Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak today on the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act. As I have said many times, I am committed to fighting political violence from across the political spectrum. This bill doesn't help us do that. In fact, career DOJ attorneys reviewing the legislation have indicated that the bill is ``harmful'' and ``counterproductive.'' I use their words. This short bill merely reorganizes the government offices that already fight domestic terrorism in DHS, DOJ, and the FBI. This reorganization wasn't sought by the Agencies themselves. In fact, in technical assistance provided to us, the operators pointed out a number of problems with it. For example, the bill assigns responsibilities monitoring and analyzing domestic terrorism activity to DHS that actually belong in FBI. The other major feature of the legislation is a direction to the Agencies that they must focus on the greatest historical threats, looking backward. The operators have told us this means they can't be agile or address rapidly evolving threats if they were to follow this law. I am always willing to listen to the needs of Agencies that keep Americans safe. In fact, there are authorities that DOJ and the FBI need, for international terrorism. I introduced an amendment to the NDAA last year, to expand these authorities. I hope we will pass it into law this year. The domestic and international functions work together, and siloing them would not help DOJ fight terrorism. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act won't help us prevent or combat terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote no on moving to this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last April, I came to the floor to honor fallen Iowa State Patrol Sergeant Jim Smith, who was murdered trying to apprehend a violent criminal. Last week, justice was served. His killer was convicted. I thank everyone who worked on this case. Today, after the completion of National Police Week, it is with a heavy heart that I recognize another Iowa State Patrol officer killed in the line of duty last year in a tragic car accident. State Patrol Trooper Ted Benda was a dedicated servant of the people of Iowa for 16 years. He began his career in Marquette and later moved to the Iowa State Patrol to serve the communities of Mason City and Oelwein. Trooper Benda was beloved by his colleagues who described him as dedicated. He ``fully embraced the call to protect the community.'' He put his family first, always lent a hand to friends and neighbors and cherished both his country and his community. Even in death, his service continued. As an organ donor, Trooper Benda continued to save lives. Trooper Benda: We thank you. Trooper Benda left behind a loving family including his wife, Holly, and his four young daughters: Madilyn, Avery, Vivyan, and Sylvia. Let me say to them: Your immeasurable sacrifice is honored by your community and your country. We thank you. Losses like Trooper Benda's remind us of the great dangers that law enforcement officers and first responders face in service to our communities. Last week, the Judiciary Committee held a Police Week markup. We passed several important measures through our committee that will help the police. Soon, at my request, the Judiciary Committee will have a hearing on attacks on police. I have and will continue to lead efforts in the Senate to support law enforcement. After all that they have done to protect and serve us, it is the least I can do to protect and serve them.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, farmers across Iowa are finishing their planting of corn and soybeans. As for the Grassley farm, Robin and Pat Grassley finished planting last Thursday. Most people have never stepped foot on a family farm, let alone know all about the complexities that go into planting, growing, and harvesting a bountiful crop. That is why I often use my social media to show my followers what is going on in farming--hashtag ``corn watch,'' hashtag ``soybean watch.'' I like to show how only 2 percent of the population raises food for the other 98 percent, plus exporting one- third of our production to feed people overseas. Food doesn't just magically appear on grocery store shelves. When so few people know what it takes to produce food, we often run into obstacles at policymaking tables here in Congress and around Washington, DC. I often quote something Dwight Eisenhower said, and he said it best: Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field. There has never been a more important time than right now for farmers to have a successful year. We are facing a world threatened by food shortages and food insecurity the likes of which we haven't seen since the Arab Spring a decade ago, in large part today because of Putin's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. The productivity of the American farmers and ranchers this crop season will have a big impact on the security and prosperity of countries around the world, as well as to make sure we don't get into a devastating shortage of food. With so much at stake, Washington, DC, must provide farmers across the country a consistent policy when it comes to regulation of inputs and crop protection products. One State out of fifty can't go another direction without bringing harm to food production. When it comes to the regulation of these products, public policy must be based on the best science available to make informed decisions. Science-based decisions shouldn't surprise anybody in this town because science was the Golden Rule in every coronavirus decision made in the Trump administration and still being made in the Biden administration. The best science is why Congress enacted, in 1972, the regulation that goes by the title of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or FIFRA for short. Since 1972, FIFRA has expressly preempted State law, vested the EPA with final authority over pesticide labeling and the usage of that pesticide. Specifically, FIFRA gave the EPA authority over pesticide labeling and the usage of that pesticide. Under FIFRA, it is the EPA's responsibility to undertake very extensive scientific review of regulated products and then determine what disclosures, if any, must be on the product labels. FIFRA provides that EPA conduct studies to determine product safety. Congress intended that there be a Federal regulatory regime that would impose warnings, impose disclosures, and impose restrictions on the use of products under FIFRA. Congress made it very clear that Congress wanted science-based certainty and predictability for farmers and the resulting benefit that is to the farm entire economy. Unfortunately, we have seen politically motivated environmentalists pushing for restrictions on regulated products that the EPA has determined are not necessary. This fundamentally undermines trust in the EPA and trust in Federal regulation of these products used in farming. Make no doubt about my stand or anybody's stand here in the U.S. Senate, we all strongly support thorough vetting of regulated products to ensure public safety. However, I strongly support ensuring Iowa farmers have the supplies they need to feed families across America. I hope President Biden would agree with me. His administration should be putting forward policies and taking positions that protect public safety, while ensuring farmers can produce the food that we need here in America and that we are able to supply one-third of our production for overseas. As we look at the world with a growing shortage of food-- as I emphasized, partly because of what is going on in Ukraine--we must then ask ourselves what more we can be doing to support farmers. Unfortunately, some recent decisions just made by this administration do just exactly the opposite. I said ``just made by this administration'' because 2 weeks ago, President Biden's Solicitor General filed a brief in a case involving widely used pesticides. In that brief, the Solicitor General flipped the government's long-held position that FIFRA preempts State law and instead argued against EPA's authority. So it looks to me like politics overcomes science. You would think such a significant change would be firmly based on the law and science, just as I said. However, the Solicitor General explained this astounding change wasn't based on science because it was based on politics. Perhaps that is why the EPA general counsel's name doesn't appear on the brief. I heard from many constituents about how serious of an impact the position taken by Biden's Solicitor General would have on the farming industry at-large. If the Court, meaning the Supreme Court, effectively adopts the Solicitor General's position and that of the lower court decision, it will fundamentally disrupt the Federal regulation of use and of warnings under FIFRA related to substances such as these that farmers rely on every day in production agriculture. It is clear that it wasn't the intent of Congress when it enacted FIFRA for there to be 50 State standards in addition to Federal standards because we all know the purpose of FIFRA was to create a uniform regime with authority vested in the EPA to set such standards, and that has never been questioned until now. It is shocking that President Biden chose to put forward an argument that undermines the public trust in the EPA by putting politics ahead of the longstanding and consistent EPA regulation that enables farmers to grow the food that we and the world need. This abrupt change in the administration's position will have serious implications for the farm economy and our food supply. Again, there needs to be a consistent regulatory regime to ensure the public's trust and to support U.S. agriculture so farmers can produce food, again, I say, that the Nation needs and the world needs. So I hope the Solicitor General reverses her position, and even if she doesn't reverse her position, I hope the Supreme Court of the United States will be willing to hear this case. I want to now quote Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, I think, in 1970. This winner was born and raised in Iowa: If you desire peace, cultivate justice, but at the same time cultivate the fields to produce more bread; otherwise there will be no peace. I think what he is referring to there is--at least what I believe and I have heard--that societies are only nine meals away from revolution. In other words, if you are a father and a mother and you can't feed your kids for 3 days, you will go to almost any end to make sure they get the food. So if you want social cohesion in America and around the world, we have to have enough food to feed our people. