Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, Senator Johnson and I begin a series of speeches on our investigations into the Biden family's financial deals. We will make these presentations with two themes. First, we will refute and we will dismantle the talking points that the liberal media and our Democratic colleagues pushed onto the American people. Their talking points said that our investigations over the years advanced and spread Russian disinformation. On November 29, 2021; May 11, 2021; March 18, 2021; December 14, 2020; December 10, 2020; October 19, 2020; and September 29, 2020, I came to this Senate floor to rebut those false charges. Now--or at least then--the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues ought to be ashamed of themselves for the outright lies that they peddled about our investigative work. As a result, Senator Johnson and I did what any good investigator would do: We gathered even more records to prove all these people wrong, which brings me to the second theme. Senator Johnson and I will produce new records to show additional connections between the Biden family and the communist Chinese regime. Before we get to those records, I am going to discuss the background of our investigation. We started this investigation last Congress. Then, I was chairman of the Finance Committee, and at that time, Senator Johnson was chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It began in August 2019. I started at that time an inquiry into a transaction involving Hunter Biden that was reviewed by the Federal Government's Committee on Foreign Investment. On September 23, 2020, Senator Johnson and I released our report. On November 18, 2020, we released our supplement to that report. Those reports were based in large part on Obama administration government records and also almost a dozen transcribed interviews of government officials. In both reports, Senator Johnson and I made financial information public that hadn't ever been known before. Our report exposed extensive financial relationships between Hunter and James Biden and Chinese nationals connected to the communist regime. More precisely, these were Chinese nationals connected to the Chinese Government's military and intelligence service. One of those individuals was a person by the name of Patrick Ho. According to reports, Hunter Biden said of Patrick Ho: I have another New York Times reporter calling about my representation of Patrick Ho-- Then Hunter Biden says the f-word-- [denoting] the spy chief of China who started the company that my partner, who is worth $323 billion, founded and is now missing. We will get into more detail with respect to Patrick Ho in future speeches. We will do the same with Gongwen Dong, another close associate of Hunter Biden's who was connected to the communist regime. Now, Hunter Biden's reference to ``my partner'' is an apparent reference to Ye Jianming. Ye had connections to the People's Liberation Army. Ye had a company called CEFC, which had multiple variations. Today and in future speeches, Senator Johnson and I will simply refer to that company as CEFC. Documents show that CEFC's corporate mission was ``to expand cooperation in the international energy economy and contribute to national development.'' Now, let me emphasize that word ``national'' in that quote, ``national development.'' CEFC existed for the communist state. Indeed, records show that CEFC is dedicating itself to serving China's national energy strategy, developing national strategic reserves for oil, and ``partnering with centrally-administered and state-owned enterprises.'' Records prepared by one of Hunter and James Biden's business associates, James Gilliar, say the following about this company, CEFC: At the time, China was hungry for crude, but its state- backed companies were having difficulty closing some deals abroad. The optics of China's state-backed giants marching into a country to buy and extract oil weren't great for central Asian politicians. This paved the way for private firms like CEFC, which can strike oil deals in Europe and the Middle East where Chinese State Owned Enterprises could bring political liabilities. Documents also show that CEFC ``is building an energy storage and logistics system in Europe'' to connect China, Europe, and the Middle East. You may ask, why? Plainly, to serve ``China's ambitions to have overseas storage locations connected with world markets.'' The document further states that CEFC's investment bank division has investments in the energy sector ``which are in tandem with the government's 4 trillion dollar One Belt One Road foreign investment program.'' Then CEFC operated under the guise of a private company but was for all intents and purposes an arm of the Chinese Government. Hunter Biden and James Biden served as the perfect vehicle by which the communist Chinese Government could gain inroads here in the United States through CEFC and its affiliates. And these inroads were focused on Chinese advancement into the global and U.S. energy sector. Hunter and James Biden were more than happy to go along, of course, for the right price. So now let's turn to the first poster, which shows bank records that haven't been made public before now. This is a portion of a document that we--meaning Senator Johnson and I--will release in full. The topic of this poster shows a wire transaction on August 4, 2017, from CEFC to Wells Fargo Clearing Services for $100,000. Now, look at the bottom of the poster. This is the underlying data of this transaction. It states: Further credit to OWASCO. OWASCO is Hunter Biden's firm. Now, there is no middleman in this transaction. This is $100,000 from what is, effectively, an arm of the communist Chinese Government direct to Hunter Biden. So a second question, a question to the liberal media and my Democratic colleagues, who accused us, over the last 2 years, of distributing Russian disinformation: Is this official bank document Russian disinformation? Now, beyond this document, in future speeches, Senator Johnson and I will show you more transfers between and among such companies as CEFC, Northern International Capital, Hudson West Three, Hunter Biden's OWASCO, and James Biden's Lion Hall Group. In doing so, please keep in mind the players in this game: Hunter Biden, James Biden, Ye Jianming, Gongwen Dong, Mervyn Yan, and Patrick Ho, to name a few. All of these individuals mixed and mingled with related corporate entities over a period of years and with respect to millions of dollars. Now, the next poster, those connections are illustrated by this second poster which I made public last November. It is an original bank record with one typographical error and all. Here you have Hunter Biden, Gongwen Dong, and Mervyn Yan executing an assignment and assumption agreement together. Now, a third question to those who accuse us of disseminating Russian disinformation, so especially to the liberal media who are the ones who ought to be policing our government system to make sure that everything is done honest--they shouldn't have to have Members of Congress giving all this information out--but is this official record Russian disinformation? In our next speeches, we will show you more records that haven't been seen before, records that undeniably show strong links between the Biden family and communist China. Today is just a small taste. I would like to note one thing before Senator Johnson takes over. He is going to describe to you the ridiculous attacks that we received, claiming that our reports were Russian disinformation. On March 16 of this year, the New York Times unwittingly substantiated our reports by reporting on Hunter Biden's connection to foreign corporations and his potential criminal exposure. So what Senator Johnson and I made public last Congress is now a prevailing fact pattern that even the liberal media can't ignore any longer and falsely label ``Russian disinformation.'' I will turn it over to Senator Johnson to provide additional examples of the media's attack last Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I introduced a statement into the Record which indicated my intent to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Mayor Eric Garcetti to be U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of India. I did so because I had received multiple whistleblower complaints that Mayor Garcetti witnessed and was aware that his deputy chief of staff, Rick Jacobs, sexually harassed city employees. In my statement, which I have copied below, I made clear that I needed to investigate the allegations being made by whistleblowers and that I needed to review the investigation that the city of Los Angeles had commissioned which supposedly cleared Mayor Garcetti of any wrongdoing. At the time, I instructed my staff to complete this investigation in no more than 2 weeks, since it is not my intent to drag this out. My staff spoke with additional whistleblowers and subsequently made three separate requests to representatives of the mayor to send us the city's investigative report--on March 11, 18, and 21. The mayor's staff provided me with a copy of the report on March 21. However, we were just notified last night, March 23, that there was also an updated report, along with a summary that was completed several months after the original report that my office received on March 21. While I am still reviewing this report, my staff informs me that the report is focused exclusively on allegations made that Mr. Jacobs sexually harassed an LAPD officer. It does not address other allegations made, including allegations that Mr. Jacobs had sexually harassed the mayor's senior staff and made racist comments toward staff in front of the mayor. Due to the extremely narrow scope of this report, the fact that many of the allegations brought to my office were not investigated in that report, and the fact that we only received the updated report last night, I have instructed my staff to continue investigating these allegations. As I said earlier, it is not my intent to drag this out and I anticipate that my investigation will be concluded in the near future. [Prior Statement] Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Mayor Eric Garcetti, of California, to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of India. I will object because I have received numerous credible allegations from multiple whistleblowers alleging that Mr. Garcetti, while Mayor of Los Angeles, had knowledge of sexual harassment and assaults allegedly committed against multiple city employees and their associates by his close advisor, and that he ignored the misconduct. The allegations involving the mayor's office have been the subject of public reporting and a purportedly independent investigation. However, serious questions remain regarding the alleged misconduct, as well as the mayor's knowledge of that misconduct. First, whistleblowers who have spoken with my office have not previously spoken to the Foreign Relations Committee, and are presenting new allegations that must be fully investigated. Second, the investigation of the Los Angeles mayor's office reportedly found no wrongdoing by the mayor or his staff. However, information provided by multiple whistleblowers strongly suggests that this investigation was incomplete at best. The extent to which the investigation was truly independent is also not clear, and the report has not been made public. The United States owes it to the Republic of India to send them a qualified Ambassador that will represent the values of the United States. Mayor Garcetti may very well be fully qualified, but at this time, the Senate needs to look into these allegations further. So until my staff and I have conducted a thorough investigation and are able to speak with everyone involved I cannot vote to confirm Mr. Garcetti.