless in fighting what Senator Grassley is talking about and has been for 2 years. My bill will save seniors money, save taxpayers money, hold Big Pharma and powerful middlemen accountable, and enact necessary reform and sunshine; plus, it has bipartisan support. So we can lower drug prices without having to resort to this partisan reconciliation process. The Grassley Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act is a solution. It is a product of a bipartisan, transparent process. Compare that to the secrecy of the Democratic reconciliation process. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, at each of my 99 county meetings and in conversations with Iowans generally, the record cost of living is top of mind as Iowa families feel the impact of 9.1 percent inflation. They feel that on their family budgets, for sure. Due to rampant inflation spurred by reckless government spending, consumer prices are escalating at a historic pace. Middle-class Americans are paying more for everything from gasoline, food, and shelter, to home furnishings, prescription drugs, and clothing. Since President Biden took office January 2021, consumer prices have increased, on average, 12 percent nationally. As a result, the average Iowa household has seen its monthly living expenses increase to $670 a month. The rising cost of transportation, energy, and food has hit household budgets particularly hard. Since January 2021, Americans on average are paying an extra $206 a month on energy, $334 a month on transportation and gas, and an additional $76 a month for food. It is no wonder inflation is the No. 1 concern that I hear about as I tour Iowa's 99 counties. Rising wages have helped some Iowans manage the rising cost of living. However, for most, rising prices have far outpaced the wage gains. While trying to make up an extra $600 a month is hard enough for wage earners, it is next to impossible for senior citizens who are on fixed incomes. For senior citizens, there is no prospect of getting a raise like you might get if you have a job. They must make do by stretching their Social Security checks, their pensions, or investment income, if they have that. They must count on just stretching that as far as they can. While there is an annual cost of living adjustment intended to maintain the purchasing power of Social Security benefits, this adjustment lags inflation increases. The 5.9 percent COLA for 2022 was the largest increase since 1982, the last time we had this out-of- control inflation. However, that is far below the 9.1 percent annual inflation rate reported for June. So just like wages go up 5.5, they can't keep up with a 9.1 percent increase inflation. So you get a 5.9 percent increase in your COLA for Social Security; that is far below the 9.1 percent increase in inflation. Now, the Social Security Administration reports the 2023 COLA will be between 7.3 percent and 10.8 percent. Well, that might help. But will it make up for what inflation is? Unfortunately, seniors have another 6 months until they see this relief in their benefit payments. The current turmoil in the stock market has made it even harder for seniors to keep their heads above water. They are seeing their retirement savings in 401(k)s, their IRAs, and their non-tax-advantaged accounts eroded by stock market declines, by inflation, and by taxes. Seniors are understandably looking to the administration and to this very Congress to take action to address inflation and rising prices. Unfortunately, all the administration and a majority in Congress have offered them are false assurances, more reckless spending, and damaging tax hikes. It is time that we try an entirely different approach. That approach should be one focused on fiscal prudence, targeted non-inflation inducing relief, and increasing market competition or boosting supply. The most important thing Congress can do to fight inflation is stop its reckless spending. Even better would be to trim the budget to eliminate unnecessary spending. As for providing inflation relief, it must be done in a way that won't add to our growing debt or further fuel the flames of inflation. One way to do this is to provide targeted inflation relief that incentivizes and rewards taxpayers who save rather than spend. This is the approach taken in the Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act, which I introduced last month. Under my legislation, most middle- class savings and investment income would be subject to zero tax. This means middle-class seniors would be subject to no Federal income tax on their long-term capital gains and dividend income. They would also be exempt from Federal tax on up to $600 of interest income that they earn in a year. Exempting most middle-class savings from tax not only provides relief to those seniors and to others but also will reduce tax bias that favors consumption over saving. While not a silver bullet by any stretch of the imagination to stop inflation, encouraging more consumers to save rather than spend may help reduce inflation pressures by dampening demand. Importantly, my proposal is fully paid for, so it won't add to our unsustainable debt and deficits. In addition to practicing fiscal responsibility and providing sensible, targeted relief, I support policies designed to hold down prices by increasing supply and promoting greater competition in the marketplace. A prime example of this is my work to rein in out-of- control prescription drug prices. Americans--especially our seniors--are paying too much for their prescription drugs. AARP says brand-name drugs that seniors use are going up more than twice the rate of inflation. Recent data indicates that nearly a half million seniors filled a single prescription that met their out-of-pocket threshold and millions of seniors are reaching the catastrophic phase of Part D. We must act to lower prescription drug prices. I passed out of the Finance Committee a bipartisan and negotiated bill that will lower the cost of prescription drugs. It is called Grassley-Wyden or by its name the ``Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.'' It saves seniors $72 billion and taxpayers $95 billion. It caps out-of-pocket costs at $3,100 and eliminates the doughnut hole. And perhaps the most important part of it will also cap year-over-year price increases of prescription drugs at the CPI. This also ends taxpayer subsidies to Big Pharma and provides real relief to our seniors. Let's not waste another minute to lower drug prices. I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan Grassley-Wyden bill. In addition to prescription drugs, I am leading the charge to lower the cost of grocery bills. The big four meatpackers who have over 85 percent of the market use anticompetitive tactics to hurt smaller producers or independent family farmers. While independent farmers in Iowa are forced to sell livestock at dirt-cheap prices, the cost to the consumer is climbing to a historic high level. This is happening at the same time the big four packers are reaping record profits. Just this past week, Sysco--the largest food distributor in the United States--filed a lawsuit against these very same big four packers alleging price fixing. Sysco claims that these packers intentionally reduce the number of slaughtered cattle to inflate beef prices that families must pay at the supermarket. We must maintain a cash market for cattle producers and thus increase competition. Toward this goal, I am spearheading two bipartisan bills that sailed through the Senate Agriculture Committee that would do just that. Another reason why we are seeing high prices on store shelves is the high price of gasoline and diesel. Contrary to what some people believe, food does not grow on grocery store shelves; food comes to the stores on trucks. And our country has never seen prices at the pump as high as they are right now. In fact, gas prices have doubled since President Biden took office. Instead of focusing on domestic fuel production, the President and his administration have caved to environmentalists in shaping our energy policies. Since energy is an input in every item on the store shelves, energy prices mean climbing prices at the cash register at Hy- Vee in Des Moines, IA, or Walmart anyplace in the country and every other store. It is time to reverse course on President Biden's energy policies and pursue an ``all of the above'' strategy. Let's go back to being energy independent rather than energy dependent. Instead of just talking about inflation and its impact on Iowa families and seniors, it is time for this Congress to stop reckless spending and start focusing on commonsense relief and reforms. I am leading the charge to do just that through targeted tax relief--the savings bill that I talked about; market reforms in key industries to hold down prices, like the cattle bill I was talking about; and by boosting the supply of fuel to keep prices at the pump in check. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in these efforts. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today in the Senate to sound the alarm about one of America's guiding principles--everybody knows about this--the constitutional principle of civilian control of our military, very much a cornerstone of our Republic. This fundamental principle of self-government may have been in jeopardy during the final days of the Trump administration, but before I get to that, I will provide a historical context. That principle became part of the American fabric on June 14, 1775, when the Congress of the Continental Congress appointed George Washington commander of the Continental Army. His commission ordered him to report to civilian authorities. It specified: You-- Meaning the new General Washington-- are punctually to observe such orders and directions, from time to time, as you shall receive from this, or a future Congress of these United Colonies. Well, he followed that. At the war's end, General Washington gave this principle lasting purpose, and he did it with power and grace. On December 23, 1783, in a solemn ceremony at the statehouse in Annapolis, George Washington voluntarily surrendered his commission, as well as his military power, to civilian authority, the President of the Continental Congress. The scene is memorialized in a dramatic John Trumbull painting that is displayed in the Rotunda not far from here. All of my colleagues go through that part of this Capitol every day and probably don't pay a lot of attention to it, but it is an important description of our basic constitutional principles. We know there are other ways of doing these things in other countries. We know that dictators rule their nations with an iron fist because they control the sword. Washington selflessly laid down that sword to ensure America's destiny for generations to come. He chose to disband the Army and return to private life at Mount Vernon. One scholar explained it this way: The Virginian . . . went home to plow. By this noble act, Washington cemented a crown jewel of self-rule: civilian control of the military. Five years later, as Washington was elected President, this bedrock principle was enshrined in our Constitution. While this governing rule is essential to the preservation of democracy, it has been challenged with grave consequences. The Truman- MacArthur dispute over conducting the Korean war is a case in point. President Truman wanted to limit the war. General MacArthur disagreed. General MacArthur defied orders, and General MacArthur criticized his Commander in Chief's--Truman's--decision, and he did that publicly, so Truman fired him for insubordination. Now I want to get to the main purpose of coming to the floor. Recently, several books, including a book entitled ``Peril'' by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, suggest that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, may have trampled on this principle. The book ``Peril'' provides an alarming account of his words and deeds. Milley told the authors he ``was certain'' that the Commander in Chief was ``in serious mental decline . . . and could go rogue and order military action or the use of nuclear weapons. Milley felt no absolute certainty the military could control or trust the President.'' So Milley, in his words, ``took any and all necessary precautions.'' ``His job,'' he said, was ``to think the unthinkable'' and, in his words, ``pull a Schlesinger.'' To ``contain Trump,'' he had to ``inject a second opinion.'' His opinion was then injected into the command structure. In doing so, he may have stepped out of his lane as the President's principal military adviser and into the statutory chain of command where law doesn't allow him to go because, by law, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has no command authority. When President Nixon faced a crisis over impeachment and resignation, Secretary of Defense Schlesinger feared that he might order an unprovoked nuclear strike. So he, Schlesinger, reportedly took extra legal steps to prevent it. That is the same Schlesinger that Milley referred to as he was being interviewed for this book. It happens that ``pulling a Milley'' as opposed to a ``Schlesinger'' is a very different kettle of fish. A four-star general can't ``pull a Schlesinger.'' Schlesinger was at the top of the chain of command, just below the President. He kept the President's constitutional command authority firmly in civilian hands as the Constitution requires. Milley allegedly placed military hands--his hands--on controls that belong exclusively to the President. According to ``Peril,'' the book I am referring to, he summoned senior operations officers in the Military Command Center to his office. He had them take ``an oath'' not to ``act'' on the President's orders without checking with him first. These brazen words and actions, if accurate, strike at the heart of our democracy: civilian control of the military. They turn this guiding rule upside down and show utter contempt for the Commander in Chief. Coming from the Nation's top general, they are dangerous and contrary to military code 10 U.S.C. 888. After describing Milley's actions, the book's authors rightly ask this question: ``Was he subverting the President?'' Had he ``overstepped his authority and taken extraordinary power for himself?'' Milley assured this Senator in a letter to this Senator that his actions were on the up and up. The book, however, seems to imply a different story. I had a hearing where the general was. Senator Blackburn asked him about the mismatch. He replied: ``I haven't read any of the books, so I don't know.'' She said to him: ``Read them and report back to us.'' He said: ``Absolutely,'' he agreed. ``Happy to do that.'' Nine months later, he is still dodging the question with the same lame excuse. To crank up the pressure, I joined Senators Paul and Blackburn a few months ago in a letter pushing for a straight answer. When none came, I began sending handwritten notes to the general. I soon received a 10- page letter from General Milley that ignored the question. My second note sparked an email. It claimed that our letter did not raise ``a direct question'' and asserted ``General Milley answered the specific questions.'' I think I can legitimately ask: Is that Pentagon baloney or what is it? After my third note, General Milley responded with the same old smoke-and-mirrors routine: ``I have never read the books.'' Years of oversight have taught me this lesson: Evasive answers usually offer revealing clues about the truth. I think General Milley knows better. He knows the score. If those books and all attendant press coverage of those books contained gross misrepresentations, we would have heard about it a long time ago. He would have hammered the authors and corrected the record. However, to date, not a peep from the general. His silence speaks volumes. Something doesn't smell right. As the Pentagon watchdog, when I get a whiff of wrongdoing, I sink in my teeth and don't let go. So Congressman Jim Banks, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and I upped the ante on April 11. With 12 pointed questions, we gave General Milley a second bite of the apple to clear the air. Now, 2\1/2\ months later, we still have no response. General Milley, you said you were going to answer Senator Blackburn's question. Honor your word. Answer the question. Come clean with the American people. We are all ears. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I speak, I have been asked to make a unanimous consent request that Senators Scott, Hoeven, Barrasso, and I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each prior to the votes and that Senator Bennet be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the votes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, over the July 4 recess of Congress, I held Q&A's in 17 counties as part of my annual 99 county meetings. The need for energy independence and the concerns over soaring gas prices were raised at nearly every meeting. As an example, at Woodford Equipment in Emmetsburg, IA, farmers raised their concerns over the high cost of diesel and their pricey commutes to work at that business caused by President Biden's failed energy policies. Today is a very difficult time for American families and businesses, with gas and diesel prices at record highs--more than doubling since President Biden took office. Americans who drive every day are feeling the impact of an administration that is making it harder to drill and refine fossil fuels. President Biden has stated that it is the administration's goal to have half of the Nation's vehicles be electric by the year 2030. The Energy Secretary has said that to beat the high gas prices, Americans should purchase electric vehicles. Now, that is practically impossible for most families because the average price of an electric vehicle, according to Kelley Blue Book, is $56,000. That happens to be roughly equivalent to Iowa's median family income. Even if having half of all cars be electric by 2030 were attainable-- which, of course, it isn't--that presents yet another real problem. Large swaths of the United States' electrical grid are at risk for shortfall this summer. In May, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation released its summer reliability assessment. They identified the West and Midwest as being at heightened risk for energy shortfalls. The farm where I live near Cedar Falls, IA, is served by Cedar Falls municipal electricity, and this is the first time in my life that I have ever gotten a warning from that electric company that we could have brownouts. So if all cars were electric, the United States would need roughly 25 percent more electricity than it does today. We simply cannot add that many electric vehicles to the grid. While gas prices have gone through the roof, energy prices are not far behind. From June last year until May this year, the Consumer Price Index for electricity rose 12 percent. That is the largest increase in the past 15 years. With reliability concerns increasing this summer and energy prices rising, Democrats still continue to pursue their Green New Deal agenda. There continue to be rumors of another massive tax-and-spending spree passed on a partisan vote that would push prices even higher. It is past time for Democrats in Congress and the White House to rethink our Nation's energy policy. Instead of becoming more like Europe, the United States must have an ``all of the above'' strategy. Our country has bountiful resources for energy generation. I am very proud of Iowa, a State that produces over 60 percent of its electricity from wind, but I know that this does not work in every State of the Nation. Fossil fuels still account for 60 percent of electricity generated in the United States. Instead of focusing on domestic energy production, the President and his administration have caved to environmentalists in shaping our energy policies. Utilities and energy companies are up to the task to provide affordable energy to all Americans. Every year, these companies are becoming cleaner and reducing our carbon footprint. Nevertheless, Washington continues to layer regulation upon regulation, making costs go up. Between new requirements on banking, blocking new oil leases, and blocking key pipelines, Democrats in Congress seem determined to inflict pain at the pump and also on our energy bills. The world has dramatically changed since President Biden took office. Democrats need to adjust their priorities and stop this madness. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am back to the floor for reasons that my Senator friends are tired of hearing me talk about all the time, but I have come back to give you a specific example of retaliation against whistleblowers, Agencies of the government not answering letters that we have sent, and also what I believe is some political interference in some of my oversight work. Today, it deals specifically with the Department of Veterans Affairs--as we know it around here, the VA. On April 2 of last year, 2021, I sent letters to the VA and the VA Office of Inspector General based on allegations from multiple whistleblowers. Those whistleblowers reported numerous ethical violations, retaliation, and possible leaking of market-sensitive information that may have affected retail investors. I have been waiting more than a year for a response to my inquiries. Emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by a government watchdog group called Empower Oversight show that career public servants at the VA prepared a response to my letter over a year ago, but when it came time for the Secretary of the VA, McDonough, to send that letter to my office, senior Biden political officials blocked it. It appears that Biden-appointed VA officials have issued an order not to respond to my request, and I have a pretty good reason why. We know that the VA received these allegations from whistleblowers early on, and the VA ignored them. Whistleblowers alleged, among other things, conflicts of interest between a senior-level VA official and a company represented by her husband. This official, Charmain Bogue, has since left public service. The company that employed her husband, Barrett Bogue, is entitled ``Veterans Education Success,'' or VES. On multiple occasions, starting in December of 2017, an employee at VA sought guidance from VA lawyers on whether Ms. Bogue should recuse herself on procurement-related matters. The lawyers affirmed that Ms. Bogue should recuse herself, and the employee even copied Ms. Bogue on that guidance of recusal. The employee also alerted VA leadership of Ms. Bogue's need to recuse herself. Ms. Bogue never recused herself, but the VA employee was reportedly removed from Federal service. Now, that is retaliation. That is unjustified. It should never happen. In response to my letter about these and other allegations, the VA Office of Inspector General immediately opened an investigation. The VA Office of Inspector General uncovered more wrongdoing than originally thought, and I have four points that they uncovered. I am only going to go into those four. Ms. Bogue participated in matters involving her husband's employer, contrary to ethics guidance. Ms. Bogue's interaction with that company violated the apparent conflict rules. Ms. Bogue did not provide sufficient detail to VA ethics about her spouse's business. No. 4, Ms. Bogue refused to cooperate fully in the OIG's investigation. These are only some of the allegations that I have received. The VA Office of Inspector General did not review the allegations of whistleblower reprisal; nor did it investigate whether VA employees mishandled nonpublic information. I raised questions about all of these issues, and to date, I have had no substantive communication from Secretary McDonough about any of these questions I have raised. So what is the VA hiding? What else did the VA know or choose to ignore? Congress needs answers not stonewalling. Independent government watchdogs and whistleblower advocates have called on the VA to review government grants and screen for companies and individuals who have engaged in wrongdoing. They have also urged the VA to consider whether those individuals or entities should be able to obtain government contracts in the future. I would be very interested to know whether those who refuse to cooperate with an OIG request can still obtain taxpayer money through government contracts. The Biden administration has claimed, time and again, that it is the most transparent administration in U.S. history. Well, I think I just gave you an example that that is not true, and it certainly hasn't been true, in this case, for emphasis. The VA deserves much better. Of course, the VA serves our veterans, and our veterans deserve much better from that Agency. The VA needs to start being as transparent as they claim to be transparent and cooperate with this investigation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on May 9 of this year, Senator Johnson and I wrote to David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware. Now, he happens to be in charge of the Hunter Biden criminal case. In that letter, we asked Mr. Weiss a series of