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to finish my remarks before the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. On September 23, 2021, November 30, 2021, and again on February 15, 2022, I spoke on this floor about the fake Russia Alfa- Bank narrative. That narrative started in 2016. It took on a new life when Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann met with FBI General Counsel James Baker. In that meeting, Sussmann provided information and data files that allegedly contained evidence of a secret communication channel between the Trump organization and a Russian bank, Alfa-Bank. The evidence was fabricated by the Clinton campaign. The allegations about the Trump organization being linked with a Russian bank were false. Of note, Sussmann also provided Baker information Fusion GPS gave him as part of their work for the Clinton campaign. This was an all-hands-on-deck strategy to destroy the Trump Presidency and the campaign. With the ongoing Sussmann trial now underway here in DC, the false Alfa-Bank narrative is more relevant now than ever before. I want to tell you why. A mere several days after the meeting with James Baker, the FBI opened a full investigation on September 23, 2016. Around that time, an FBI agent working on cyber matters reviewed the information provided by Sussmann. That agent said: We did not agree with the conclusion . . . that this represented a secret communication channel. He also stated that ``whoever had written that paper had jumped to some conclusions that were not supported by the data'' and that ``the methodology they chose was questionable to me.'' Here is the kicker: I did not feel that they were objective in the conclusions that they came to. The assumption that you would have to make was so far-reaching that it just didn't make sense. So last Friday, in a courtroom, Robby Mook, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, testified that Hillary Clinton was asked about the plan to share this fake information with the media. Hillary Clinton approved that plan. Jake Sullivan was involved in that decision as well. He is, of course, as we know, President Biden's National Security Advisor. The Clinton campaign fabricated evidence trying to connect Trump to Russia. They fed it to the media to start a yearslong wildfire of false allegations. They fed it to the FBI to trigger a Federal investigation into their opposing candidate. I said it before and will say it again: The Clinton campaign was the conspiracy, and it was a big bag of dirty tricks. This false Alfa-Bank information eventually landed with the media outlet Slate, which ran an article on October 31, 2016. After that article, Sullivan, the now National Security Advisor, issued his now- infamous tweet: ``This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.'' Hillary Clinton also tweeted: ``Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.'' Now, they weren't the only ones pleased with this fake news. On October 13, 2020, Senator Johnson and I wrote a letter to the FBI where we made public texts between Andrew McCabe and Lisa Page. Page says to McCabe: And the Alfa-Bank story is in Slate. McCabe's reply: Awesome. The FBI's excitement didn't end there. This week, Durham's prosecutors introduced a message between FBI agents that said: People on the 7th floor to include Director are fired up about this server. Now, they--meaning the FBI seventh floor people--were ``fired up'' about fake information, which is just terrible. The FBI's job is really to get fired up about fake information? It is more than that, however; it is a gut-wrenching attack on our system of government. Now, there is another data point that I want to share. Durham recently released notes from a March 6, 2017, meeting between the Justice Department and FBI officials. In that meeting, they discussed predication and Crossfire Hurricane issues. This meeting was 2 weeks before then-Director Comey publicly announced his investigation into Trump. On that very day, March 6, 2017, I wrote a letter to Comey asking questions about the Steele dossier. My press release for that letter is titled ``FBI plan to pay ex-spy for Trump intel during campaign sparks questions of Obama administration's use of federal authorities for political gain.'' That was from March 6, 2017. Now, in May of 2022, that title just about sums up Crossfire Hurricane as best as it can be described. Now, in closing, I would like to make a few notes with respect to predication. The September 23, 2016, FBI electronic communication opened a full investigation into the Alfa-Bank allegations, but let's unpack the first few lines from that document. The FBI received a referral of information from the US Department of Justice. The Department of Justice provided the FBI with a white paper that was produced by an anonymous third party. Well, the information didn't come from the Department of Justice; it came from Sussmann and the Clinton campaign--hardly an anonymous third party since Sussmann himself showed up at the door. By wording it this way, the document almost blesses this so-called white paper. Mind you, the white paper is the false Alfa-Bank information. By the looks of it, this FBI document contains false information. I fear these recent developments are just the tip of the iceberg. The FBI's exposure to false information and actually using that false information for investigative purposes wreaks of a political vendetta. It points to a ``get Trump at all costs'' attitude. Whether Sussmann is convicted or not, the evidence introduced by Durham shows serious government misconduct--misconduct by the Federal Government of the United States of America. Special Counsel Durham can't let government misconduct go unpunished. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that Senator Fischer and I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each before the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when Democrats blew up the filibuster for nominees some 8 years ago, Republicans warned then that they would regret that move when the tables were turned. It seemed like such short-term thinking on the Democrats' part, but I have said before that progressive ideology has many Democrats convinced that they are, so to speak, on the side of history in the long run. If you believe history is heading only in one direction and that direction is your way, you don't worry about the pendulum swinging back. That explains why they broke from 200 years of precedent to filibuster conservative judges nominated by President George W. Bush and then expressed shock and outrage when their own precedent was used against them under President Obama. That ideology also explains why Democrats can passionately defend the filibuster one day as a vital protection for the minority and then just months later, after taking control of a 50-50 Senate thanks only to the Vice President's tie- breaking vote, call the filibuster racist. The phrase ``demography is destiny'' as applied to politics today is another version of progressive ideology. The assumption with ``demography is destiny'' is that ethnic minorities who tend to vote Democrat are bound to vote that way forever, so they support an open- border policy, with a push for amnesty, even if it green-lights human trafficking and lets the lethal fentanyl pour into the bloodstreams of young Americans, driving down life expectancy in our country. Progressive Democrats assume more Hispanic citizens means more votes for them and then, somehow, a permanent majority. Let me remind you that Republicans thought that, after the elections of 1994 and 2010, that we would have a permanent majority. It didn't work out that way. Just like the Irish and Italians of the late 1800s and early 1900s, Hispanic citizens who have assimilated into the fabric of our Nation do not vote as a bloc. So, just maybe, that is why the left seems increasingly desperate to stoke identity politics and racial division. Such thinking leads to counterproductive calls to, as an example, defund the police, followed by a desperate attempt to do a 180-degree turn when crime spikes and the very communities they sought to pander then end up suffering. Remember how so many prominent Democrats felt compelled to defend and justify rioters they deemed to be on their side? Now Democrats insist not just on prosecuting January 6 rioters, as we should with all rioters, but on weaponizing that horrible day for political purposes. They decry disinformation. They decry conspiracy theories on the right about the election while perpetuating conspiracy theories on the left. Remember the absurd claim that because the Postmaster General supported President Trump, absentee ballots wouldn't be delivered in the 2020 election? It caused a lot of unnecessary worry for many Iowans who vote absentee. Democrats call for supporting our elections while at the same time touting false claims of systemic voter suppression, deeply undermining faith in our democracy. Democrats do not seem to support America's democratic institutions for those democratic institutions' own sake. But if the Democrats are convinced that they are not just right but on the right side of history, institutions are only worth preserving so long as they can be used to advance their own agenda. You cannot have respectful disagreement with someone on the wrong side of history. In fact, you demonize those people. This kind of thinking pits neighbor against neighbor and drives wedges within our communities. This sense of division comes up in every one of my 99 county meetings in Iowa. I sense Iowans are fed up with this poison. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to honor the life and legacy of Julianne ``Julie'' Beckett of Cedar Rapids, IA. Julie was a mother and passionate advocate for children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities. I got to know Julie very well over the years as the result of her daughter, Katie Beckett, and Julie's passionate advocacy on Federal policy work such as Katie Beckett waivers, Family Opportunity Act, Money Follows-the-Person, Family-to-Family Health Information Centers, Advancing Care for Exceptional Kids Act, Accelerating Access to Kids Care Act, and more. Julie's daughter, Katie, was born in Cedar Rapids, IA, on March 9, 1978. Five months after she was born, Katie contracted viral encephalitis followed by grand mal seizures. The encephalitis caused damage to her central nervous system and her respiratory system, and she was attached to a ventilator. She would be almost 2 years old before she could breathe on her own. Under Medicaid law at the time, Katie could only receive care through Medicaid if she remained in the hospital, even though she was able to receive care at home. Iowa Congressman Tom Tauke heard of Katie's situation and realized that it made no sense to keep a child in the hospital who could be at home with her family. He worked to convince the Reagan administration that the system should be changed to allow States to provide Medicaid to children receiving care in their homes. Ultimately, President Ronald Reagan took up Katie's cause, intervening so that Katie could receive treatment at home and still be covered under Medicaid. In the 1980s, Julie and Katie were able to help change national policy that became known as ``Katie Beckett waivers'' and, to date, more than a half million disabled children have been able to