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tomorrow will be 1 month since Putin started his war in Ukraine. Every day, we get a chance to see that war being fought on our TV, so I want to tell you what I have seen in 1 month of viewing the war in Ukraine or what I have heard from people who report on that war in Ukraine. Putin is a child killer. Putin kills hospital patients. Putin is a bully. Putin kills elderly people. Putin kills pregnant mothers and their babies. Putin has uprooted at least 10 million people. Putin deliberately shells residential areas. Putin shells shopping centers. Putin shells apartment buildings. Putin destroys historic buildings. Putin bombs theaters. Putin bombs hospitals. Putin destroys cultural heritage. Putin threatens world peace. Putin silences dissent. Putin threatens nuclear war. Putin starts war to boost his popularity. Putin jails his political opponents. Putin jails citizens speaking against the war. Putin twists history. Putin is consumed with power. Putin feeds off corruption. Putin is acting like a true Nazi. Putin kills to feed his ego. Putin lies to his own people and the world. Putin admires Stalin. Putin acts like Stalin. Putin forcefully deports civilians, like Stalin. Putin is intentionally starving Ukrainian civilians, like Stalin. Putin is destroying families. Putin reintroduced mass graves to Europe--no different than the executions of 20,000 Polish generals and soldiers at Katyn Forest in 1940. Putin lies to mothers of Russian soldiers. Putin poisons with impunity, particularly people whom he considers traitors. Putin came to power by bombing Russian apartments and blaming Chechens. Putin is still KGB. Putin lied before invading Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. Putin lied about Russian troops in the Donbas. Putin lied that he would not invade the rest of Ukraine. Putin lies that NATO had anything to do with his decision to invade. Putin thinks Ukraine isn't a real country. Putin thinks other Eastern European countries belong to Russia. Putin thinks Ukrainians are lesser people than Russians. Putin is afraid of his own people. Putin imprisons political opponents. Putin is afraid of Ukrainian democracy. Putin got rich by stealing from Russians. Putin is destroying his own country. Putin has damaged the global economy. Putin uses banned weapons against civilians. Putin kidnapped Ukrainian mayors. Putin tries to assassinate Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. Putin has troops fire on humanitarian corridors. Putin is in bed with organized crime. Putin supports America's enemies. Putin has made the Russian Orthodox Church a tool of state power. Putin oppresses religious minorities. Putin has forced labor camps for prisoners. Putin has people who support him or just follow orders or who are afraid to speak up, just like Hitler did. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor today to celebrate what we say annually is Sunshine Week, a very important week in our system of self-government. For the last 17 years, advocacy groups, good-government watchdogs, media organizations, and many Members of this body have joined forces to observe the importance of transparency in government and freedom of information. As a longtime champion for open, accessible government, I speak today in support of what we all ought to consider enduring principles. Sunshine Week coincides each year with March 16. That is the day one of our Nation's Founding Fathers and fourth President of the United States James Madison was born. Madison is widely known as the father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. From his writings, particularly in the Federalist Papers, you might say he was the architect who framed our system of checks and balances. Madison believed all powers of the government are derived of, by, and for the people, and that is what brings me to the floor today. The public has a right to know what their government is doing and how it is spending tax dollars. There are very few things in government that should be kept secret: national security, so we don't tell our enemies what we are going to do; the privacy of American citizens; and some intelligence-gathering information. I will bet that is 1 percent of everything the government is involved in. Yet there are some people who think that a lot more ought to be classified or secret, et cetera, et cetera. So we have the Freedom of Information Act that is to protect the public's right to know. Through Freedom of Information Act requests, everyday Americans can ask a Federal Agency for information. Unfortunately, now--and it is a growing problem--Federal Agencies seem to have the unstated goal of releasing as little information as possible to the public. Agencies rely on exemptions to FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, to withhold information. A 2021 Government Accountability Office study found this: that Federal Agencies use FOIA exemptions to avoid disclosing documents. That problem has doubled between 2012 and 2019. Most Americans may not be familiar with the section of the code that we call the (b)(3) FOIA exemption, and, of course, they don't have to be aware of this, but they should know that it is the most used justification by the Federal Government to withhold information from the public. The increase in the use of this FOIA exemption to withhold information from the public is unacceptable to me, and it ought to be unacceptable to anybody who believes that we should not have secrecy in government. In another recent report, the Government Accountability Office found that FOIA request backlogs increased by nearly 20 percent in just the 1 year of 2019 to 2020. In fact, backlogged FOIA requests are up 97 percent since 2012. Sixteen Federal Agencies had more than 1,000 backlogged FOIA requests. They account for 94 percent of backlogged requests across the entire government. Federal Agencies ought to do better--must do better--and we must all work to ensure that they are responding appropriately and within a reasonable time for FOIA requests. Congressional oversight is part of our constitutional assignment: to protect the power of the purse and ensure laws are faithfully enforced. Finally, we must acknowledge the important role that citizens play who bravely come forward, often at great professional risk, to report wrongdoing in our efforts to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. I have often said that whistleblowers are the best line of defense against government waste. No one shines a brighter light on waste, fraud, and abuse than whistleblowers. And why might that be? Because they are down in the bowels of the government where maybe the heads of the Agencies don't know something wrong is going on, and they are able to point it out--the whistleblowers are. That is why I introduced legislation this Congress to strengthen the False Claims Act. I got the False Claims Act passed in 1986. Since then, that act has helped government recover $70 billion in fraud. Last year, I asked the Department of Veterans Affairs about allegations that VA employees leaked potentially market-sensitive information, and then do you know what they did? They retaliated against these whistleblowers. Nearly 1 year later, I haven't received any answers, and I assume I am not going to receive any answers because it is an embarrassment to the VA. As a cofounder and cochairman of the Whistleblower Protection Caucus, I lead efforts from Capitol Hill to strengthen protections and raise awareness for what often is an uphill battle for whistleblowers. I want you to know how I feel whistleblowers are treated by their very own government, how they are treated just because they want the government to do what the government is supposed to be doing under the laws, and they want the money spent the way Congress intends for the money to be spent. These whistleblowers who point out that wrongdoing are treated by the bureaucracy like skunks at a picnic. This U.S. Senator will continue shining spotlight on waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon, and I am going to do it elsewhere, as well. I will continue advocating for whistleblowers with every tool at my disposal. And as an Iowa farmer, I know why farmers make hay when the sun shines, and that is a good lesson for good government. Sunshine helps hold government accountable to the people. Let me repeat that again: Transparency brings accountability.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Leahy for joining me to discuss the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. He and I have worked together on the issue of EB-5 reform for many years. Because of that, we are proud that the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2022 includes the provisions of the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022, of which we are the primary authors. Congress originally authorized the EB-5 Regional Center program in 1993 as a pilot program, and, in recent years, its reauthorization was often included in appropriations bills. However, due to lack of an agreement to reauthorize and reform the program last year, it lapsed on June 30 and has remained lapsed since that time. This legislation formally repeals the pilot program created by Congress in 1993 and codifies in its place a new regional center program reflecting a number of reforms that we have pursued for many years. All regional centers which operated under the lapsed and repealed pilot program will be expected to seek a new regional center designation in compliance with the new requirements and reforms laid out in our bill. However, the bill allows petitions filed by immigrant investors under the old pilot program to continue to be adjudicated under the law as it existed when they were filed. The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 codifies a number of our long-sought reforms designed to enhance the integrity of the regional center program and prevent fraud and abuse that have plagued it for far too long. The bill also requires that DHS issue regulations regarding the redeployment of investor funds if certain conditions are met. We expect USCIS to oversee redeployments and take action as necessary. Investors should not be left vulnerable and regional centers cannot be allowed to deploy funds in any way they please. We expect capital to remain at risk, as required by the law, and the redeployment of funds to be in projects that are preapproved. The legislation codifies the definition of and the designation process for a ``high unemployment'' targeted employment area that was found in the 2019 EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program Modernization Rule. As under the 2019 rule, the bill allows only DHS to make such designations. The codification of the so-called donut model from the 2019 rule will significantly limit the number of census tracts that may be used to seek a designation as a ``high unemployment'' TEA. This limitation, combined with the exclusive authority of DHS to make high unemployment TEA designations, will crack down on the notorious practice of TEA gerrymandering, the practice of creating elaborate configurations of multiple census tracts strung together so that a census tract with high unemployment at one end can be used in order to obtain a TEA designation for a building project within an affluent census tract at the other end, perhaps many miles away. It is also our expectation that ``high unemployment'' TEA designations will be reserved for census tracts that have experienced persistently high unemployment for a number of years and not because of temporary anomalous circumstances such as local unemployment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the legislation puts in place specific visa set-asides for rural area projects, high unemployment area projects, and infrastructure projects. The visa set-aside for infrastructure projects is limited to true public infrastructure projects--that is, those that benefit the public and the American people--not public-private partnerships or projects for a private business. The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 is the result of years of hard work and negotiation, and it is our hope that it brings meaningful reform to a program badly in need of it and, most importantly, much- needed investment capital and the permanent jobs that can come with it, to inner city and rural areas where it is normally difficult, if not impossible, to attract investment capital. We are grateful that it was included in the Omnibus bill and look forward to seeing it signed into law. Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have been impressed that our Eastern European allies have been able to act so quickly in providing aid of all kinds to Ukraine, including weapons these countries need for their own defense to deter Putin. Even the notoriously bureaucratic European Union has acted with unprecedented speed. When asked by Eastern European diplomats why Congress is taking so long to pass aid for Ukraine, I do not have a good answer. It always takes time to negotiate and draft an appropriations package to get it just right. But the Ukrainians do not have the luxury of time. We should have passed a Ukraine supplemental last week, even if imperfect. It would have passed overwhelmingly, sending a strong message to Ukraine, our eastern flank allies, and the aggressor Putin. Now, the much needed Ukraine supplemental has been rolled into a giant Omnibus bill. This package has some things I strongly support, or even helped write. But these provisions are riding along with a big growth in spending, which I do not support. I typically vote against giant take-it-or-leave it omnibus bills. They are no way to legislate. Senators who are not on the Appropriations Committee never see the contents of an Omnibus spending bill until we face a deadline for government funding running out--and an up-or-down vote; with no amendments. I urged my party's leadership to insist on a separate vote on the Ukraine funding package in their negotiations with Democrat leaders, but here we are, nevertheless. Urgent aid for Ukraine shouldn't be wrapped up in an Omnibus full of unrelated spending. A cynic would say Ukraine aid was added to the Omnibus intentionally to help it pass. Well, this is a town where cynicism is often well- deserved. Senators who support helping heroic Ukrainians defend themselves from a barbaric onslaught, as I do, are being forced to swallow a giant, bitter pill. So, for the record, I oppose the spending level in this Omnibus bill and the broken process by which it was cobbled together. I am not happy about being pushed into a corner yet again. Be advised--I will not roll over and play nice going forward. But I cannot in good conscience vote in a way that would further delay urgently needed support for Ukrainians fighting for their freedom on the front lines against tyranny. Vote on Motion to Concur

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it has been a year since we in the Senate confirmed Merrick Garland to be Attorney General. During his confirmation hearing, I outlined what a successful Department of Justice looks like and what I expected of him as our new Attorney General. I gave him the answers to the tests. By this rubric, he has failed. For instance, I urged him to build off the successes from the previous Justice Department to reduce crime, maintain the rule of law, and protect our civil liberties. But violent crime continues to rise, the rule of law is undermined, and our civil liberties are in danger. Instead of condemning all violent crime, Attorney General Garland's Justice Department targets lawful gun owners and blames those gun owners for the rising murder rates, carjackings, and attacks against law enforcement. But the explosion of crime in blue cities is actually tied to depolicing measures, hiring progressive prosecutors, and enacting disastrous bail reform policies. Lawful gun owners are not to blame for this rise in crime. And in the midst of a crime spike, a number of Biden appointees and judicial nominees strongly backed by Attorney General Garland have supported radical ideas in the past, like defunding the police or at least reducing funding for police. And some have even advocated not prosecuting certain crimes. So how do you expect to effectively fight crime with the lineup that I just gave you? Instead of tackling the opioid crisis, the Garland Justice Department wants to make it easier for fentanyl traffickers to spread their poison. Fentanyl analogs are responsible for most overdose deaths and are lethal in very tiny amounts, as we all know. But the Garland and Biden administration support eliminating mandatory minimums for these fentanyl analog dealers. Really? In addition, Garland has wielded his power to undermine the rule of law and cave to political pressures. The Attorney General has summarily reversed a number of decisions issued by Attorneys General Sessions and Barr that helped enhance the integrity of our asylum system. This Attorney General has also issued memos, interpretations, and filings to the Supreme Court that contrast with previous Department of Justice positions. Let me give you an example. His Department of Justice reinterpreted the law to make sure that inmates released to home confinement under COVID relief stay there. His Solicitor General also switched positions on a cocaine sentencing case that was before the Supreme Court. Now, it happens that both of these policy outcomes align with my positions. I agree with those outcomes. But his way of getting there is political. Rule of law must be consistent and not political. So Garland's flip-flopping also jeopardizes our Nation's security. Instead of protecting the American people from the Chinese Communist Party's espionage, he disbanded the previous administration's successful China Initiative. This program prioritized investigations of national security from China, which is still a very serious threat given that the FBI opens a new Chinese espionage case every 12 hours. So I don't know why this would be disbanded. This move is concerning and dangerous to our national security and reflective of partisan pressures trumping smart law enforcement. Also, political decisions are getting in the way of the consistent application of the rule of law. For example, Attorney General Garland's Department of Justice is politically selective about which cases to pursue and which cases to dismiss. Despite the 100-night siege against the Portland courthouse in 2020 and 96 people being charged as violent rioters, almost half of those charged have been dismissed. Compare this to the Department of Justice's own statement on the 1- year anniversary of January 6: The Department of Justice's resolve to hold accountable those who committed crimes on Jan. 6, 2021, has not, and will not, wane. Now, we all know that those who break the law should be held accountable--no question about that. And as our Nation's top law enforcement officer, it is incumbent upon him to enforce the rule of law. He cannot pick and choose when the rule of law is politically convenient or easy. Under Garland's leadership, the Department of Justice is also undermining valuable civil rights. This is something that he and I have had a lot of discussions on as he has appeared before our committee. So undermining valuable civil rights, instead of prioritizing that, Attorney General Garland has killed the speech of American parents. He sent a memo to the FBI and the U.S. attorneys around the country to be on the lookout for upset parents at school boards. He did this after the National School Boards Association suggested that some people should be branded domestic terrorists. Imagine that charge--that you go to a school board meeting, you might be a domestic terrorist. What is even worse, there seems to be some evidence that the Secretary of Education may have asked the National School Boards Association to write that awful letter, which the association later had to apologize for. Garland says his memo was just about violence and threats of violence; but sure enough, whistleblower reports show that the FBI's counterterrorism division was looking way beyond only violence and threats. Parents' ability to voice their concerns, especially now, is a precious right, and the Department of Justice's actions cannot kill such vital speech constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Also, instead of being responsive, the Attorney General has been evasive. Last year, I sent approximately 50 letters to the Department. That is one-third of all letters that they received from Members of the U.S. Senate. The Attorney General wanted me to know that I sent one-third of all the letters he got from the other 99 Senators. So when the Attorney General told me that, I don't think he meant it as a compliment. I received some letters in response. However, when I am told that they have responded to me, simple or lots of words on a piece of paper don't, in and of themselves, make a letter responsive. Furthermore, the Department has failed to provide responsive records, with the exception of one or two small productions. By way of example, I received a 30-page production of records from the Department. It included improper FOIA redactions and failed to include the necessary spreadsheets. Accordingly, that production is a failed production because FOIA does not apply to documents going to the Congress of the United States, so you shouldn't have that redaction. Also, I have repeatedly asked if Nicholas McQuaid is recused from the Hunter Biden criminal investigation, and that is an important thing because he seemed to work in the law firm that was representing Hunter Biden. And it ought to be a simple question to answer, but Attorney General Garland refuses to tell me whether McQuaid is recused from those cases. At the Judiciary Committee's October 27, 2021, Justice Department oversight hearing, I said to Attorney General Garland: When I placed holds on your nominees for the Department's failure to comply with Republican oversight requests, I said either you run the Department or the Department runs you. Right now, it looks like the Justice Department is running you. That ends my quote of October 27 last year. So that statement still holds true. Instead of protecting the American people, the Attorney General is sacrificing our Nation's top law enforcement agency to politics during a violent crime spike. Instead of being stewards of our Nation's laws, the Attorney General is leading the charge upending the rule of law. Instead of fighting for civil rights, he is chipping away at those civil rights. Attorney General Garland, there is still time to change. You have 3 years left in this administration. I urge you to change course. I urge you to bring the Justice Department back to a place of leadership: leadership in reducing violent crime, leadership in maintaining the rule of law, and leadership in protecting our civil liberties. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, Vladimir Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine rests on the false historic claim that Ukraine is not a real country but a part of Russia. Both Ukraine and Russia trace their roots to ancient civilizations centered in Kyiv. Kyiv was a major city when Moscow was a backwater that no one had heard of. The devastating and brutal Mongol invasion in the 13th century changed everything. Collaboration with the Mongols allowed Muscovy, the predecessor of modern Russia, to become a dominant regional power. Meanwhile, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania exerted control over much of what is now Western Ukraine, giving it a very Western European perspective. Russia, since the Mongol invasion, has been ruled with an iron fist. By contrast, Ukraine has been home to the Cossacks, who embody a sense of freedom and individual autonomy. Just think of Ukrainian Cossacks as the equivalent of the American cowboys of the Wild West. They hated serfdom and oppressive government and sought to elect their own rulers, which they called a hetman. A Cossack state using the name Ukraine in what is now Ukraine's southeast became a major power in the mid-17th century. Then, when Catherine the Great conquered that Ukrainian state, she is recorded as having said: Every effort should be made to eradicate them and their age from memory. Ukrainians' strong national identity threatens the claim of Russian nationalists to be the heir to the ancient Kyiv civilization. When Ukrainians revolted against the Soviet collectivization of agriculture dictated from Moscow, Stalin seized the Ukrainian wheat harvest and food stores, starving millions of Ukrainians to death. This is remembered as Holodomor, which means ``extermination by hunger'' in the Ukrainian language. Putin rehabilitated the image of Stalin and banned the human rights organization memorial which investigated Stalin's crimes against humanity. Putin is following, then, in a long tradition of Russian nationalists and the autocrats associated with it who have tried to stamp out Ukrainian national identity. When Putin talks about being threatened by NATO, he does not mean he thinks the Russian Federation faces a military threat. Until Russia invaded and occupied Crimea and portions of Eastern Ukraine, our NATO allies bordering Russia hosted no troops from other NATO countries. Today, there are a small number of U.S. troops in NATO's eastern flank which were reinforced only as a result of the current Russian invasion of Ukraine. But these defensive troops are still dwarfed by the number of Russian military personnel in Russia's western military district. NATO does not have enough troops deployed to repel an invasion, much less to be considered an offensive threat to Russia. What Putin is really threatened by is that Ukraine, true to the history I just gave you, is asserting an independent path. They don't like that independent path because it separates them from Russia. Ironically--in fact, very ironically--his aggressive actions to date have only unified Ukrainians in Ukraine's determination to be free of Russian influence. Putin has pushed Ukraine toward the European Union and toward NATO. Putin seems to believe his own twisted view of history, so he convinced himself that the current freely elected government of Ukraine is not supported by the Ukrainian people. Putin thought that he could topple President Zelenskyy and appoint a puppet government. Putin thought Ukrainians would not fight. Boy, has he been proven to be wrong--really wrong. Putin cannot achieve his goal since the Ukrainians will never, never accept Russian domination. So Putin has taken to leveling civilian areas, cynically agreeing to humanitarian corridors to allow families to escape, only to shoot those who have gathered, bombing maternity wards, killing many women and babies. And, of course, as you see every day on television, the atrocities can only get worse. We must provide Ukraine with everything it might need to stop the mass murders. That includes military aircraft, drones, anti-aircraft systems, anti-missile systems--almost anything they need--and we must do it now. I wanted more arms and sanctions before the invasion happened. We saw that invasion coming. Any bureaucratic delays now are unacceptable. Our Eastern European allies acted with lightning speed. We seem to follow them. Our European allies were giving up weapons that they need for deterrence in their own defense, and then we followed. We ought to continue to follow their example; but instead of following, we should be leading. And we should agree to fill any gaps caused by past and future donations of weapons to Ukraine by frontline allies. Ukraine's success and its defense will prevent a wider war that will cost more in lives and resources. It is in our interest to do everything we can to stop the Russian terror campaign now. We should be leading--not leading from behind. We should lead NATO--not follow NATO. We should be the great United States of America that we are because we are dealing with a sick autocrat, probably with an ego that has to be satisfied; and it is all totally understandable, except that somebody is very sick. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request at the present time relating to the nomination of Mayor Eric Garcetti, of California, to be the U.S. Ambassador to India. I will object because I have received numerous credible allegations from multiple whistleblowers alleging that Mr. Garcetti, while mayor of Los Angeles, had knowledge of sexual harassment and assaults allegedly committed against multiple city employees and their associates by his close adviser and that he ignored the misconduct. The allegations involving the mayor's office have been the subject of public reporting and a purportedly independent investigation. However, serious questions remain regarding the alleged misconduct, as well as the mayor's knowledge of that misconduct. First, whistleblowers who have spoken with my office have not previously spoken to the Foreign Relations Committee and are presenting new allegations that must be fully investigated. Second, the investigation of the Los Angeles mayor's office reportedly found no wrongdoing by the mayor or his staff. However, information provided by multiple whistleblowers strongly suggests that this investigation was incomplete at best. The extent to which the investigation was truly independent is also not clear, and the report has not been made public. The United States owes it to the Republic of India to send them a qualified Ambassador that will represent the values of the United States. Mayor Garcetti may very well be fully qualified, but at this time, the Senate needs to look into these allegations further. So until my staff and I have conducted a thorough investigation and are able to speak with everyone involved, I cannot vote to confirm Mr. Garcetti.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, many Iowans rely on pharmacists who operate independently or as part of a small community pharmacy chain. This is especially true in rural Iowa, but I will bet it is true in a lot of other rural States as well. In Iowa, we have over 300 independent pharmacists, and many work in multiple rural communities. These pharmacies are small businesses serving Iowa communities like Muscatine and Sioux City. These pharmacies want a level playing field to compete with anyone whether that is a big chain or whether it is another independent pharmacy. Yet the pharmacists I hear from are being hurt by retroactive direct and indirect remunerations. I am going to refer to them as ``DIR'' fees. They have to work with pharmaceutical benefit managers in regard to those fees, and there are conflicts between them that I hear about all the time. This all deals with Part D Medicare plans. What I am talking about with regard to direct and indirect remunerations and these negotiated fees with PBMs are what are sometimes known as clawbacks. Every day, seniors go to the drug store, and they probably always pay a copay. These seniors then rightfully believe that they are paying the lowest amount possible, but that is not always the case. After the patient pays and leaves the pharmacy, the Part D Medicare plan or a PBM, a pharmacy benefit manager, contacts the local pharmacist to claw back a certain amount paid. That is where this DIR fee comes in. This action actually lowers the cost of the drug, but the patient doesn't know it. Because of these DIR fees, seniors pay a lot more than they need to for the pills they get at the pharmacy. One Iowa rural pharmacist told me that DIR fees, clawbacks, are not only costing the patient more in the form of a higher copay, they are also costing that local pharmacy. From 2010 to 2020, Part D Medicare plans and the PBMs increased the DIR fees by over--can you believe this?--104,000 percent. DIR fees now total over $9 billion a year. Pharmacists, especially those operating independently in rural areas but particularly in rural Iowa, whom I hear about, have told me, if DIR fee clawbacks do not get under control, pharmacists will not survive. Of course, we hear--maybe not every day, but we hear quite often--about those small pharmacists going out of business, and these DIR fees are often cited to us as one of the reasons. This will then leave Iowans without access to the local pharmacy for medication therapy management and for other care. I have a bipartisan solution to solve this problem that ends DIR fee clawbacks. In 2019, the senior Senator from Oregon and I negotiated and introduced a bill that we entitled the ``Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act,'' also known as Grassley-Wyden. I don't even care if it is known as Wyden-Grassley. The Grassley-Wyden ends DIR fee clawbacks. This will reduce out-of-pocket expenses and provide pharmacies with financial predictability. This move may even keep rural pharmacies viable. On top of my legislative efforts in Grassley-Wyden, I commend the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for issuing a proposed rule to end DIR fee clawbacks. I am not sure that that proposed rule exactly does what the Grassley-Wyden bill does, but it is still a step in the right direction, and I welcome that. In welcoming it, I have submitted comments, asking the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to strengthen the proposed provision as much as the existing statute allows. Of course, we ought to finalize that proposed rule without delay. In addition to ending DIR fee clawbacks, I am committed to passing Grassley-Wyden. I hope, now that Democrats worked on Build Back Better last year with provisions that they thought would reduce pharmaceutical drugs--and it doesn't seem to be moving--that, instead of going the partisan way, they would take a look at a bipartisan way of trying to get something done on prescription drugs and, at the same time, end the DIR fee clawback. This bill, as a whole, besides dealing with the clawbacks, will lower prescription drug costs in a comprehensive manner. It actually takes on Big Pharma. You probably know that, in this body, there are some people who say we should just leave Big Pharma alone, but I know that they do wonderful work. I know they have to have their money for research, and I know they have to be able to market their products in a free market way, but when you have these big pharmaceutical price increases maybe a couple of times a year, it is time we do something about it. Besides this clawback provision, Grassley-Wyden caps out-of-pocket expenses, eliminates the doughnut hole, and in dealing with these price increases every year, it caps rising prices at the inflation price index. It also brings more sunshine and accountability, particularly to the pharmacy benefit managers. Nobody seems to be able to tell us anything as to what goes on between the health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the PBMs, and the local pharmacists and then how that affects the consumer. We ought to know exactly where those moneys go and what those negotiations are, and Grassley-Wyden does something about that. So I urge my colleagues to join Wyden and me in that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on Saturday, deadly tornadoes swept through Iowa, destroying homes, parks, and leaving over 10,000 people without power. The communities most affected are Winterset, IA, and Chariton, IA, but other communities as well. Tragically, seven people--five adults and two children--died, and many people have been affected because of this severe weather. This is the deadliest tornado in our State in 15 years. The one 15 years ago came close to my hometown of New Hartford, IA, and the adjoining community of Parkersburg, IA, and 13 people lost their lives that time. So, with today's incident, as families, businesses, and communities continue to assess the damage and clean up from these storms, I want Iowans to know that I have talked to the Department of Homeland Security's Secretary Mayorkas about these tornadoes. He has been assuring that wherever the Federal Government has authority to help, they will step in and do that. I have also reached out to FEMA, the State of Iowa, and affected communities. I will do everything I can at the Federal level to assist. Unfortunately, Iowa is no stranger to tornadoes and natural disasters. Once again, I am encouraged by the stories I hear from neighbors of strangers helping each other and their communities. Of course, we all know that that is the Iowa way: neighbor helping neighbor. These storms take time to recover, and I know that we will continue to reach out and help our fellow Iowans in need. My thoughts and the thoughts of all Iowans and their prayers go out to those who lost loved ones and to those whose properties were affected by these tornadoes. I also pray for those who were hurt and for some who were hospitalized in that they will have speedy recoveries. Iowans are strong and resilient people. We will recover, and we will rebuild. As Iowa's Senator, I will be there to help in any way needed. Free Speech Now, Mr. President, another matter that I have spoken of on the floor of the U.S. Senate recently and, to some extent, a few times last year is the issue of freedom of speech in our colleges. In recent years, I have tried to highlight some of the most ridiculous impositions on freedom of speech in college, but so many of these cases get swept under the rug. It can be hard to get an idea of whether typical students feel free to speak their minds in the university environment. So last spring, the Iowa legislature passed a bill strengthening free speech across our State's education system. In part, this bill was meant to find out how big a problem the restraint of free expression is at our State's public universities. Last month, that led to the results of a survey of 17,000 students in Iowa's public universities. The results raised serious concerns. Now, get this: Fewer than half of the employees thought that their universities allowed them to say what they believed. A third of the students thought that their institutions ``hinder[ed] free speech.'' A quarter of the students didn't even think that their campuses provided an ``environment for [the] free and open expression of ideas.'' A university that can't meet that basic bar is missing the whole purpose of a college or university. You have heard me say my definition of a ``university'' is one wherein controversy ought to run rampant. Thankfully, the bill that passed the Iowa legislature takes action to solve the issue that I just described. This semester, students across the State have begun taking a course to instill in them the value of free speech. The goal is to ensure that students and faculty understand the value of the First Amendment: freedom of speech. The course emphasizes respect for another's speech and its impact both in and out of the classroom. I am hopeful that this will start to steer us in the right direction in not only my State of Iowa; I hope it has some impact across the country, because letting students speak their minds is central to the idea of a liberal arts education. Yet the default has increasingly become to censor at the drop of a hat, only allowing free speech if administrators find blowback. Just look to a case last month here in Washington, DC, at George Washington University. A student put up posters criticizing having the Olympics in China, given the repressive regime there. We know about that repressive regime because we talk about it quite often as the Chinese Communists deny freedom of religion and other freedoms to the Uighur minority. These posters at George Washington University were well done and well within the mainstream discussion. They speak to the concerns that I have myself about what goes on in China. The university immediately responded by tearing them down and saying the posters were racist. They only reversed themselves when it came out that the artist himself--I had better say himself or herself--was Chinese and that the concerns were far from unique. I find it hard to believe the university's namesake would approve of this approach. Examples like this are why we need Iowa's new free speech course. Hopefully, this example set in my State by our own State legislators is followed elsewhere. Students and administrators alike have forgotten why the First Amendment matters. I am glad to see States like Iowa are starting to remind everybody. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 2 years ago this month, things started shutting down due to COVID. We shut down the American economy; basically, 22 million people, all of a sudden, were unemployed. I think we learned a lot in the last 2 years, and if we have another pandemic, I don't think we would do it that way again. I think we have learned a lot from mistakes, and a lot of bad mistakes resulted from that decision. So, in March 2020, employees were furloughed or sent home to work from home; schools were closed; events were canceled. Everyone was told to stay home. Now, 2 years later, a lot has changed in the fight against COVID. Tests and treatments have been developed. Anyone who wants a vaccine can get one. High-quality masks are available free for anyone who chooses to wear a mask. Those masks protect the one wearing it, regardless of the choices of others around them, whether they make a choice to wear a mask or not. Restaurants, theaters, and sports venues are filling back up again. Demand for air travel is above prepandemic levels. Yet our Federal Government remains frozen in time, operating as if it were still the spring of 2020. Federal Agencies remain shuttered to the taxpayers who fund it. Expensive office buildings in downtown DC are sitting deserted. Fifty percent of the executive branch workforce is still working remotely, and most have no plans to return to the office. Some Agencies, such as the Veterans' Administration, had previously announced efforts to return to in-person work. Those plans have been indefinitely postponed. The U.S. Capitol Building, where we are right now, is closed to the public, despite nearly every State capitol building in the country finding a way to reopen. Federal employees are here, as we all know, to serve the taxpayers. Agencies like the Veterans' Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security Administration that are responsible for processing benefits and tax refunds need to be fully operational. It is pretty plain and simple. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service offices, located in every Iowa county and most counties in most States, are responsible for signing up farmers for the Conservation Reserve Program and for crop insurance. Right now, those county offices are the busiest as farmers prepare for the upcoming crop year. These county offices still require employees to work from home. The U.S. Department of Agriculture employees have to meet with farmers to go over detailed maps of their land, making it nearly impossible even with video calls. I have received letters from farmers and USDA employees alike who are frustrated that they can't have in-person meetings. We all know that backlogs persist across the Federal Government and show no signs of abating. The National Personnel Records Center, responsible for providing service records to veterans seeking their benefits, has not been fully staffed since March of 2020. They have a backlog of records. Those requests are so massive that it would take years to correct. For 2 years now, the Agency has been processing emergency requests only while the other requests just pile up. This Agency needs employees in the office to function. They are currently staffed at just 25 percent capacity. They have announced that they will not return to full operational status until ``the public health emergency has ended.'' Now, who knows when that will happen? I guess veterans waiting to finish their application for benefits will just have to wait as well. Now, we know the abysmal record of the IRS. It only answered 9 percent of its calls, and those are called customer support calls. They are already warning that this tax filing season is going to be a mess for those filing, and there is still a backlog of unprocessed returns from last year. Yet thousands of IRS employees remain out of the office. Those trying to become U.S. citizens have been stuck in limbo for years. Records that the USCIS needs to process their applications are locked in the Federal records centers which are only open 25 percent of capacity. Even a few Agencies that have announced a plan to return to in-person work are not acting with any sense of urgency. The Social Security Administration announced the reopening of field offices in April. So I guess they figure those who have already been waiting for 2 years can wait another 2 months. My staff who help Iowans with their casework told me that the average number of days to get assistance from a Federal Agency has doubled now to 335 days. It takes almost a year to get an issue with a Federal Agency resolved. This is completely unacceptable. In the spring of 2020, it seemed as if there was no choice. Caution at that time was warranted. But I might remind the heads of Federal Agencies that even at that time, millions of Americans did not work from home. We saw it on television all the time, and it is still a problem in a lot of places--not enough nurses, doctors. But regardless, they didn't work from home. Nurses, doctors, and first responders still went to work in person. Employees at grocery stores, delivery drivers, and warehouse workers still showed up to work in person at the height of this pandemic, when nobody really knew what was all involved. For millions of Americans, working from home was never an option. Their jobs were essential and they continued to work to keep our society and economy functioning. While some Federal employees may be able to do their job effectively from home, the persistent lack of responsiveness from Federal Agencies make it clear that not all can work from home. It is certainly not acceptable to tell taxpayers that they must wait for services that they need because those in charge are too skittish to make a return-to-work plan. It is past time for Agencies and their heads to set a date for employees to return to serving the people in person. That is why I was very glad to join Senator Wicker in an introduction of a bill that he calls, by the acronym, the RETURN Act, which would require Agencies to share their plans to bring back the workforce within 30 days. I would urge my colleagues to support this bill and get the government back to work. I also urge President Biden--and when I bring up the name ``President Biden,'' don't forget that some of this stuff started under the Trump administration and continues today, so this is not just a Democratic problem when I say President Biden. But I also urge President Biden, now in charge, to follow the example of Iowa's Governor Reynolds and show leadership on this matter. Iowa schools have been fully open in Iowa for more than a year. Governor Reynolds has ended the State's public health disaster emergency proclamation. This doesn't mean ignoring the spread of COVID-19 going forward. Of course, there should be accommodation for those at high risk, but there is absolutely no justification for maintaining a state of emergency as if it were still March of 2020. Taxpayers have a right to have their government be responsive. Americans are back to work. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to ask a unanimous consent request, and I am going to state the reasons for that before I ask for the request. And I appreciate my friend from New Jersey coming over to help me at this particular time. So, today, the issue is fentanyl. Today's vote on this bill, as amended, should be a yes for every Member of the Senate. This measure extends the lifesaving authority placing fentanyl drugs in schedule I. In fact, a 15-month extension of this authority similar to the bill that I offer right now passed the Senate, and it passed the Senate unanimously in 2020. In case that you have not read the headlines for the past few years, fentanyl and its analogs are killing tens of thousands of Americans each year, and it happens that fentanyl and analogs are now the No. 1 cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 45, the most productive years of a person's life. The Drug Enforcement Administration placed fentanyl and analogs on schedule I in the year 2018. Congress has already extended this authority like I am seeking today five times in 4 years. Now, we are on the verge of extending it for a sixth time before it expires on March 11. During the Biden administration, these reauthorizations have gotten shorter and yet shorter. The periods of extension have been as short as just a few weeks. This has created constant doubt about whether fentanyl scheduling will even continue. I have received calls from families of people who have overdosed on fentanyl. I have received calls from law enforcement seeking our help for them to enforce the law. For the last 10 months, these families and these law enforcement people have been in terror that this authority will disappear, that thousands then would die from the fentanyl overdoses. We have extended fentanyl scheduling five times in 4 years, but four have been in the last 10 months alone. While extensions preserve a lifesaving authority, this kind of legislation by extension is neither sustainable nor reflective of the great gravity of keeping fentanyl drugs in schedule I. A permanently scheduled solution is the best answer; but, unfortunately, a permanent scheduling action isn't feasible right now. Now, why would that be the case? Because some members of Congress don't support keeping fentanyl analogs in schedule I--or maybe at all. Some reject our criminal drug laws altogether. That seems unbelievable, but that is what I sense from some of my colleagues. Fortunately, this is a fringe opinion and not very representative of the majority of Congress. Republicans and Democrats alike have voiced support for permanently scheduling fentanyl analogs, including even President Biden. But until Congress agrees on a bipartisan and a permanent solution, we must maintain the authority by extension. For years, I have been leading the fight to extend this authority in hopes of finding a permanent solution. I have urged Leader Schumer to support measures that extend fentanyl scheduling as long as possible. I have asked President Biden to engage with bipartisan congressional leaders on a permanent solution. And I have requested that Chairman Durbin hold a hearing on this issue in the Judiciary Committee. All these requests have obviously gone unanswered and ignored, or I wouldn't be here today asking for unanimous consent. Scheduling fentanyl analogs matters. And why does it matter? It can save lives. Congress has the power. Congress has the responsibility to act. So we ought to do that in just a few minutes. But we can't make meaningful bipartisan change unless we have enough time to do it. So let's pass a long-term extension and finally then lead the way to a permanent solution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent request that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 45, S. 1216; further, that the Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to have just a short rebuttal. I thank my friend for his kind remarks about me as I know that he and I have worked together on a lot of pieces of legislation. I want to express my disappointment that my bill to extend fentanyl scheduling by 14 months cannot proceed at this point, but I won't back down from trying to extend this authority in a meaningful and long-term way. There is more than one way to advance this bill. Today's vote is just one of those ways. Like history shows us, this authority can be included in funding legislation or move as a bipartisan, unanimous bill. I will continue my efforts for its inclusion in the upcoming omnibus appropriations bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Unless the Senator from New Jersey has something to say, I would like to proceed on another issue.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there are 192 nations on the face of this globe. Not one of those 192 nations, including Ukraine, is a threat to Russia. Regardless, the Russian military is continuing to wage a full-scale war on the nation and the people of Ukraine. I am not sure of the reasons because I don't know Putin. The highest I have been in the leadership of Russia was, once or twice in my life, when having a meeting with Mr. Lavrov, the Foreign Minister. I think, when it comes to Putin, he has got to satisfy his ego or he is sick or maybe both. The Ukrainian military and civilians are fighting for their homes. Obviously, they want to be an independent nation. They have our moral support and even some of our weapons, and they probably need a lot more help from the United States, short of putting troops in that country. I wish we had gotten them more defensive weapons before this invasion, but I still think there is more that we can do. I am an original cosponsor of the NYET bill. ``Nyet'' is the word for ``no'' in Russian. This legislation that goes by this acronym, the NYET Act, literally says no to Russian aggression, with tough, targeted support for Ukrainian resistance efforts, even if that turns into a guerilla war, and there are a number of other bills to crush the Putin regime. Russia, as we know, is a major oil and gas producer, so Putin's actions are hurting not just Ukrainian and Russian citizens but Americans as well. Just think of the $1 or more increase in the price of gasoline we are paying today compared to 1 year ago. This situation comes at the same time Americans across the country are already paying more for gas than at any time since 2014. That number comes from AAA data. Last night, I was encouraged to hear President Biden pledge to ``use every tool at our disposal'' to limit gas price hikes after he imposed sanctions on Russia. It is time for Congress and the White House to rethink policies that threaten our energy independence and, at the same time, our national security. That is why already this week I have helped to introduce the American Energy Independence Act with Senator Hawley, which would reverse the President's shutdown of the energy sector and return it to full production so that we will have energy independence like we had until 12 months ago. Last night, the President talked about buying American products. Yet it seems like oil and natural gas--very major components of our economy--were excluded from his rhetoric. When it comes to oil, the United States imports nearly 700,000 barrels of oil a day from Russia. That is why I introduced legislation yesterday with Senator Marshall that would ban purchases of Russian oil. I am also backing a new bill by Senator Rubio to make American oil companies sever ties with Russian state-owned oil and gas companies as many of these companies already have done. I support harsh sanctions that hit Putin where it really hurts him. In turn, you will affect the entirety of the Russian people, who are innocent of this dictator's running of their country, all the harm he is causing them right now. But we ought to free the world from a Russian energy blackmail and keep gas affordable here at home with American-produced energy. Some of my colleagues are looking to lower prices at the gas pump by pushing for a gas tax freeze. That would be a very short-term, unsustainable move that would blow a hole in the highway trust fund. Instead, I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle can work with the President to reverse decisions that have increased the price of domestic fuel production. You remember, on the first day in office, President Biden decided to shut down the Keystone Pipeline. President Biden should restart and expedite that pipeline. Also, in January 2021, President Biden issued an Executive order pausing new oil and gas leases on public lands and Federal waters. In July 2021, the Interior Department halted all oil drilling on leased land within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, take all these actions. They signal to capital investors that the heavy hand of the Federal Government will work against fossil fuel investments at every turn. You know, you read about bank regulators all the time, discouraging banks from making loans to energy fossil fuels. This hostile regulatory environment has crippled investment in fossil fuels, which, in turn, is the reason we have the high price of gasoline. Instead of more redtape, the President and Congress should work to cut regulations and Federal permitting that slow down, and has slowed down, domestic energy production. We were, as you know, energy independent 12 months ago. Now, we are energy dependent. We have the President begging OPEC and Russia to ship us more oil. Policies that encourage investments in fossil fuel production will increase domestic production, and the result would be lower gas prices, just like we can look back at the last 12 months, and all the action that has been taken has driven up the price of gasoline. But instead of focusing on domestic energy independence last fall, as I have already referred to, President Biden instead asked OPEC to pump more oil. The OPEC cartel, of course, did not honor that request. In 2000, when he was a Senator, now-President Biden acknowledged that anticompetitive behavior from OPEC harms American consumers and called on President Clinton to consider legal action against OPEC. OPEC is an organization which blatantly colludes to raise the price of oil. I have introduced the bipartisan bill entitled No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels--it goes by the acronym NOPEC--which would allow the Department of Justice to hold OPEC accountable for its anticompetitive behaviors that artificially inflate global oil prices. I ask again for President Biden to publicly support the passage of NOPEC and work with Congress to pass this legislation into law. Besides focusing on fossil fuels, we know that ethanol makes up 10 percent of the gas sold in the United States. When oil prices are high, it gives higher blends of ethanol a clear competitive advantage. Historically, gas prices gradually rise in the spring and peak late summer when people are driving more frequently. But last fall, the Supreme Court rejected EPA's regulation allowing year-round E15 sales. Congress must move quickly to ensure that E15 can be sold this summer. E15 is a cleaner, higher-octane type of gasoline that contains more homegrown ethanol and less petroleum. Both biodiesel and ethanol are proven domestic supplies of fuel that enhance our energy independence and, at the same time, lower greenhouse gas emissions. Domestic biofuel producers are ready to step up and to give consumers lower gas prices that increase our national security and provide jobs in the heartland--good-paying jobs. Most Americans do not care where the oil was produced when they fill up their gas tanks. They just want to fill up their gas tanks without taking out a loan to do it. But when conflict occurs in oil-producing regions around the world, Americans quickly realize the importance of your gas being a mix of West Texas crude and Iowa ethanol. In just over a year, we can see how the United States is losing energy independence. Instead of focusing on domestic fuel production, the President and his administration have caved to the most radical environmentalists in shaping our energy policy. It is time to reverse course. I am taking the President at his word when he said in the State of the Union Address last night that he wants to use every tool at his disposal to limit gas price hikes. So I have just given several ways that we can use every tool that the President is talking about. And, of course, it is time to get to work. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, two things, and the first one is very short but something that is sorrowful that we have to talk about, Senator Feinstein losing her husband. Senator Feinstein is a friend of mine. You get very well acquainted with people when you work with--like when I was chairman of the Judiciary, and she was ranking member. For years before that, she and I chaired or cochaired the drug caucus. So we all know that she lost her husband of 42 years over this weekend. We know that he had a long battle with cancer. Dick and Dianne supported each other during everything life threw at them, and they had fun along the way. Together, they were even stronger. Dianne has dedicated herself to working for the people of California, and she had no better confidant and supporter than her husband Dick. Many Americans think that Senators of opposing political parties don't get along, and that is not the case. All 100 of us know that here. It is too bad that journalists always make controversy the center of everything, so people--at least in Iowa--have an extraordinary view that we never speak to each other, and that is not the case. And I would just point out how Senator Feinstein and I have worked together. Barbara and I express our deepest sympathy to Dianne and her family on Dick's passing, as they grieve the loss of a life well lived. Biden Administration Mr. President, now to another point that I have come to talk to my colleagues about. In Biden's inaugural address a year ago, he called repeatedly for unity. He said: We can treat each other with dignity and respect. We can join forces, stop the shouting, and lower the temperature. For without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury. No progress, only exhausting outrage. I was glad to hear him say all of those good intentions. I took it, really, as an invitation for bipartisanship. It sounded like the Joe Biden that I knew as a Senator for the 28 years that he and I worked together. So I reached out early on to offer to work with him on lowering the cost of prescription drugs. But right out of the gate, he rejected good-faith offers from all of us to work together on another COVID relief package, as Republicans and Democrats had on five others throughout the year of 2020. Even with the narrowest of margins, and you can't get much more narrow than a 50-50 Senate, President Biden let his party's agenda be dictated by the most radical progressive wing of his party. The extreme radicals refused to compromise on a wish list having nothing to do with COVID. President Biden should instead have listened to Professor Larry Summers. He was President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and President Obama's Chief Economic Adviser. Professor Summers warned that all the spending the progressives were insisting on would fuel the fires of inflation, and now we know how right Professor Summers was. But that $2 trillion spending binge just whet the appetite of the very young radicals in the Democratic Party who don't remember the 1970s' stagflation. And if they had memories of stagflation, they willingly ignored history. Instead of offering to find common ground on issues like prescription drug pricing, the Democrats wasted much of the year trying to spend another $4 trillion on a slew of brandnew entitlement programs. His one significant bipartisan achievement, passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill, was all but gift wrapped and handed to him by a bipartisan group of Senators. Even then, liberal Democrats nearly derailed it by insisting its fate be tied to the passage of their unrelated liberal spending spree that is referred to as Build Back Better. Opponents called it ``Build Back Worse.'' Thankfully, moderate Democrats in the House successfully delinked the two bills, as we did in the Senate, and sent the infrastructure bill to the President's desk. So that was a bipartisan victory for the President, and it was a victory for bipartisanship in this Senate. Now, even more importantly, thanks to the leadership of Senator Manchin, along with the principled stand of Senator Sinema, Democrats multibillion-dollar liberal spending spree floundered--Build Back Better floundered. As a result, we avoided piling even more gasoline into the inflation fire. But as Larry Summers warned and Senator Manchin feared, the fire of inflation is already burning brightly. It is picking the pockets of hard-working, middle-class Americans, who are paying more for gas and groceries, and, for that matter, everything else. President Biden's reluctance to stand up to the radical voices in his own party or listen to moderate criticism has led to failure after failure. There is President Biden's decision to shut down the Keystone Pipeline day 1 of his administration and, more recently, to not shut down Russia's Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. But now, thanks to Germany and the Ukraine situation, that is shut down--but no thanks to President Biden. He pulled the few remaining troops out of Afghanistan in a chaotic hurry, leaving Americans stranded. He has even accused friends across the aisle, people of my political party whom he has long worked with, as being Jim Crow racists. This isn't the uniting President that he promised that he would be on January 20 of last year. The good news is that it is not too late to change course. So, hopefully, he will get a big voice from both political parties about it is not too late to change course and work in a bipartisan way. There is reason to believe that he is trying to be Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But trying to be FDR without FDR's popularity and FDR's supermajority in the Congress--that approach has failed. I invite President Biden to face reality, ignore the radicals in his political party, whether in Congress or on his staff, and work across the aisle in a way I know we can. I saw that regularly for 28 years. Be the President you promised to be at your inauguration, in other words. The American people want action on issues that they are facing this very day: inflation, spike in violent crimes, prescription drug costs, open borders, and you could have a myriad of other things. I could name three things that I am part of a bipartisan effort to get things done: One, take on Big Tech, Klobuchar and Grassley; take on the big meatpackers, Grassley and Tester and Fischer and Wyden; and take on prescription drugs, as Wyden and I worked on that prior to last year, when Democrats took over, and they forgot all about it. Let's get some of these things done. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I was surprised to learn that Facebook recently flagged a news article that I posted on my Facebook pages as ``false information.'' The article I posted was about new Durham investigation allegations against Hillary Clinton's campaign and its associates. The article clearly cited a Federal court filing and a former congressional investigator with a deep understanding of the Democrats' work to concoct the bogus Russia collusion narrative that divided our Nation for years. This wouldn't be an issue today if more journalists did their job of being the police of our society and governmental system and reported on all investigations, not just ones that appeal to certain political parties. What kind of a message does this censorship send to a reporter who does take on the new allegations against the Clinton campaign and its associates and then it is labeled ``disinformation''? I don't think that is going to encourage more journalists to cover this issue. It is truly mind-blowing that these companies continue to interfere in free expression. Big Tech is silencing everyone they disagree with, and clearly they see no check to their powers. The article I cited--I cited two in my post--was on foxnews.com, a mainstream news organization. Why does Facebook and one of its third-party fact-checker partners get to make the decision that this news article is considered false information? That decision should be made by the American people who should be able to view that content and decide that fact for themselves. It shouldn't be decided by our Big Tech overlords who seem to only find fault with content that is conservative or goes against the liberal narrative. These are the same outlets that allowed information relating to the Steele dossier to run wild and very free, yet censored Hunter Biden's news articles during the 2020 election. Now they are doing the bidding for the Clinton camp. Why are they so afraid of reporting that exposes the Russian collusion hoax? Silencing or chilling free speech and the back-and-forth discussion of ideas is entirely wrong. Increasingly, we see the tag ``misinformation'' or ``disinformation'' given to content that the liberal mainstream media simply disagrees with or goes against their chosen narrative. Finding and seeking the truth should not be about silencing voices but allowing robust discourse. It is time that we examine the section 230 immunity that has enabled these companies to avoid any liability. We must stop these companies from arbitrarily deciding what speech is acceptable for this free country we live in. It has become increasingly clear that these dominant platforms controlling discussion and dialogue are more beholden to cancel culture and not to the fundamentals of free speech principles that this country was founded upon. These Big Tech companies have few competitors and are immune from liability. These companies are unaccountable to their customers, the courts, and the government. If not for their monopoly power and section 230 immunity, these companies might not be involved in the actions and censorship that we see today. As a U.S. Senator and someone who has been vocally outspoken about my concerns with censorship on online platforms, I will continue to do everything in my power to prevent the censorship of speech and ideas on behalf of my constituents in Iowa and of course on all Americans. Simply put, we deserve better than ``woke'' monopolists and their liberal lapdogs deciding what we can discuss. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have come to this floor before for the same subject, but I now come to express my concerns once again about the rise in crime in America. Now I want to express what that rise in crime means for everybody if we don't stop it. If we don't act soon, and don't reverse the trend of tolerating crime, a generation of Americans will see the greatest cities fall once again into decay. We have seen it before, and it is not something that we want to see again. To stop it, we must allow the police to enforce the law and demand that prosecutors do their job. A couple of generations of Americans have now grown up not knowing how dangerous some of our biggest cities used to be. The two that come to mind are New York and Washington, DC. First, let's look at New York 20, 40 years ago. When asked what they think of Times Square in Manhattan, most younger Americans would probably say that it is a tourist trap. But it wasn't always that way. In the 1970s, Times Square was an open sore, filled with adult theaters, drugs, and rampant crime. Back then, the New York City subway looked like something from some dystopian horror movie. In other words, you avoided New York City subways if you could. Now, let's turn to Washington, DC, in the late 1980s. Its decay could almost be traced back entirely to one person. Just a few blocks from here where we are standing right now, a drug dealer named Rayful Edmond ran the most notorious crack cocaine operation in the country. By 1989, he was bringing 1,700 pounds of cocaine into DC every month. He used to put snipers on rooftops near his headquarters. Police suspected his operation was involved in 30 homicides. During that time, the city's murder rate doubled. Washington had the nickname the ``murder capital of the world.'' Then something great happened. Mayors and prosecutors got serious about dealing with crime. They sent Rayful Edmond to jail for life. People who lived in cities felt much safer. Businesses flourished. Pervasive fear gradually lessened because police took criminals off the street. The crime rates in New York and Washington plummeted. Young families moved to urban neighborhoods that were far too dangerous just a few years before. This was wonderful, obviously. The block where Rayful Edmond once put his snipers on rooftops is now a very normal residential street. Our cities, everybody knows, should be places where we want to live. We should enjoy going there to see other people. We shouldn't avoid cities because we are afraid of getting harassed on the streets or carjacked, at the worst. But that is what is beginning to happen again. All over the country, our biggest cities are starting to look dangerous and