threshold questions that Attorney General Garland has repeatedly failed to answer. First, we asked whether Nicholas McQuaid is recused from the Hunter Biden case. As we have said publicly many times, McQuaid is conflicted because he worked with Hunter Biden's criminal attorney before he was hired as a top position in President Biden's Justice Department. Second, we asked Mr. Weiss whether he or any of his employees have had any communications with McQuaid. Third, we asked Mr. Weiss whether any of his employees, not just Mr. McQuaid, are recused from the Hunter Biden case. We asked these questions because the Biden family is from Delaware and has extensive political connections. Notably, Hunter Biden told his business partners: I'll bring suit in the Chancery Court in Delaware--which as you know is my home state and I'm privileged to have worked with and know every judge in the Chancery Court. Does the Biden family have connections to anyone in Mr. Weiss's office? That seems to be a very fair question. With respect to those three questions, Mr. Weiss didn't even try to answer. In fact, the Attorney General jumped in and answered on behalf of U.S. Attorney Weiss. But calling the Attorney General's letter an answer is an overstatement. It was another nonanswer--essentially just words on a piece of paper that didn't say anything worthwhile. So Senator Johnson and I also asked Mr. Weiss if he has received sufficient resources and support from the Justice Department to properly handle the Hunter Biden case. Again, no answers. One would think that the Department, and specifically Mr. Weiss, would want to tell Congress and the American public that the answer to that question is yes. The failure of Mr. Weiss to answer that very important question adds to the growing concern and public concern that the Justice Department is pulling the punches on the Hunter Biden case. We also asked Mr. Weiss whether he has discussed the need for a special counsel or an independent counsel to properly investigate the Hunter Biden case. Again, no answer. The last question is more relevant today than when it was asked because the other week a voicemail was released reportedly from Joe Biden to Hunter Biden. In it, Joe Biden repeatedly left a message about a New York Times article that involved Hunter Biden's dealings with Ye Jianming. That business associate is closely connected to the communist Chinese regime. Joe Biden told his son: ``I think you're clear.'' Well, that message appears to show that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter Biden's business deals and relationships. So the White House strategy for the President to continue to deny knowledge of these business relationships falls very flat. On July 30, 2021, and on June 28, 2022, Senator Johnson and I wrote to the White House counsel. We wrote about then-Vice President Biden's use of nongovernment email to transmit government information to Hunter Biden. The White House counsel's office refuses to answer whether President Biden still communicates government business to Hunter Biden, among other questions that we posed. So what do we get? More stonewalling. Most recently, on July 7, this year, Senator Johnson and I wrote to the Attorney General, FBI Director, and U.S. Attorney Weiss. In our letter, we asked again about recusals of Hunter Biden's case. We also noted that recent reporting on Hunter Biden showed more connections between him and foreign nationals--this time, Russians and Ukrainians. Those additional links further support my and Senator Johnson's conclusion in our September 2020 Biden report that Hunter Biden's activity causes criminal, counterintelligence, and extortion concerns. At the time, our findings were ignored or falsely labeled Russian disinformation by Democrats and by liberal media. We gave floor speeches on March 28, this year, March 29, this year, April 5, that introduced bank records connecting Hunter and James Biden to the communist Chinese regime. The same connections that we made in our 2020 report. Those bank records have proven to be authentic and, hence, aren't Russian disinformation. For years, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle levied complaints against the Trump administration's Justice Department for the lack of transparency. Now, why aren't those same Democrat colleagues raising this concern about this administration not showing the proper transparency? Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure the proper execution of, and compliance with, conflicts of interest laws and regulations. The failure of the Justice Department to comply with these rules will cause political infection to run rampant. And, of course, that will rot the core of the Justice Department and cast a cloud over everything that the Department of Justice does. As I have said before, the Justice Department's failure to be transparent with the Hunter Biden criminal case and recusals related to it has cast a cloud over that investigation. So I ask: What is the Justice Department trying to hide? The American people's concern about how the case has been managed, these concerns are very legitimate. To Attorney General Garland, to Wray, and to Mr. Weiss, I strongly urge you to clear the cloud sooner rather than later.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the record a statement of commendation to Sheila and Ronald Wetjen for recently celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary. Sheila and Ron were married on February 5, 1972, in Dubuque, IA, and raised five children: Nicholas, Mark, Sean, Melissa, and Amanda. They also now have nine grandchildren: Grace, Cullen, Xavier, Rourke, Reece, Finnegan, Rockwell, Sophia, and Wyatt. I would like to commend Sheila and Ron for their commitment to each other, their children, their grandchildren, their faith, and their country. Sheila and Ron represent so many of the ideals that gave rise to this great country and bind it together today--the importance of family and an enduring selflessness and faith in others that speaks to a firm commitment to the common good. We wish Sheila and Ron our congratulations all for this great achievement and wish them many more years of faithful marriage.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today to visit with my colleagues about a group that we refer to as pharmacy benefit managers, but around Washington, the shorthand for that term is PBMs. Many Americans may not know about PBMs. They are very obscure in the whole pharmaceutical business. Yet the PBM market is nearly $500 billion, and they are powerful in our pharmaceutical drug supply chain. It is our duty in Congress to understand, first, how PBMs operate; second, hold them accountable; and, third, work to lower prescription drug costs for the taxpayers and for the consumers. In 2018, I pressed the Federal Trade Commission to investigate PBMs. I saw the ongoing consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain and its impact on drug prices, driving those prices up. But I didn't wait for the FTC to act. I have pursued, one, bipartisan legislation; two, held hearings; and, three, conducted oversight. Most recently, Senator Cantwell and I have introduced the PBM Transparency Act. This bill prohibits PBMs from engaging in spread pricing. This is a situation where PBMs charge an insurer more than they charge the pharmacy and then they pocket the difference. Iowans call that gaming the system. Another practice we prohibit in our bill: clawbacks. In Medicare Part D, these are sometimes called retroactive direct and indirect remuneration fees--or DIR, for short. Iowa pharmacists have told me clawbacks are costing patients more in higher copays and also costing the local pharmacy. This practice is putting rural and independent pharmacists out of business. In addition, our bill will incentivize fair and transparent PBM practices, benefiting consumers and taxpayers. The bill has the support of community pharmacists, manufacturers, and patient advocacy organizations. Not surprisingly, this industry we call PBMs oppose the Cantwell-Grassley bill. They say my bill is ``anti- competitive'' and, in their words, an ``expansion of power at the FTC.'' They also claim that their industry is already well-regulated. Nothing could be further from the truth. My bill establishes transparency and accountability. So good news: Tomorrow, the Commerce Committee will mark up the PBM Transparency