receive care in their homes with their families rather than being forced into hospitals and institutions. Katie passed away on May 18, 2012. Since then, Julie continued her advocacy. Sadly, last Friday, May 13, 2022, Julie passed away. As the result of Julie's advocacy, children like Katie are able to live a healthy, happy, and independent life. Our Nation has lost a passionate advocate for children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities. For more than 40 years, Julie advocated and organized the voices of families of children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities. Julie cofounded Family Voices, a national family-led organization of families and friends of children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities. Julie was instrumental in passing the Family Opportunity Act, which established Family-to-Family Health Information Centers and created options for families with children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities to buy into Medicaid while continuing to work, among other important provisions. Julie also worked at Child Health Specialty Clinics in Iowa for 30 years and served as a consultant with the American Academy of Pediatrics. In 2021, she was honored with the Family Voices Legacy Award in recognition of her outstanding lifetime contributions to healthcare policy and services that have improved the lives of children with special healthcare needs and disabilities and their families. Julie positively impacted the lives of children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities and their families. While Julie would often say she was ``Katie Beckett's mom,'' we also knew her as a passionate advocate and servant leader. Julie's lifelong pursuit to improve the lives of children and youth with special healthcare needs and disabilities made an impact for the better for her community, State, and Nation. Godspeed, my friend.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I intend to lift my objection to proceeding to the consideration of the nomination of Mayor Eric Garcetti, of California, to be the U.S. Ambassador to India. Today, I released the findings of a staff review examining whether Mr. Garcetti was aware of allegations of misconduct by a former senior adviser. I am making these findings public in the interest of transparency and for the benefit of my colleagues as the Senate fulfills its advice and consent duties. I intend to lift my hold on the nomination, but based on what I have learned, I intend to vote no if the nomination is considered by the full Senate. Please see the full investigative report here: https:// www.grassley.senate.gov/download/report-on-investigation-into-eric- garcetti-nominated-to-be-ambassador-to-the-republic-of-india.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to celebrate with my colleagues the month of May as National Beef Month, and I come to the floor not just to say that we ought to eat more beef and help the farmers and cattlemen of this country. Before I get to something else, though, Iowa has the seventh largest cattle inventory in the United States and ranks fourth in the country for cattle and calves on feed. While I usually focus on the need for a fair and transparent market for cattle producers, today I want to draw attention to the job that cattle producers across the country have feeding America and the world. Over the last 30 years, the U.S. population has increased by 80 million people. In that same period, the world's population has grown by more than 3 billion people. In the face of a growing population, farmers across America have been faced with a challenging question: How do we meet the growing demands for food while also lowering our environmental footprint? American farmers and ranchers have risen to that occasion; in other words, not just producing more food but helping the environment at the same time. Farmers in all segments have expanded production to fulfill increasing demand while protecting our environment. The United States is currently producing 80 percent more pork, 48 percent more milk, and 18 percent more beef than just 30 years ago. Now, you would think, with all that increase in production, you would have more of an environmental problem, but despite the increases in production, per unit greenhouse gas emissions from pork production have decreased by 20 percent and 8 percent for beef production. Nonetheless, environmentalists still seem to place unwarranted blame on farmers for contributing to our changing and warming climate. The recent narrative that U.S. agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions is simply not true. Now get that--it is simply not true. According to the EPA, only 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. The leading sources of greenhouse gas emissions contribute nearly twice as many emissions as the agriculture industry does. Transportation contributes 27 percent, electricity contributes 25 percent, general industry is contributing 24 percent. So I am here to set the record straight. For the last 30 years, American farmers have been reducing greenhouse gas emissions with each meal served by embracing efficiency and the adoption of new technologies. Agriculture needs to have a seat at the table for these conversations because farmers are the first conservationists and can help offset emissions from other sectors of the American economy. Whether it is creating carbon sinks on farmland to produce biofuels or turning farm waste into energy, farmers have taken a very active role in reducing the environmental impact of agriculture. Research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that even if the entire world was vegan, it would lower global emissions by less than one-half of 1 percent, while losing access to high-quality protein very much needed in the diets of human beings. However, the facts that I have mentioned do not matter to radical environmental groups or the mainstream media. Articles on food sustainability often focus on how eating insects and bugs can help save the planet. A simple search on the internet reveals some unsettling articles in our publications. A headline from Time magazine reads like this: ``How Humans Eating Insects Could Help Save the Planet.'' Then from the publication The Atlantic: ``To Save the World, Eat Bugs.'' And from the New York Times--can you imagine, the New York Times: ``Why Aren't We Eating More Insects?'' All of these stories have a very common thread--to solve world hunger and to protect the environment, the American people and the world need to eat bugs and insects. But as I have already laid out, you can just eat more beef and feel good about the environmental impact. Now, as for me, I will be doing my part in May to honor National Beef Month. I will be eating juicy hamburgers or eating steak, if the price isn't too outrageous--and it is right now. I will be supporting cattlemen from Iowa who produce the highest quality beef in the world. Farmers know firsthand the importance of a clean and healthy environment. It is simply unfair to place the blame of a changing climate on the backs of farmers. As a nation, we must stand with the farmers across the country and work with them to promote a clean environment. I will continue working at the policymaking table to ensure our cattle producers can continue raising high-quality beef for generations to come and that families can enjoy it at their kitchen tables at prices they can afford. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak about Orrin Hatch, whom many of us were fortunate enough to work with for many, many years. He had a tremendous impact on the U.S. Senate and, in turn, on America. Barbara and I first want to express our condolences to Elaine, his wife, to their six children and their families, and to all of those who mourn the passing of this outstanding public servant and humble servant of the Lord. Senator Hatch's funeral will be this Friday. In December of 2018, as his incredible 42 years in the U.S. Senate were drawing to a close, Orrin Hatch delivered the usual farewell address of retiring Members here on the Senate floor. Concerned about the direction that he had seen this institution take in recent years, he said: We must restore the culture of comity, compromise, and mutual respect that used to exist here--and still does, in some respects. He also said: We must not be enemies but friends. In his farewell address and in the quotes that I just read, Orrin's commitment to mutual respect and integrity is made very clear. It is also a charge to us to honor his memory by taking his words to heart as we go about our work here and in what we do across the country. During Orrin's career, he served as chairman of the Finance Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and as President pro tem of the U.S. Senate. I have had the honor of doing those same three things. The Finance Committee and the Judiciary Committee are powerful committees that deal with matters of broad importance to America. Decisions are made there that directly affect the lives of all Americans. Many times, dearly held beliefs and principles held by different Senators come into conflict during long hours of work on important legislation or with high-level Cabinet and judicial nominations. Many of the tributes to Orrin have already made an observation which I share from our decades of working together at the negotiating table. Orrin was an unflinching, dyed-in-the-wool statesman who stayed true to his values and his convictions and finessed disagreements with a spirit of collegiality. He always remembered that he was working with friends and not enemies, and he always remembered why he was in the U.S. Senate--to represent the great people of Utah. Orrin's ability to disagree without being disagreeable was evident from his incredible level of productivity. According to the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation, when he retired, he had passed more legislation into law than any living Senator and had sponsored or cosponsored more than 750 bills that were enacted into law. As anyone who has spent any length of time in the Senate knows very well, getting legislation enacted into law, especially any enduring legislation, requires the ability to develop relationships and build trust with Members of both parties. To be productive over the long term, those relationships need to be able to withstand the unproductive partisanship that tends to dominate the fleeting issues of the day. Some of Orrin's most significant legislative accomplishments highlight his ability to work across the aisle. A prime example is the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, also known as Hatch-Waxman, stemming from his work with longtime Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman. Another important piece of legislation is the State Children's Health Insurance Program on which he worked with the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Orrin regularly talked about working with his good friend Senator Kennedy. For