empty. History repeats and repeats. Cities are devolving into what they were just a couple of decades ago. Homicides in 22 major cities have gone up 44 percent since 2019. Carjackings are up double, even triple, and worse in some cities. Thieves are stealing from stores with impunity. When that happens, those businesses shut down, leaving neighborhoods with empty storefronts and a recipe for urban decline. Crime is up because of the permissive approach by too many so-called progressive prosecutors. One prosecutor in San Francisco has said that if you steal less than $950, you won't be prosecuted. No wonder people are committing more crimes. These prosecutors see criminals as victims, releasing them back into the streets shortly after being arrested. This sows fear in local residents. Common sense ought to tell everybody that. Common sense says it kills growth. Common sense says it hurt neighborhoods. Common sense says it endangers regular people who want to live their lives peacefully. America is a nation of progress. We are a nation of progress moving forward. Our current backward slide to urban decays in the 1970s and 1980s is tragic. Working-class families and those who can't afford to move somewhere safer will bear the brunt of it. The solution here is not very complicated. A recent poll showed two out of every three people know what some of these blue-city mayors haven't figured out yet: More police equals less crime. When prosecutors list a whole bunch of crimes that they won't prosecute, it encourages lawbreaking. Also, we need to stop the crusade to defund the police. They need to stop progressive prosecutors. You know, I know there is prosecutorial discretion. We all know that not every crime can be punished or prosecuted. But if you were a smart prosecutor who didn't want to encourage more crime, you wouldn't tell the whole world that certain crimes aren't going to be punished and others will be punished, because that is inviting those laws to be broken. That is why you see dozens of people rushing into a retail store, grabbing everything they can that is under $950 and leave. Prosecutors ought to keep their mouths shut and just do the job; and if they use discretion, keep it to themselves not to punish some crimes. So we need to make sure that repeat offenders and those who are a threat to society don't get bail. Otherwise, younger generations of America will learn all over again the harsh lessons about how quickly our greatest cities can fall into decay. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the floor to give you an example of some of the hypocrisy that goes on in this town. On February 11, last week, Special Counsel Durham made another filing with respect to the case against Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann. I have spoken to my colleagues before to discuss Special Counsel Durham's findings in this matter. Today, I want to highlight new evidence that has come with this filing. Special Counsel Durham's filing said that at trial, his team will establish that a firm tied to the Clinton campaign misused internet traffic pertaining to four entities: a healthcare provider, Trump Tower, a Donald Trump apartment building in New York, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The Clinton campaign essentially spied on the Trump campaign. After Trump was elected, the Clinton campaign's work continued. Now, how did they do it? According to Special Counsel Durham, the Clinton campaign worked with cyber researchers to infiltrate private and government servers connected to Donald Trump. Their main conduit was Tech Executive-1. In July 2016, according to Special Counsel Durham, ``Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.'' In addition, Tech Executive-1 had access to dedicated servers for the Executive Office of the President as part of a ``sensitive arrangement.'' This individual ``exploited this arrangement . . . for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.'' According to Special Counsel Durham, the Clinton campaign through Tech Executive-1 abused ``non-public and/or proprietary Internet data.'' One question that needs to be answered is whether any of this exploited information and data included classified information. The available facts show that the Clinton campaign abused Federal Government contracts to exploit government information to use against Trump. If the Republicans did the same thing, we all know you wouldn't hear the end of it. The Democrats and media would want another impeachment of Trump. All of these outrageous acts were done to create fake connections between Trump and Russia. That included the fake Alfa Bank narrative. That narrative centered on allegations that Trump had a secret communications channel with the Russian bank. It was all fabricated by the Clinton campaign. There was nothing to it. And let's not forget that Jake Sullivan spread the fake Alfa Bank narrative, and he spread it far and wide. Sullivan is now President Biden's National Security Advisor. He needs to answer for his role in this entire fiasco. Even the Obama administration's servers communicated with the same Russian servers that were apparently the basis of the false Russia connections. Now, just think how ridiculous this rollout was. With this so-called evidence against Trump in hand, on February 9, 2017, Sussmann provided updated allegations to an unnamed U.S. Government Agency. Of course, he left out the Obama administration connections. Some of those allegations included that Trump and his associates used rare, Russian-made wireless phones near the White House. Durham said that there was no evidence of that. But some evidence is very, very clear. During the election, the Clinton campaign spied on the Trump campaign. After Clinton lost, the Clinton campaign spied on the Trump administration. And they did it by abusing Federal Government contracts; and they did it by abusing their access to government information. Trump has repeatedly said that the Clinton campaign spied on his campaign. The mainstream media either ignored him or called him a liar. Based upon Special Counsel Durham's filings, Trump, it turns out, was right. The Clinton campaign, mainstream media, and the Democratic Party did whatever they could do to destroy Trump, no matter the cost to the truth or the cost to the country. The House Democrats, with the backing of corporate media, set up the January 6 Commission to investigate what they termed the Big Lie. Where are those on the January 6 Commission when it comes to investigating the Big Lie where the Clinton Campaign worked with the sitting Obama administration and taxpayers' money in trying to destroy their political opponent? That is just as dangerous to our democracy. As I conclude my remarks, lets come to grips with this absolute fact: The Clinton campaign's conspiracy of dirty tricks set in motion a chain of events that have ripped this country apart for years. So much for a peaceful transition to power. Now, what is disturbing to me about the hypocrisy in this town is that we have the First Amendment, freedom of press, where I see journalists as keeping government honest, and I don't see the people that knew that they were wrong about this issue for 4 or 5 years willing to admit that now they haven't done their job properly. And a lot of things that made government dishonest--and I just told you how this was done--don't seem to be worried about policing the political system the way they should. I haven't seen anybody apologize. I did see a rerun of something that happened October 2020 within the last couple of days, an interview between one of these journalists and President Trump where President Trump was trying to tell people that this stuff was going on, and they said, No, there is no proof of it. There is no proof of it. Are they saying today there is no proof of that? I think we all know that Trump wasn't in government. Maybe he even lacked some understanding of how the political system works, but he came to town to challenge the elite that are inside the beltway and change things. And somebody knew that he was up to that, and they wanted to stop him from doing it; so they spied on the campaign so he wouldn't be elected. And once he was elected, they spied on the Executive Office to see what they could do. I remember a story that a friend of mine told me about talking to some Democratic Senator in February of 2017, who told that friend of mine that Trump would not be President by the end of that year of 2017. Now, whether that Senator knew what he was talking about, I don't know; but I reflect back on that conversation I had with that friend, and I wondered if they really thought that by doing what we know now they were doing, that they were going to be able to get him out of office before the end of 2017. So I give you a little example of what I call hypocrisy in this city. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am here today to take a moment and remember the tragedy that occurred 4 years ago at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. And I want to discuss some legislation that I have introduced that results from that. But remember that day. On that day, we lost 17 innocent souls from this globe of ours, and it was at the hands of a troubled and evil young man who entered the school and opened fire. This tragedy can't be forgotten and should not be forgotten, not by the survivors of this attack, not by the families who lost loved ones, and then, eventually, not by this Congress because we can do something about it. We must continue finding solutions to prevent these attacks. In this spirit, today, I am back here on the Senate floor pushing for passage of my bipartisan and bicameral EAGLES Act. My bill is supported by over 40 State attorneys general, along with several groups, including Stand with Parkland, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and, lastly, the Major County Sheriffs of America. Passing the EAGLES Act is very vital in our fight to protect our schools and to promote a safe and healthy learning environment for our children. Just this month, the National Institute of Justice published an article discussing common traits of people who engage in mass shootings. This study covers the years between 1966 and 2019. Their analysis showed that the people who commit these acts were commonly troubled by personal trauma before the shooting, nearly always in a state of crisis at the time they committed their awful acts, and in most cases even engaged in leaking their plans before they opened fire. Every single one of those findings applies to the shooter at Parkland, FL. It is clear that we need to ramp up prevention efforts. We need the EAGLES Act because that act would achieve these aims, and it would do it by reauthorizing and expanding the U.S. Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center to proactively identify and manage threats before they result in more tragedies. The National Threat Assessment Center studies targeted violence and proactively identifies how to manage threats before they result in more tragedies. The bill that I introduced, the EAGLES Act, also establishes a Safe Schools Initiative to look at school violence prevention and expands research on school violence. My bill also provides funding to hire social scientists with expertise in child psychological development to support the National Threat Assessment Center's work. This is important to make sure that proven and evidence-based policies will continue to support everyone in the school environment and do it positively. Students need more support from Congress for a safe, positive, and inclusive learning environment. The EAGLES Act delivers just that by providing resources and training to school personnel, which will enable them to identify troubled youth and give them the intervention and treatment they need, hopefully long before an intervention is needed by law enforcement. While we cannot undo the tragedies of the past, we must continue working on ways to prevent future tragedies. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield the floor.