Act. I don't happen to sit on this very important Commerce Committee, but I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Finally, I have never given up on passing the bipartisan Wyden- Grassley bill, known as the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. Despite the Democrats having the majority for 18 months, we have not passed a prescription drug bill. So we still have high prescription drug prices. By now, I would assume they would be interested in advancing a bipartisan prescription drug bill. They can get 60-plus votes, save the taxpayers $95 billion and seniors, who are consumers, $72 billion-- rather than a partisan effort that doesn't have 60 votes here in the U.S. Senate. I want my colleagues to know I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to tell my colleagues about a bill I am introducing today to encourage savings. To set the stage for the necessity of that bill, I am going to speak for a minute about the obstacles that this administration's economic policies--particularly inflation--have put in that give need for such legislation. On Friday, we learned that inflation surged to 8.6 percent, a new 40- year high for inflation. Inflation is the No. 1 concern that I hear from Iowans as I do my 99-county tour throughout the State over the course of a year. I hear how rising prices, particularly for food and energy, are cutting into budgets, making it difficult to make ends meet. Moreover, I hear from Iowans who are concerned that inflation is eating into their savings. That gets to the purpose of the legislation I am going to soon talk about. This is particularly true for seniors who are living on fixed budgets and are dependent on their savings and investment income to keep their heads above water. Yet President Biden and congressional Democrats continue to ignore the damage done by their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Sadly, their solution for inflation is just more of the same old Democratic tax-and- spend agenda. We still hear rumors that there may be some version of Build Back Better. Just think. If that original version of Build Back Better had passed, we would have had another $4.5 trillion in additional spending feeding the fires of inflation. Thank God for 50 Republicans and Senator Manchin that that has not happened. Several Democrats have argued for hiking taxes to combat inflation. However, their proposed tax hikes on job creators would suppress business investment, lowering productivity. This would be counterproductive at a time when consumers' demands far outpace supply. We need more production, not less, to combat unchecked inflation. Moreover, the proposed Democratic tax hikes would be passed on to the middle class in the form of lower wages and higher prices. These tax hikes would further squeeze a middle class that is already enduring the worst of inflation. I just complimented Senator Manchin for putting a stop to Build Back Better. When it comes to some of the original tax policies we have heard from the Democrats, we can thank Senator Sinema, another Democrat, for stepping in and bringing at least some common sense to tax policy, even though it wasn't a complete change of that tax policy. Raising taxes on job creation isn't the only misguided tax proposal. While many consumer products are in short supply, ill-conceived Democratic proposals are not. In addition to reckless tax hikes on businesses broadly, Democrats have proposed providing consumer gas rebates, forgiving student loan debt, imposing windfall profit taxes on oil and gas, and implementing price controls. None of these proposals would help tamp down inflation. Instead, they would only make things worse--much worse. Instead of providing relief, gas rebates would increase demand, driving prices higher. Forgiving student loans would have a similar effect and would be horribly counterproductive and, at the same time, would be very unfair to those students who have already paid off their student loans. Yet you don't have to take Chuck Grassley's word for it. Prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers has said that student debt cancelation would be ``regressive, uncertainty creating, untargeted and inappropriate at a time when the economy is [already] overheated.'' Windfall profit taxes and price controls may be the worst of all of the proposals. That should have been learned from the Nixon administration when he froze prices and wages. It was a disaster--part of the cause of the great inflation of the 1970s. There were disastrous consequences then as a result of what happened in the 1970s. Anyone who lived through that time can tell you how these policies made things worse by reducing supply. The result was of rampant shortages, most notably with gas lines all around the block. When addressing inflation, Congress must be guided by the principle: First, do no harm. The Democrats' proposal has failed this principle miserably. The fact of the matter is that, once the inflation fire gets started, it is hard to put out. Just think: Just a few months ago, inflation was transitory, and then it got up to 6 percent, 7 percent, 8.3 percent. Then somebody said last month that it was going to cool off, but it is up to 8.6 percent. The Federal Reserve is best suited for reining in inflation given its control over the money supply. As Milton Friedman said: Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. This doesn't mean Congress is helpless when it comes to responding to inflation. The most important thing that Congress can do is stop spending like drunken sailors. Even better would be to trim the budget to eliminate unnecessary spending. Congress can also provide targeted inflation relief. However, it must be done in a way that won't add to our growing debt or further fuel the flames of inflation. One way to do this is by providing targeted inflation relief that incentivizes and rewards taxpayers who save rather than spend. With today's high inflation, many in the middle class could see most or even all of their savings and investment gains wiped out by the inflation that is upon us. Yet, even though middle class savers may be losing money in real terms, they are still taxed on all gains and interest income as if inflation doesn't exist. This creates a perverse incentive that encourages taxpayers to consume today rather than to save today. This can push up the demand for goods and services, forcing prices higher and further fueling inflation. To help counter the current bias in favor of consumption, I now come to my proposal, a proposal subjecting most middle class savings and investment income to zero tax. Now, this isn't a silver bullet in the fight against inflation. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve will have to do the heavy lifting. However, unlike counterproductive Democrat policies, my proposals would incentivize and reward saving. As a result, it would get relief to the middle class without further fueling consumer demand or reducing production and supply. The title of the bill is the ``Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act.'' Under that bill, taxpayers in the 22-percent individual income tax bracket and lower would pay zero tax on their long-term capital gains and dividend income. Moreover, my proposal would allow individuals to exclude a reasonable amount of interest income from tax. For 2022, the combination of those proposals means an individual with a taxable income of below $89,075 or a married couple below $178,150 would largely be able to save tax-free. In addition to exempting the middle class from the tax on most of their savings and investment income, my proposal would enhance and expand the saver's credit. This provides a tax credit to low- to middle-income taxpayers who contribute to a tax-favored retirement account. My proposal would increase the maximum credit amount by $500 for married taxpayers and expand eligibility to more taxpayers. Finally, my proposal would address a massive marriage penalty that is gradually catching ever more taxpayers by surprise thanks just simply to inflation. Under ObamaCare, Democrats imposed a new 3.8-percent tax on investment income of taxpayers earning over $200,000 single or $250,000 married. Congress never indexed these thresholds for inflation; thus, given current inflation, it is likely it won't be long before millions of middle-class taxpayers find themselves squarely within the grasp of that marriage penalty. To prevent this, I index the income threshold for this tax to inflation. Moreover, I eliminate the marriage penalty by raising the threshold for married taxpayers to twice that for single earners. Of course, any relief provided must be fully paid for to ensure that we aren't just adding unsustainable debt and deficits. This is why my proposal is fully paid for by extending the $10,000 cap on State and local tax deductions beyond the current scheduled expiration at the end of 2025. The SALT deduction is a highly regressive tax subsidy that primarily benefits high-income taxpayers. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, more than half of the benefits from lifting the SALT cap would go to those making over $1 million a year. Extending the current cap on SALT--an otherwise highly regressive tax benefit--to provide immediate inflation relief to the middle class should be a no- brainer to all of my colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this proposal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to tell my colleagues about a bill I am introducing today to encourage savings. To set the stage for the necessity of that bill, I am going to speak for a minute about the obstacles that this administration's economic policies--particularly inflation--have put in that give need for such legislation. On Friday, we learned that inflation surged to 8.6 percent, a new 40- year high for inflation. Inflation is the No. 1 concern that I hear from Iowans as I do my 99-county tour throughout the State over the course of a year. I hear how rising prices, particularly for food and energy, are cutting into budgets, making it difficult to make ends meet. Moreover, I hear from Iowans who are concerned that inflation is eating into their savings. That gets to the purpose of the legislation I am going to soon talk about. This is particularly true for seniors who are living on fixed budgets and are dependent on their savings and investment income to keep their heads above water. Yet President Biden and congressional Democrats continue to ignore the damage done by their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Sadly, their solution for inflation is just more of the same old Democratic tax-and- spend agenda. We still hear rumors that there may be some version of Build Back Better. Just think. If that original version of Build Back Better had passed, we would have had another $4.5 trillion in additional spending feeding the fires of inflation. Thank God for 50 Republicans and Senator Manchin that that has not happened. Several Democrats have argued for hiking taxes to combat inflation. However, their proposed tax hikes on job creators would suppress business investment, lowering productivity. This would be counterproductive at a time when consumers' demands far outpace supply. We need more production, not less, to combat unchecked inflation. Moreover, the proposed Democratic tax hikes would be passed on to the middle class in the form of lower wages and higher prices. These tax hikes would further squeeze a middle class that is already enduring the worst of inflation. I just complimented Senator Manchin for putting a stop to Build Back Better. When it comes to some of the original tax policies we have heard from the Democrats, we can thank Senator Sinema, another Democrat, for stepping in and bringing at least some common sense to tax policy, even though it wasn't a complete change of that tax policy. Raising taxes on job creation isn't the only misguided tax proposal. While many consumer products are in short supply, ill-conceived Democratic proposals are not. In addition to reckless tax hikes on businesses broadly, Democrats have proposed providing consumer gas rebates, forgiving student loan debt, imposing windfall profit taxes on oil and gas, and implementing price controls. None of these proposals would help tamp down inflation. Instead, they would only make things worse--much worse. Instead of providing relief, gas rebates would increase demand, driving prices higher. Forgiving student loans would have a similar effect and would be horribly counterproductive and, at the same time, would be very unfair to those students who have already paid off their student loans. Yet you don't have to take Chuck Grassley's word for it. Prominent Democratic economist Larry Summers has said that student debt cancelation would be ``regressive, uncertainty creating, untargeted and inappropriate at a time when the economy is [already] overheated.'' Windfall profit taxes and price controls may be the worst of all of the proposals. That should have been learned from the Nixon administration when he froze prices and wages. It was a disaster--part of the cause of the great inflation of the 1970s. There were disastrous consequences then as a result of what happened in the 1970s. Anyone who lived through that time can tell you how these policies made things worse by reducing supply. The result was of rampant shortages, most notably with gas lines all around the block. When addressing inflation, Congress must be guided by the principle: First, do no harm. The Democrats' proposal has failed this principle miserably. The fact of the matter is that, once the inflation fire gets started, it is hard to put out. Just think: Just a few months ago, inflation was transitory, and then it got up to 6 percent, 7 percent, 8.3 percent. Then somebody said last month that it was going to cool off, but it is up to 8.6 percent. The Federal Reserve is best suited for reining in inflation given its control over the money supply. As Milton Friedman said: Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. This doesn't mean Congress is helpless when it comes to responding to inflation. The most important thing that Congress can do is stop spending like drunken sailors. Even better would be to trim the budget to eliminate unnecessary spending. Congress can also provide targeted inflation relief. However, it must be done in a way that won't add to our growing debt or further fuel the flames of inflation. One way to do this is by providing targeted inflation relief that incentivizes and rewards taxpayers who save rather than spend. With today's high inflation, many in the middle class could see most or even all of their savings and investment gains wiped out by the inflation that is upon us. Yet, even though middle class savers may be losing money in real terms, they are still taxed on all gains and interest income as if inflation doesn't exist. This creates a perverse incentive that encourages taxpayers to consume today rather than to save today. This can push up the demand for goods and services, forcing prices higher and further fueling inflation. To help counter the current bias in favor of consumption, I now come to my proposal, a proposal subjecting most middle class savings and investment income to zero tax. Now, this isn't a silver bullet in the fight against inflation. Ultimately, the Federal Reserve will have to do the heavy lifting. However, unlike counterproductive Democrat policies, my proposals would incentivize and reward saving. As a result, it would get relief to the middle class without further fueling consumer demand or reducing production and supply. The title of the bill is the ``Middle-Class Savings and Investment Act.'' Under that bill, taxpayers in the 22-percent individual income tax bracket and lower would pay zero tax on their long-term capital gains and dividend income. Moreover, my proposal would allow individuals to exclude a reasonable amount of interest income from tax. For 2022, the combination of those proposals means an individual with a taxable income of below $89,075 or a married couple below $178,150 would largely be able to save tax-free. In addition to exempting the middle class from the tax on most of their savings and investment income, my proposal would enhance and expand the saver's credit. This provides a tax credit to low- to middle-income taxpayers who contribute to a tax-favored retirement account. My proposal would increase the maximum credit amount by $500 for married taxpayers and expand eligibility to more taxpayers. Finally, my proposal would address a massive marriage penalty that is gradually catching ever more taxpayers by surprise thanks just simply to inflation. Under ObamaCare, Democrats imposed a new 3.8-percent tax on investment income of taxpayers earning over $200,000 single or $250,000 married. Congress never indexed these thresholds for inflation; thus, given current inflation, it is likely it won't be long before millions of middle-class taxpayers find themselves squarely within the grasp of that marriage penalty. To prevent this, I index the income threshold for this tax to inflation. Moreover, I eliminate the marriage penalty by raising the threshold for married taxpayers to twice that for single earners. Of course, any relief provided must be fully paid for to ensure that we aren't just adding unsustainable debt and deficits. This is why my proposal is fully paid for by extending the $10,000 cap on State and local tax deductions beyond the current scheduled expiration at the end of 2025. The SALT deduction is a highly regressive tax subsidy that primarily benefits high-income taxpayers. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, more than half of the benefits from lifting the SALT cap would go to those making over $1 million a year. Extending the current cap on SALT--an otherwise highly regressive tax benefit--to provide immediate inflation relief to the middle class should be a no- brainer to all of my colleagues. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support this proposal.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there has been a lot of well-deserved attention to free expression limits on college campuses. My colleagues have heard me right here on this very Senate floor speak about the need for free expression many times. But one reason we have this issue at colleges is because students aren't exposed to the diverse ideas in our public schools and other K-12 institutions. So when brandnew college students encounter opposing ideas for the first time, you have heard it--they lash out. They demand what are called safe spaces on the college campuses. Now, that tells me that students are coming to college very unprepared to hear diverse views. If your own views have never been challenged, then you almost certainly have not developed the skills to evaluate different viewpoints and then go ahead and make up your own mind. So let's raise this question: Why are students arriving in college so resistant to hearing diverse views? I have been following some news stories on this subject last month, and all of this may not be entirely accidental, that our high school students aren't prepared to hear diverse viewpoints when they get to college. The American Federation of Teachers recently announced that it wants to put an extension on the computers of its 1.7 million members. The goal of this NewsGuard extension is to provide ``trust ratings'' of news websites. Although numerous studies have pointed to a clear leftwing bias from NewsGuard, the AFT still wanted to bring it into the classrooms across America. Now, that should not be our goal. Our goal should be to get political bias out of K-12 schools, not ingrain it. Contrariwise, a major focus that I have heard from Iowa teachers has been that we need to develop among our students critical thinking. Well, critical thinking requires listening to different ideas. If all students just agree with their teachers, that is repetition, not independent thinking. The disease that has infected so many colleges now seems to spread throughout our K-12 schools. I hope for our country's future we find a way to continue to show kids both sides of an argument rather than shutting down ideas that teachers may disagree with. I have heard from many Iowans concerned about exactly that kind of bias. But we can't fix it here in Washington, DC. The first rule of education policy should be that decisions are made as close to the family as possible. If you have issues with how your school is being run, your local school board should be your very first step. These elected officials are directly accountable to the parents in their own communities. A problem should only go up to the State legislature if it is caused by State law, and only a select few issues should go to this national level, where Federal intervention is found out to be the source of the problem. So if you see political bias or lack of diverse viewpoints in your kids' school, go to the people who can fix it. Make your voice heard both at school board meetings and at the ballot box. Border Security Madam President, on another subject, we had the good fortune of hearing a series of speeches last week led by my colleague from Iowa, Joni Ernst, on the critical situation at our southern border, with people violating our laws, coming into this country, and almost being invited into this country in violation of our laws because our laws say you need the permission of the United States to come to this country. So I didn't speak last week on that subject, but, as I have done on a number of occasions otherwise, I want to once again come to my colleagues about the border crisis created by President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, and maybe more throughout this administration. The crisis at our southern border is one of the top issues I hear at my county meetings. Iowans are understandably upset by President Biden's policies that have incentivized illegal immigration and created a historic crisis at the southern border. In the first 15 months of this administration, U.S. Customs and Border Protection--CBP, as we call it--has experienced over 2.7 million encounters with illegal immigrants at the southern border. That number is staggering. It is larger than the population of 15 States and Washington, DC. It is almost three times larger than the President's home State of Delaware. Make no mistake about it, this crisis is entirely the fault of President Biden and the policies that he put in place almost his first day in office. Since taking office, this administration has terminated physical barrier construction at the southern border. In other words, the wall that works to keep people from entering our country was stopped being built. Next, this administration attempted to severely limit the ability of ICE to deport illegal immigrants; also attempted to terminate the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy; rolled back asylum cooperative agreements; openly supported sanctuary city policies; embraced mass catch-and- release policies; put forward mass-amnesty legislative proposals that would do nothing to secure the border; and even attempted to terminate title 42 without any plan in place to deal with what happened when we increased the number of people illegally crossing our border from about 6- to 7,000 a day to 18,000 a day, and that figure comes from the estimates of our own executive branch government. Now, listing all these things, therefore, it shouldn't be a surprise to see a record-shattering surge of illegal immigration at our southern border. This is what happens when you make it clear that you have no intention of fully enforcing the Nation's immigration laws or cracking down on illegal immigration. As I have said before, it is an unfortunate reality that the President and his administration believe the surge in illegal immigration at the southern border due to his policies is a process to be managed rather than a crisis to be stopped. Until that mindset changes, this historic crisis at our southern border will continue. And President Biden, Secretary Mayorkas, and the irresponsible and reckless policies of this administration deserve all of the blame for the situation that we are in. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the executive branch executes the laws and uses taxpayer money that has been appropriated to do it according to congressional intent. Now, around here, we refer to seeing that the laws are faithfully executed as the constitutional responsibility of oversight of the Congress of the United States. In furtherance of that constitutional responsibility, Congress has an obligation to investigate the executive branch for fraud, waste, abuse, and gross mismanagement. I take my constitutional responsibilities of oversight very seriously. From time to time, I receive information that requires me to ask questions of the executive branch in efforts to better understand whether any wrongdoing has occurred and, if so, what remedial actions will be taken and employed to cure the damage done. That is what brings me to the floor of the Senate today, focusing on Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault at the FBI's Washington Field Office. Last week, while I was meeting with my constituents in Iowa, I sent a letter to the Justice Department and the FBI and also a letter to the Department of Justice's inspector general. In those letters, I provided evidence of extreme leftwing bias shown by Special Agent Thibault. Now, in his position, he is a very powerful agent within the FBI--so powerful that he can open and close Federal public corruption cases and investigations. He is a shining example, at the same time, of what is wrong with the FBI. Andrew McCarthy wrote about Mr. Thibault last week and wondered what the heck has happened with the FBI. This FBI agent's leftwing political bias was exposed by his very own LinkedIn and Twitter accounts. There, in those accounts, he posted highly partisan material related to his superiors, matters under the FBI's purview, and matters under his own purview. His LinkedIn network includes current and former FBI personnel. The general public is able to review his social media content, which includes his political views, his political biases, and objections. Thibault, under the title of Assistant Special Agent in Charge, directly posted a partisan article related to the LTG Michael Flynn case to his LinkedIn account. The article was a September 3, 2020, opinion piece from the Washington Post, entitled ``Why the Michael Flynn case still matters,'' which was about the ``Trump administration's abuses of the justice system.'' He also ``liked'' other politically charged articles relating to then-President Trump and his superior, then-Attorney General Barr. Thibault's public political association doesn't even end with those examples. According to his Twitter feed, which is also under his name, he mocked the election of one of our new colleagues, Senator Tuberville, and the State of Mississippi at the same time. He said: Thank God for Mississippi--state motto of Alabama. I am not sure exactly what that means, but it is pretty clear that he is making fun. When Representative Liz Cheney tweeted ``Dick Cheney says wear a mask,'' Thibault replied with this: Your dad was a disgrace. He recently tweeted: Can we give Kentucky to the Russian Federation? In response to a Catholic priest's tweet that was critical of abortion, he tweeted an anti-Catholic slur to both Catholic priests and then-President Trump: Focus on the pedophiles. There are other examples, but I think it is pretty clear you get the bias of this particular special agent. You get the picture, in other words. After my letters were made public, he reportedly then set his tweets to protected mode and deleted his LinkedIn profile. His social media activity likely violated several Federal regulations and Department guidelines. The guidelines are designed to prevent political bias from infecting FBI matters. Such restrictions on political activity are heightened by senior FBI officials like Thibault because of the risk of improper influence on investigative matters. If he projects this type of political sentiment in public, using his name and title, there is absolutely no telling what he is doing within the privacy of his office and in front of subordinates. The fact that this FBI agent has the power to open and close investigations, particularly into political figures--Republican and/or Democrat--is cause for serious concern. His actions present a grave risk of political infection and bias in his official decision-making process. Let me ask: What have the Justice Department and FBI done to oversee his work behavior? Let me ask: How many investigations have been infected by this political bias by this special agent? I fear, for many years, he has been able to do whatever he has wanted to do. Accordingly, such conduct unquestionably undermines both the Justice Department and the FBI because, at a minimum, it creates the perception of the unequal application of the law. At the maximum, his political bias has materially affected investigative matters that he has been a part of. This is why the American people have lost confidence in the Justice Department and the FBI to do the jobs that those two Agencies are assigned to do under our law. Political considerations have infected these Agencies, and the cost is a loss of faith in the very institutions that depend on the American people's trust for the credibility of these Agencies. My press release last week listed a phone number and an email address for the Justice Department and FBI whistleblowers to contact my office if they know some of these similar things that we need to know. Since then, I have had whistleblowers reach out to me about Thibault and others. I will have more to say on that matter, in the coming weeks, to my colleagues here in the Senate. I urge anyone who is willing to speak to government waste, fraud, abuse, and gross mismanagement to contact me. And, of course, I strongly urge the Justice Department and the FBI to clean house without hesitation. Transparency brings accountability, and my future investigative actions in this space will do exactly that. I am asking my colleagues to stay tuned. 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. Each year since then, the month of May has been recognized as a time to bring awareness to youth in foster care. I thank my colleagues for once again unanimously passing a resolution to recognize the experiences of youth and families in the foster care system and celebrate those who work to improve their lives. Organizations in Iowa and around the country tirelessly serve kids and families in foster care and the foster parents who open their homes to kids in need. I salute these organizations and individuals for their year-round efforts to support the kids most in need. In 2020, there were over 400,000 kids in foster care, including over 4,000 kids in Iowa. During the pandemic, there was a drop in reports of child abuse, as well as entries into foster care and exits from foster care. There were the fewest adoptions from foster care since 2016 with 8,000 fewer children being adopted compared to the previous year. However, Iowa deserves recognition for being one of only nine States to increase adoptions from foster care during 2020. Permanency for youth in foster care is so important, and I am glad that Iowa continued to make this a priority during the pandemic. 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. These young adults should always have a seat at the table. When I founded the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth in 2009, the special focus was to hear directly from youth themselves. Over and over again, I have heard the same thing from kids in foster care: They want a mom and dad. They want a family and a place to call home. All children, no matter their circumstances, deserve a permanent, loving home and consistent, caring adults in their lives. We know that just having one caring and consistent adult can meaningfully improve the lives of kids in the long-term. For some kids, this can be a biological parent who receives the support they need to safely care for their child. For others, a foster parent, mentor or court-appointed special advocate can be that adult. My resolution marks May 31 as a particular day to recognize and show appreciation for foster parents. Congress has worked to expand access to prevention services in the hopes of keeping families out of foster care in the first place. But in addition to this, it is crucial for foster parents to get the support they need to continue serving kids in their communities. In Iowa, almost every county has a shortage of trained foster parents who are able to provide a temporary home for kids. Without volunteer foster parents, kids who cannot remain safely at home end up sleeping in hotels and in the offices of social workers. Moving forward, Congress must continue to work to find better solutions and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care. It is clear that there is no one answer for kids in foster care. Some can be reunified with their families; others are best cared for by adoptive parents or a kinship caregiver. But the goal should always be the same: to protect kids from neglect and abuse and provide them with love and support. I thank my colleagues for unanimously passing my resolution honoring May as National Foster Care Month once again and look forward to continuing to work on this issue.