many years, Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy appeared to be complete opposites. They couldn't imagine that those two Senators, with very different views, could even work together, much less be friends. People who say that don't understand how the Senate works. Orrin's spirit of bipartisanship didn't come at the expense of his principles. Whether he was criticized for compromising with Democrats or for not compromising enough, Orrin stuck with what he believed was the right thing to do. As chairman of the Finance Committee, during consideration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Orrin took the lead in drafting the most important tax reform legislation to be enacted in more than 30 years. When staff would discuss provisions to be included in the legislation, Orrin would repeatedly ask what the tax policy was. This was always his primary concern, not what was the most politically expedient policy or the best policy with which to win reelection. Orrin wanted to get the details right, and the rest of his decisions flowed from that perspective. I know because I worked with him for decades on that committee, particularly during that legislation. Despite the criticism he would get from all sides, Orrin would never let that drive him off course from sticking with his values and from being civil with his colleagues. In his office, Orrin had a statue of a red-tailed hawk that staff had given to him. It had a plaque on it that said, ``Tough old bird.'' He adopted that phrase to describe himself to reporters and many who met him in his office. His ``tough old bird'' status was fully evident one late night during the Finance Committee's consideration of that tax bill I have referred to--the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. When Republicans were accused of only being interested in looking out for the very rich, Orrin forcefully noted his own very humble beginnings. He shared how he had worked his whole career for ``people who don't have a chance.'' Another principle Orrin shared with me was the importance of staff. To be effective day in and day out and to sift through the avalanche of information that comes into every Senator's office, good staff is vital, particularly when a Senator has served for a lengthy period of time. Staff is important to preserving the institutional memory of a committee. From years of around-the-clock work, they become really a second family. They may not share blood ties, but they share loyalty and share service to dig down into the trenches when policymaking and politics become a blood sport. So having longevity and cohesion within a staff is very, very important. A tradition that I believe was unique to the Hatch office was the election of a Pioneer Day's King and Queen from the people within that office. Now, Pioneer Day is a Utah State holiday that celebrates the entry of the first Mormon pioneers into Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847. To recognize that holiday, everyone working for Senator Hatch, whether in his personal office or on a committee he chaired, would vote for a King and Queen from a slate of candidates from within that office. At a lunch attended by the whole office, Orrin would announce the winners and crown the King and Queen. The coronation was a salute to their service to the people of Utah, whose enduring pioneering spirit rings true to this very day. Outside of ensuring his office was a place that good staff would want to work, Orrin was no aloof boss. His sincerity shined through with me and his Senate colleagues and then, of course, with his staff. He wanted to know what was happening in his staff's lives and made sure to say that he appreciated their advice even when he might not take that advice. In closing, I return to what I said about Orrin and what he said in his farewell address. I associate myself with his remarks that we must be friends and not enemies. That is how we can honor Orrin Hatch and keep his spirit within this institution that he cared so much for and devoted much of his life to--here, right here, in the Senate. Orrin's lifetime of public service helped generations of families in Utah achieve a better quality of life and made America and the U.S. Senate a better place. Godspeed, my friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Joshua Frost to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets. While by most accounts Mr. Frost is qualified for this position, I will vote against his nomination out of growing concerns that the Treasury Department has been derelict in its responsibilities to the Senate Finance Committee and its members. The most recent example of Treasury thumbing its nose at the committee is the unprecedented delay of Secretary Yellen in agreeing to testify before the committee on the President's budget. Typically, the Treasury Secretary agrees to testify before the Finance Committee the week that the President releases his budget. Since 2005, the only other time a Treasury Secretary testified before the committee more than 3 days after the release of the President's budget was Secretary Geithner in 2009, and he appeared just 6 days after the President released his budget. This year, 37 days have passed since the President unveiled his budget, and Secretary Yellen has yet to agree on a date to come before the committee. Finance Committee members have been informed that the earliest Secretary Yellen will appear before the committee is sometime in June, more than 2 months after the release of the President's budget. The reason given for this unprecedented delay is that Secretary Yellen is too busy to fit the Finance Committee into her schedule. This excuse rings hollow when just last week she was able to find time in her busy schedule to give the keynote address at an event held at the liberal Brookings Institution. So Secretary Yellen has time in her busy schedule to address the D.C. liberal intelligentsia at the Brookings Institution, but can't find time to answer the questions of elected Members of Congress and their constituents? This is unacceptable, and the Treasury Department must be held to account for shirking its responsibilities. In light of this, I intend to vote against the nomination of Mr. Frost to be an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Markets. Vote on Frost Nomination

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there has been a lot of noise about canceling student debt. That has been going on for quite a few months, but it seems to have taken on a new life here within the last week to 10 days. That whole talk is worse than closing the barn door after the horse has escaped; it is like buying a new horse but leaving the barn door open. If all student debt was gone tomorrow, we would be right back where we started when this whole new crop of students graduate. Last month, the administration unilaterally extended all the pause on paying back student loans for all borrowers until the end of August, regardless of need. It doesn't matter that all Americans are back to work now, if they want to be back to work. It doesn't matter if the borrower is making six figures and can afford to pay off their loans. The latest extension will bring the cost of this student loan payment pause up to about $150 billion. Just to put that $150 billion in context, the entire Department of Education budget for this year is about half of that amount at $80 billion. Higher education advocates have been calling for the doubling of the Pell grant. That is the program that targets aid to those with the most financial need. It is a noble goal to double the Pell grant; but, of course, Congress needs to find the money somewhere to do just that. Now, instead, the Biden administration is spending billions of dollars to allow high earners with graduate degrees to not pay their loans with no say from the Congress of the United States. And you know the President of the United States has been debating for months--maybe starting at the beginning of his term--did he really have the authority to do it. He has expressed the opinion, at least on the $50,000 figure, that he didn't figure he had the authority to do it. I question whether he has that authority at all. If you want to help those who owe more in student loans than they can afford to pay, we need to fix the student loan program on the front end. In other words, we need to change the incentives and give colleges a reason to bring down tuition. Right now, a high school student looking at college is often in the dark about what they will end up paying to attend college and to get that degree. It is no wonder that prices rise when students don't know even what those prices are. And students are encouraged, of course, to borrow the maximum even if they don't need that maximum, because that is what the Federal law requires. So in response to this problem about a Federal policy encouraging students to go into more debt than they need to get their degree and also about the rising tuition costs because colleges think they can raise their tuition at will because the Federal Government is going to come in and help the student, I have introduced three bipartisan bills to give students the information they need to make the choice that works best for them. My bills would make it easier for students to see how much each college would cost, what aid they are going to be getting, and what their average salary versus student loan payments would be. The answer isn't to cancel student debt only after students have gotten in well over their heads, it is to stop them from getting into that situation in the very first place. And it certainly wouldn't be done unilaterally from the White House with no say from this Congress on the $150 billion program. Now, even worse, the benefits of just canceling or pausing student debt are mainly going to those at the top of the income range. Graduates with the most debt also tend to be those with the longest degrees and they are now doctors or lawyers. These people, doctors and lawyers, might have plenty of debt now, but people with graduate degrees are also much more likely to have a higher salary and much higher lifetime earnings. Are the two-thirds of the Americans without college degrees somehow less deserving of a free $10,000 or $50,000 in canceled debt than doctors or lawyers? And what about those people that have already paid off their loans? Are they going to bear the costs of people that borrowed too much when this is forgiven at the $10,000 or $50,000 level? I am sure many Iowans would be happy to have their car loans or mortgages paid off. Is there any thought about what this can lead to? It is pretty clear. Canceling debt is not a solution. Instead, I have been glad to see many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join my bills to prevent excess student debt in the very first place. We need to help students by giving them the information they need to find the best college for their needs at a cost they can afford. Otherwise, forgiving student debt is a slippery slope to a lot of other interests wanting debt forgiveness. 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. Soon, we will be voting on Judge Jackson's nomination, and I would like to explain why I am voting against her appointment to the Supreme Court. Since the White House announced Judge Jackson's nomination, I have emphasized the need for a thorough and fair process. Unfortunately, the majority party weren't concerned about the rigorous examination of her record. The White House and the majority party have shielded important information. We don't have any nonpublic document from her time at the Sentencing Commission, and the Obama White House held back more than 48,000 pages. Judge Jackson also gave the White House confidential, nonpublic probation recommendations for some of her cases, but when we asked about a probation document filed on the Hawkins case, Judge Jackson claimed that she was not able to access records for her old cases because that was allegedly because she was no longer on the district court. And we now know that she sits on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, if that is true, there are many unanswered questions about how information the White House thought was helpful was so easily obtained. So we should take into account that all the helpful information has already been leaked. That brings me to the merits of Judge Jackson's nomination. For judicial nominees, their philosophy ought to decide--how to decide cases ought to be a primary consideration. Part of having a judicial philosophy is having an understanding of the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Natural rights are a part of that system. Judge Jackson explained to us that she does not ``hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights.'' Now, that ought to be very shocking. Natural rights are basic to our constitutional system and principles of limited government. Because we all know our country was founded on the belief that is expressed in the Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. And that was further nailed down in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution vests the three branches of government with very limited power. All other powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the States and to the people thereof. The principle of limited government is what makes America an exceptional nation and sets our Constitution apart. Judges must have a proper understanding of those basic principles; and the way Judge Jackson answered those questions, particularly the answers she gave to Senator Cruz, shows that she lacks that very necessary foundation. Now, I want to go on to a few other examples. At the hearing, Judge Jackson testified about one of her decisions involving the First Step Act. In that case, prosecutors had rock-solid evidence against a dangerous drug kingpin, but Judge Jackson was displeased the government pursued a mandatory minimum sentence. So she misused a motion for compassionate release to resentence that person to a sentence she thought he deserved. As the lead author of the First Step Act, I know that is not what we wrote the statute to do. The act was supposed to allow elderly inmates and those suffering from terminal illness to petition the court for a sentence reduction. The statute also allows for a reduction if the court finds an ``extraordinary and compelling reason.'' Judges should use great discretion. Judges should weigh against the charge, the dangers to society, and the risk of recidivism. At her hearing, Judge Jackson said that she based her ``extraordinary and compelling'' finding on the nonretroactive changes to the law. This radical interpretation is terrible and dangerous. Congress chose which provisions the First Step Act would apply retroactively. The Senate is currently considering legislation that I cosponsored with Chairman Durbin that makes some of the First Step Act provisions retroactive, but that is Congress's role, not Judge Jackson's role. Senator Durbin and I wouldn't have been able to broker a compromise on that legislation if Senators thought the judges would rewrite the law and insert their own views from the bench. Decisions like this will make bipartisan work, particularly on criminal justice reform, harder to do. A case by the name of Young is just one example of Judge Jackson's lenient approach to criminal law and sentencing. She also declined to apply a number of sentencing enhancements that Congress put into the sentencing guidelines. A case by the name of Make the Road New York v. McAleenan is another case that shows how Judge Jackson used her methodology to reach a result that contradicts the plain text of the law. Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security--and these are the words from the law-- ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' to decide whether illegal immigrants should be subject to expedited removal within 2 years. Judge Jackson reviewed the Agency's decision anyway, and it seems clear why. She went out of her lane to comment on the policy as, in her words, ``a terrible proposal.'' And she claimed that the government attorneys made an argument that ``reeks of bad faith.'' ``Reeks of bad faith'' are her words. In fact, her decision and her rhetoric are unfounded. So that is why her decision earned a strong rebuke from the panel of liberal and conservative judges when she was reversed by the DC Circuit. Judge Millett, an Obama appointee, explained it this way in the opinion: [T]here could hardly be a more definitive expression of congressional intent [than] . . . ``sole and unreviewable discretion.'' These are just a few examples of Judge Jackson's judicial activism. Because her record clearly shows she does not believe in or act within the limited and proper role of a judge, I will vote against her confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. The majority leader is going to come to the floor, and I will yield the floor for him when he comes here, but I would like to yield the floor without losing the right to the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank my staff who worked on this nomination. First, I would like to recognize the contributions of Kolan Davis, my chief counsel and staff director. Kolan was assisted by Brendan Chestnut, my chief counsel for nominations. The staff in the nominations unit also worked incredibly hard on this nomination. They include Lauren Mehler, Gabi Kenny, Vetan Kapoor, and Raija Munk. The permanent nominations team received some reinforcements for this Supreme Court nomination. Annie Croslow joined my staff to lead the team of special counsels assisting on this nomination. That team includes Annika Boone, Kyle Cole, Isaac Fong, Jenna Lorence, Daniel Morales, and Luke Zaro. This team scoured Judge Jackson's record. They spent countless hours reviewing her opinions, her speeches, and pulling filings and transcripts for her cases. Their exhaustive review helped the Republicans on the committee prepare for her confirmation process. I also want to thank the communications director, Taylor Foy, as well as the deputy communications director, George Hartmann, Aaron Britt, Annie Richardson, Jennifer Heins, and Megan Behrends also contributed to the communications effort. Other staff also helped review and prepare for the nomination, including Dave Lewen, Lauren Stimpert, Rachel Wright, Erin Creegan, Tianna Torrejon, and Chesney Mallory, as well as law clerks Carly Hviding, Luke Bunting, and Noelle Daniel. Finally, I want to thank the rest of my Judiciary Committee staff for their continued work during this process and also thank my deputy staff director, Rita Lari, for her advice and leadership.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, lots of pundits are trying to get into President Putin's head and looking for some so-called off-ramp. Now, I am not a pundit, and I do not pretend to be able to read Putin's mind. However, I do listen carefully to those closest to Russia who have better insights than the American pundits, academics, and foreign policy theorists. I happen to be cochair of the Senate Baltic Freedom Caucus, so I interact regularly with Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians--three countries that in 1940 the Soviet Union absorbed into it, and then since about 1990, they have been independent of Russia. So you can see these countries are historically Western in every sense except geography, but they have had a long and often painful exposure to the Russian-Soviet-KGB way of thinking. Our Baltic friends can help others in the West who cannot seem to fathom what is going through Putin's mind. The fact that we cannot understand Putin's mindset is because he doesn't think like modern Western leaders. Now, this is important insight from my Baltic contacts. Putin is stuck in the 17th and 18th centuries. Now, you know I like history, so this is something that I can understand. Putin thinks like a czar expanding his empire. He regrets the collapse of the Soviet Union--not because of communist ideology but because it reconstituted the Russian empire. In foreign policy, it is easy to assume other countries are just like us. Experts don't know what to make of an 18th-century imperialist. Some observers have speculated that Putin has gone crazy because he does not seem to be acting rationally, but from the standpoint of someone who thinks Ukraine is not a real country, as Putin has said for decades, and who regrets the collapse of the ``evil empire,'' he is acting rationally. Our Baltic allies have been warning the West that Putin is an aggressor since well before the current invasion of Ukraine, before the 2014 invasion of neutral Ukraine, before the disastrous Obama administration ``reset'' of relations with Russia, and before the 2008 invasion of Georgia. The Baltics have often been dismissed as hysterical or Russophobic or at least exaggerating when they warn about Russia. Well, the world has awakened to the fact that the Baltics were right all along. We should have armed Ukraine to the teeth years ago. Putin only understands strength. What lessons should have been learned from Putin's pattern of aggression over the years? Putin only understands strength, and weakness is provocative. During the Hungarian uprising of 1956, when the Hungarian people were protesting to break free of Soviet control, the Eisenhower administration in this country paid lipservice to the aspirations for freedom but was secretly obsessed with not provoking the Soviets. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, Dulles, made his speech in Dallas, TX, where he said this: The [United States] has no ulterior purpose in desiring the independence of the satellite countries. . . . We do not look upon these nations as potential military allies. So you can see the expansion of NATO today proves how wrong Dulles was at that time. However, after the Dulles speech, he then cabled the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, instructing that this be brought to the attention of the highest Soviet authorities. Any wonder why Hungary wasn't freed at that time? The Estonian historian and also its former Prime Minister, Mart Laar, maintains that this message from Dulles was interpreted by Moscow as a carte blanche to intervene and the Americans would not stand in the way. That is why he titled the relevant chapter in his book on the rise and fall of communism in the region ``The lost opportunity: 1956.'' So what do our Baltic friends advise right now in the face of Putin's threats to escalate if we supply Ukraine with fighter jets or other advanced weapons? Believe it or not, their advice is to relax. In other words, don't overreact to Putin's threats. We have a nuclear deterrent and Putin knows that. The more we show we are scared by his threats, the harder he will push. And we absolutely need to stop declaring what we will not do in regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That just seems to embolden Putin to push harder. The failure to push back the previous Russian aggressions--and that is not just a Biden problem. That is a problem of both Republican and Democratic Presidents before. Also the failure to enforce previous redlines in Syria and the perception of weakness from the Afghanistan pullout debacle--those three things are at least part of the reason for what is going on in Ukraine. I hope President Biden has picked up on this as well. Now is the time to redouble our efforts to reinforce Ukraine. Putin appears to have accepted that he cannot conquer all of Ukraine, but he is very definitely repositioning his forces to take as big of a chunk of the country as he can. Ukraine must win this war--on to victory. Anything short of a Ukraine victory is an invitation for further Russian aggression elsewhere and, who knows, maybe even encouraging China. We have got to stop the finger-pointing. We have got to stop the excuses, and we have got to get Ukraine air defenses, drones, and anything else to shift the balance. To date, the United States and our allies have supplied the heroic Ukrainian military with the kinds of weapons that have allowed them to hang on while their cities are shelled and civilians are massacred. The battle for Kyiv may have been won, but the battle for the east is only going to intensify. Unless we tip the balance, this could go on for a long, long time. We have seen how brutal the Russian occupation has been in just 1 month. Imagine months and months of this in eastern Ukraine. I have a bill with my friend Senator Durbin to guarantee that the United States will backfill certain critical weapons transferred to Ukraine by our eastern flank of NATO allies. Many NATO countries have been very generous in handing over their weapons to Ukraine. This is leaving a security gap in those very countries. But they know that if Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, then those countries are at greater risk. As Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas says, Putin cannot even think he has won or his appetite will only grow. Some of our NATO allies also have air defense systems and drones that could make a big difference in Ukraine. There are rumors of negotiations to supply items needed in Ukraine, provided there is agreement to acquire American replacements. My bill with Durbin would provide that assurance up front without the redtape that seems to be involved in almost everything we do to help Ukraine. Putin has talked constantly about what he calls ``demilitarization and denazification'' as his justification for launching this brutal invasion of Ukraine. That phrase does not make much sense on its face, but, again, we have to keep in mind that Putin has an imperial mindset. No military analyst looking at Ukraine and Russia could possibly think that Ukraine posed any military threat to Russia. The Russian military dwarfs the Ukrainian one in manpower as well as equipment. In fact, it is clear that Putin and his military leaders underestimated the fighting ability of the Ukrainians. The same is frankly true of NATO's military power along Russia's borders. What Putin means by ``demilitarizing'' is to shrink Ukraine's military to the point that that country is indefensible. He wants Ukraine totally susceptible to Russian threats, meaning back within Russia's sphere of influence. Now, what about the term ``denazification''? Ever since World War II, Soviet leaders routinely labeled those in the Soviet Republics who expressed a desire for independence that they were fascist or Nazi. It is pretty clear that Putin's initial goal was to eliminate Ukraine's current government, starting with President Zelenskyy. So despite being descended from Holocaust survivors, denazification starts, from Putin's point of view, by eliminating a Jewish President, Zelenskyy. A recent article in a Russian state-run publication, RIA Novosti, confirmed that denazification means that the elected government must be eliminated as well as the Ukrainian military. But this article goes on to say: However, in addition to the top, a significant part of the masses who are passive Nazis, accomplices of Nazism, are also guilty. They supported and indulged Nazi power. . . . Denazification will inevitably be de-Ukrainianization. This ought to be very chilling to all of us, especially in light of the massacre at Bucha that we saw on television this week and other Ukrainian cities. That statement reminds me of this quote from Catherine the Great after she completed her takeover of an independent Ukrainian state just 10 years before our own Declaration of Independence: Every effort should be made to eradicate them and their age from memory. ``Them'' meaning the Ukrainians. Stalin killed millions of Ukrainians by intentionally starving them to death with the same goal in the early 1930s. Now, you know that Putin has praised Stalin and is now imitating Stalin. The U.N. Genocide Convention defines genocide to mean ``any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'' That sure seems to fit with what we know about Putin and his occupation of Ukraine. There is one last lesson that we can learn from our Baltic friends. Despite the murder and deportation to Siberia of masses of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians to suppress their national identity, there were 10 years of active guerilla warfare by bands of what they called Forest Brothers. In fact, resistance never really ended until the Baltic countries threw off Soviet rule. I will leave you with the first few lines of the Ukrainian national anthem: The glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet perished. Luck will still smile on us, brother-Ukrainians. Our enemies will die, as the dew does in the sunshine, And we, too, brothers, we'll live happily in our land. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, Senator Johnson and I will present our third speech on the Biden investigation series. Today, we will focus on James Biden, the President's brother. Hunter Biden wasn't the only Biden family member who had connections to the Chinese communist regime. James Biden did as well. Before we begin our discussion, I think we will need to mention the main company once again, the Chinese company that goes by the initials CEFC. In the first two speeches, Senator Johnson and I established the connection between CEFC and the communist Chinese Government. We established the connection between CEFC and Hudson West III. We then established the connection with Hunter Biden's Owasco, Hudson West III, and CEFC. We showed that Hunter Biden and James Biden actively assisted CEFC as it worked to expand its footprint and its holdings in the global and U.S. energy sector. Today, we will add James Biden's Lion Hall Group to the list of Biden family companies connected to the communist regime. In my and Senator Johnson's September 2020 report, we showed that Hunter Biden and James Biden and their aligned firms received approximately $4.8 million from Hudson West III from August 2017 to September 2018. During that same timeframe, Hunter Biden's Owasco sent 20 or so wires to James Biden's Lion Hall Group. Those 20 wires totaled just about $1.4 million. The liberal media and our Democratic colleagues originally tried to claim that Senator Johnson and my findings were Russian disinformation. Last week, the Washington Post reported the following: Over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate-- Here, parenthetically, they are referring to CEFC-- and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle, according to government records, court documents and newly disclosed bank statements, as well as emails contained on a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden. The Post also reported this: During that time period, about $1.4 million was transferred from Hunter's account to the Lion Hall Group, the consulting firm that James Biden ran, according to other government records reviewed by The Post. Senator Johnson and I were right 2 years ago. We knew it then, but it has been a long road to defend our work product. The liberal media and our Democratic colleagues aggressively tried to make the case that we were peddling Russian disinformation. What will the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues say now in light of last week's Washington Post article that substantiated the work Senator Johnson and I have been doing? We still haven't received any apology from our Democratic colleagues for their false claims against us these past several years. They haven't apologized to the American people. And I am not going to hold my breath. When will the big-time media in Washington awaken to respect my reputation for the thorough investigative and oversight work that I do as a Senator? And it is also my constitutional responsibility to do exactly that. Now, we have more records to discuss today. Today, Senator Johnson and I will show you financial transfers direct from Hudson West III to the Lion Hall Group. In other words, in these transfers, Hunter Biden's Owasco isn't the middleman. Let's look at the first poster here. This is a January 2018 bank statement from Hudson West III. Now, there is a lot going on here, so I will just mention several items. First, we have two examples of more wire transfers from Hudson West III for $165,000. The underlying wire data, which Senator Johnson and I will make public this very day, shows that money went to Hunter Biden's Owasco. That money was for the August 2017 LLC agreement, which by its terms saw James Biden become a manager of Hudson West III. That agreement sent $100,000 to Hunter Biden and $65,000 to James Biden every month. Those transactions occurred after the $5 million wire from Northern International Capital to Hudson West III on August 2017. Northern International was connected to Ye Jianming, who was connected to the communist regime. We explained all that in our second speech just last Tuesday. Second, this statement shows several examples of wires from Hudson West III to CEFC. As Senator Johnson and I have established, that company is an arm of the communist Chinese regime. This new record shows how closely connected Hudson West III was with CEFC while Hunter Biden and James Biden received money from Hudson West III. Third, we have a January 17, 2018, wire to Lion Hall Group. That happens to be James Biden's company. James Biden received $18,000 from Hudson West III the same month that company sent money to CEFC. This is just one example of many. Accordingly, the official bank record makes clear the financial connections between and among James Biden and the communist Chinese elements. To the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues, this official bank record--is that Russian disinformation, as you accused us of spreading? Now let's go to the second poster. This is a Hudson West III bank record from April 2018. Here, you see wire transfers from Coldharbour Capital. That company was connected to Mervyn Yan, who was an associate of Ye Jianming and Gongwen Dong. As Senator Johnson and I have already established, all of them are connected to the communist regime. These are the players in the game that I mentioned in the first speech last Monday, and now we have established that they appear repeatedly in bank records with high- dollar transfers. These transfers aren't by accident--no way. There is clearly a scheme here. There is a plan among and between all these individuals and their respective companies, which then begs the question, has the Justice Department acquired these records? If so, what has the Justice Department done about these records? Moving to the next transaction, there is another $165,000 wire. Again, that relates back to the LLC agreement that connected Hunter and James Biden to the Chinese firm CEFC and its projects in the energy sector. Then you have a $34,000 wire to James Biden's Lion Hall Group from Hudson West III. So what was this all about? Let's take a look, then, at the third poster. Look at the sixth line from the bottom. I want to quote. It says ``office expense and reimbursement.'' That is the same reason given for the first poster that I showed you. We will make all these records public this very day. For those of you who may still doubt my and Senator Johnson's oversight work, I am going to present one last transaction to bring all of this home. Look at the fourth poster. In my and Senator Johnson's September 2020 report, we found that James Biden and Hunter Biden went on a $99,000 global spending spree courtesy of whom? Another Chinese person I have mentioned so many times in these three speeches--Gongwen Dong. The spending spree included airline tickets, purchases at Apple stores, hotels, and restaurants. This bank record next to me shows a $99,000 transaction in September 2017, but that is not all that we have. Let's turn to the final poster. This is No. 5. This is a credit card authorization form for $99,000. Look at the bottom. There is a signature block with Hunter Biden and Gongwen Dong. To the liberal press and my Democratic colleagues, are these official records Russian disinformation? So what is the point of all these records? Not only have Senator Johnson and I illustrated through new records that Hunter Biden was financially connected to the communist regime, these records show James Biden was as well. These new records show direct financial links between companies connected to the communist regime and James Biden through Lion Hall Group. These new records support the findings in our report to the last Congress. Remember, those records were put out in September and November of 2020, and everybody was saying it was Russian disinformation. Forget the facts. Forget the evidence. Forget the investigative journalism. The liberal media wanted to provide cover for then-Candidate Joe Biden. They did whatever they could to smear our investigations. With these new records, there can be no doubt that James Biden was financially connected to corporations and individuals with extensive links to communist China and that he and Hunter Biden were in it together, working to help a Chinese Government-linked energy company pursue deals and expand its reach in the energy sector. Now, it is Senator Johnson's turn.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Johnson. I will just quickly say that the journalists in this town have an obligation to investigate. They ave an obligation to uncover the facts and the evidence. They have failed time and again. What has been reported recently is simply the tip of the iceberg. The question now is: Instead of accusing us of peddling Russian disinformation, will the media actually engage in true investigative journalism? Will the media act with intellectual honesty, or will the media continue to cover all this up for the Biden administration? Now, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to engage in oversight of the executive branch. The Biden administration has been totally unresponsive to our oversight requests; specifically, requests that relate to the Biden criminal case. Is Nicholas McQuaid recused from the Hunter Biden case? No answer from the Department. Does the Department possess FISA information on Patrick Ho, Hunter Biden's associate? The Department told a Federal court they do. They told me and Senator Johnson that they aren't sure. Can you imagine that? When Hunter Biden communicated with Patrick Ho, were his communications captured by our intelligence community? Is the Biden administration intentionally withholding this material from Congress out of fear of what we will find? In light of the Biden administration's total failure to respond to our questions, these are legitimate questions to ask. The Biden Justice Department's actions have cast a cloud over the case. The American people are rightly skeptical of the impact it may have on it. Transparency brings accountability. This week, Senator Johnson and I have done what we can to bring transparency to our oversight work for the American people. We will continue to do so. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter to the Senate Archivist be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Today, I come to the Senate floor to discuss the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. This has been introduced in the House and now introduced in the Senate by this Senator and by my colleague and friend, Senator Feinstein. This bill is a product of bipartisan work and much collaboration. I also want to thank Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar, who are true leaders in this area and also introduced their trafficking legislation this week. I look forward to continuing to work with those two Senators, as well, on this issue. Many Americans tend to view human slavery as a thing of the past. We read about it in our history books and collectively cringe at the concept of such injustice. Unfortunately, however, the reality is that human slavery is alive and well, even today, in the form of sex and labor trafficking. According to the State Department's annual Trafficking in Persons Report, human trafficking is a $150 billion business worldwide. Through deception, through threats, through violence, the perpetrators of these crimes will do whatever--whatever-- it takes to turn a profit at their victims' expense. With the introduction of this bill, we are acting as a voice for those human trafficking victims in the United States who cannot speak for themselves. To combat this crime within our borders, we have addressed the scourge on multiple fronts. The bill we have championed would extend several key victims' services programs that were established under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It would promote screening of human trafficking victims, enhance training for Federal investigators, and start a pilot program for young people at high risk of being trafficked. Our bill also includes the Survivor's Bill of Rights, a bill I developed with survivors and an advocate named Amanda Nguyen, which encourages States to ensure that survivors have, at minimum, the rights guaranteed to survivors under Federal law. Fighting for victims has been one of my top priorities as chairman and now ranking member of Senate Judiciary. I consider it a privilege to shape the law to ensure that trafficking victims receive necessary services. I also take pride in helping law enforcement and prosecutors hold the perpetrators accountable for these selfish acts. Lastly, this bill has the support of the National District Attorneys Association, Rights4Girls, Shared Hope International, Covenant House, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. I am grateful for all of these groups and the important work that they do. This bipartisan bill is a strong start, and, of course, the work doesn't stop with a single piece of legislation. I look forward to marking this bill up in the Judiciary Committee and getting it signed into law. Prescription Drug Costs Mr. President, on another relatively short matter, as well, something I come to the floor frequently to speak about and something I waited throughout last year to see if the Democrats' approach to prescription drugs was going to become law--and it doesn't look to me like that route is going to be successful. So I continually bring up another piece of legislation that I am working on with Senator Wyden. It is a bill that says very clearly that this Senator--and I think I speak for many, many Senators--that we want lower prescription drugs now. I said that in the Finance Committee hearing 2 weeks ago, and I say it again: I want lower prescription drugs now. What are we waiting for? We have a bipartisan prescription drug package called Wyden-Grassley that will save seniors $72 billion and the taxpayers $95 billion. Senator Wyden said during the Finance Committee's most recent drug pricing hearing that ``there is no question that the committee came'' forward--I am going to start this quote over again: There is no question that the committee came together in the last Congress and came up with a number of constructive bipartisan reforms. Period. Full stop. Why aren't we then advancing this bipartisan bill? What is the majority waiting for? One of my colleagues on the other side tweeted this: POTUS has the authority to lower drug prices all on his own--he should use it. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is calling for this same thing, as well. And then in the Washington Post, I read this headline: Advocates seek other pathways to lower drug prices. Far-left groups are pushing President Biden to bypass Congress and exert executive authority. Is that some sort of statement that we are giving up on the legislative path? Why would we, in Congress, not move ahead? It is not like all options for legislation have been exhausted. The majority has spent 15 months attempting to pass their partisan prescription drug bill. It has gone nowhere. It doesn't have 60 votes. But that is not the only option. Has the Democratic majority given up on lowering prescription drug prices and is counting on doing it only by Executive order? Are they saying they have to do it in a way where only Democrats get credit or not do anything at all? Do Democrats really want to help seniors or would they rather have a campaign issue? The longer we wait, patients and taxpayers are going to continue to pay those high prices, and for some families, that is a suffering position to be in. Let's work to advance a bipartisan prescription drug bill that can pass with 60-plus votes. We can do it today. It is already negotiated and ready to go. I will work with anyone who wants to pass the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley bill. Just give me a call. I said something about last year, that you had to sit around and wait for the Democrats to get something done on a totally partisan basis. I don't say that they didn't work hard to get a bill passed that would have reduced prescription drug prices. But I just didn't sit around all of 2021. In the past 15 months, I want to give you some of the things that I have been doing to try to sell a bipartisan bill. I spoke with President Biden's White House staff--although I did have a short conversation with President Biden himself. I met with Speaker Pelosi. I met with Leader McCarthy. I had a phone call with HHS Secretary Becerra. I met with the 10 Democrats who were wise to this issue that you can't pass a bipartisan prescription drug bill. These 10 House Democrats wrote to the Speaker, way last summer, wanting a bipartisan prescription drug pricing bill. I met with not all 10 of them, but I will bet I met with at least 5 of them, and they were receptive to doing what I am doing. It doesn't mean they were receptive to doing it exactly the way I wanted to do it, but they were receptive to working in a bipartisan way. Then I met with the Republican and Democrat group that is called the Problem Solvers Caucus Healthcare Working Group. Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, has been on top of this issue for years and years. I had breakfast with him. I met with Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers because she is the top Republican in the House dealing with this issue. I met with Senators Sinema and Carper and other rank-and-file Members of Congress. While Democrats talk about lowering drug costs, they haven't made any progress. The only bipartisan progress that has been made on drug pricing has been under Republican leadership. If Republicans take control of the Senate next Congress, Republicans will be lowering prescription drug prices. We shouldn't have to wait another 8, 9 months. And who knows who will control the next Congress in the first place. We don't have to wait a whole year. Let's lower prescription drug prices today. I yield the floor. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yesterday, Senator Johnson and I discussed a joint investigation into the Biden family's foreign financial entanglements. We reviewed much of our earlier work and provided a brief preview of the new material. Today, we will give our second speech on our Biden investigation series. Once again, we are going to make public and we are going to describe new financial records relating to Hunter Biden and his connections to the communist Chinese Government. Most of that focus will be on his connections to the CEFC, a company that is effectively an arm of the Chinese Government. But first we must go back to 2015. At that time, Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma and was paid tens of thousands of dollars each month. Its owner was a corrupt Russian-aligned Ukrainian oligarch. But that is not all that Hunter Biden was up to. In that year, CEFC International announced an agreement with Northern International Capital Holdings. Northern International is incorporated in China, and it is very much involved in the energy sector. One of Ye Jianming's companies was a majority shareholder of CEFC International. Northern International purchased 123 million dollars' worth of CEFC's shares, binding the two companies together. We must also mention Hudson West III and its financial connection to CEFC. Hunter Biden was an investor and a manager of Hudson West III. He was tasked with advancing its interests. Hudson West III also involved Chinese nationals connected to the communist regime, such as Gongwen Dong, whom I talked about yesterday. Now let's look at this first poster. I should note that Senator Johnson and I will make these documents public in full. We are providing snapshots for our presentation here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Here we have one portion of an LLC agreement from a bank. It shows the companies that have bound themselves together: Hudson West V, Hudson West III, and Owasco. Owasco is Hunter Biden's firm. Now let's turn to the second poster. The paragraph at the top shows the purpose for which the LLC agreement exists. So what this tells us is that Hunter Biden and James Biden linked up with companies connected to the communist regime to assist them with finding projects for global and domestic infrastructure and energy. As we know from my and Senator Johnson's report from last August, some energy project explorations between the Biden family and China were here in the United States. One example is a multimillion-dollar natural gas project in Louisiana. Now let's move to the next paragraph at the bottom of this same poster, which defines the word ``affiliate'' in the agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, CEFC China Energy Company Limited or any of its Affiliates shall be deemed as an Affiliate of Hudson. Accordingly, this agreement between Hunter Biden's firm and Hudson West III and Hudson West V directly connects Hunter Biden to CEFC. So was this agreement executed? Let's look at this third poster, which contains a signature block executing the agreement. Here we see Hunter Biden's signature with Gongwen Dong. As previously noted, Gongwen was an associate of Ye Jianming. Both men were connected to the communist regime, including its military elements. Notably, Hunter Biden worked for Ye Jianming to get him involved in the natural gas project in Louisiana. That project eventually fell through. Now let's bring up a fourth poster labeled a ``Joinder Agreement'' relating to the LLC agreement. Again, Hunter Biden is signing with Gongwen Dong with respect to the LLC agreement. Accordingly, we can now conclude the following: Hunter Biden was financially connected to CEFC, a company that was an arm of the communist Chinese regime, for the purpose of advancing its energy interests. This agreement also shows two additional findings: first, Hunter Biden's responsibility to advance Hudson West III's interests as of August 2, 2017; second, Hunter Biden's close association with Hudson West III, CEFC, and its affiliates as of August 2, 2017. That date is important as I will show you soon. Let's turn to a fifth poster. On this fifth poster, look at the top. This is a bank record showing an August 8, 2017, wire transfer from Northern International Capital to Hudson West III for $5 million. This is $5 million from a company that is connected to Ye Jianming and CEFC and its affiliates, which are essentially arms of the communist Chinese regime, and that transfer took place after Hunter Biden became closely associated with Hudson West III as the LLC agreement shows. So what was the money for? As noted, Hunter Biden was working with Chinese nationals linked to the communist regime to help them explore energy projects. Now look at the bottom of this poster. This is a paragraph from the LLC agreement. It shows that Hunter Biden was paid $100,000 per month; that James Biden was paid $65,000 per month; and that Hunter Biden will be paid a onetime retainer fee of $500,000. Again, this is money connected to Hudson West III, a company connected to CEFC and Gongwen Dong. Both are connected, in turn, to the communist Chinese regime. We can now conclude this with respect to James Biden: James Biden was financially connected to CEFC, a company that was an arm of the communist Chinese regime, for the purpose of advancing energy interests. After the LLC agreement was signed, money flowed from CEFC and its shareholders into the bank account of Hudson West III, including the $5 million from Northern International. This LLC agreement was the trigger point for high-dollar financial transactions involving Hunter and James Biden. Now let's turn to poster six and view the top. This is a Hudson West III bank record that shows a wire transfer on August 31, 2017, for $165,000. Notably, this is the same month as the $5 million wire from Northern International. It is also the same month that Hunter Biden signed the August 2, 2017, LLC agreement. The wire is to Wells Fargo Clearing Services. Now look at the bottom of this poster. Senator Johnson and I have acquired more than just the bank statement; we have acquired underlying wire data. So look at the fourth line at the bottom. It says: Further credit to Owasco PC. The underlying wire data shows that it went to Owasco, Hunter Biden's firm. Senator Johnson and I have years of bank records that show multiple $165,000 wire transfers from Hudson West III to Owasco. There were also wire transfers for other amounts--some for more, some for less. Most likely, some of those payments were for expenses under the LLC agreement. So you have an August 2, 2017, LLC agreement with Hudson West III and Owasco noting $100,000 a month to Hunter Biden and $65,000 to James Biden. Then you have an August 8, 2017, wire transfer of $5 million from Northern International to Hudson West III. After that August 8 wire, you see years of wire transfers from Hudson West III to Hunter Biden's company. The majority of these is for $165,000--the exact amount due under the LLC agreement. Based on the timing of the transactions, Hunter Biden's and James Biden's payments under the LLC agreement came from that $5 million wire--a wire, mind you, that came from a company connected to Ye Jianming and CEFC, which is an arm of the Chinese Government. These years of records show that Hunter Biden and James Biden were more connected to the communist regime's elements than had been previously known. These records place them at the center of Hudson West III, Gongwen Dong, and CEFC. This is a finding that Senator Johnson and I made public in our Biden reports last Congress. These are the same reports that Members of the other political party in this body and the liberal press found fault with; that, somehow, it was Russian disinformation. So I say this to the liberal media and our Democratic colleagues who tried to smear our work all of these years and accuse us of peddling Russian disinformation: You have seen all of these documents that we have presented. Are these official bank records Russian disinformation? To our Democratic colleagues and the liberal media, we deserve an answer because you made several efforts to smear our reputations as we were starting this investigation 2 or 3 years ago. Now I am going to turn it over to Senator Johnson to discuss a name that I gave you yesterday, Patrick Ho, and related records to Patrick Ho that we have acquired.