Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, this week marks the 80th year since FDR delivered his ``Day of Infamy'' speech. That was in a joint session of Congress. FDR told the Nation that the United States of America was under attack. Besides that attack, Pearl Harbor changed the course of history, including the future and fortunes of a young man from Russell, KS. Today, I come to the floor with a heavy heart. I am here to pay tribute to my best friend in the U.S. Senate. Yesterday, Senator Dole passed away at 98 years of age. For 35 of those years, he served Kansans here in Congress. He also was the second longest serving Senate Republican leader. When Iowans first elected me to serve in the Senate, Bob Dole took me under his wing. I couldn't have asked for a better mentor. He treated me like a brother. Even when we disagreed, he treated me with respect. We shared conservative, Midwestern values. Those values steered us to champion fiscal discipline, American agriculture, rural healthcare, and limited government. From humble beginnings, the three-sport athlete at the University of Kansas left his field of dreams. He left them behind to enlist and serve his country. Near the end of World War II, he was called to serve on the front lines in the northern mountains of Italy. From the Great Depression to the ``greatest generation,'' Senator Dole was battle-tested to tackle whatever life threw at him. During his Presidential campaigns, he got to know my State of Iowa very well, just like almost every Presidential candidate does. Bob loved my State of Iowa. He won the Iowa caucuses twice. In 1988 and in 1996, I was proud to join him on the campaign trail and crisscross the State, visiting as many Iowans as possible in as many of our 99 counties as possible. I think he earned an honorary nickname as Iowa's third Senator. On the campaign trail, it was often my job to introduce Bob Dole, so I am going to tell you about some of those introductions and about how, maybe, sometimes I screwed them up, but it was all with the intention of honoring my friend and fellow Senator, a person who I thought would make a very good President of the United States. So I would start out these meetings by telling the story about the day he nearly lost his life on the battlefield. I wanted to show how this young soldier from the Kansas prairie led a platoon of mountain troops to flush out the enemy--far, far afield from serving chocolate malts at Dawson's Drug Store in Russell, KS. To illustrate his grit, his courage, and his resiliency, I explained how a then-21-year-old soldier belly-crawled across a mountain valley, under heavy artillery, to secure what I thought was Hill 15--or was it Hill 13? Then Bob Dole would chime in--kind of interrupt me--with some witty remark. More often than not, I flubbed the name of that hill in my introduction of this Presidential candidate to the voters of Iowa. He patiently said to me that it was not Hill 15; it was Hill 913. Humble through and through, he didn't share that his injuries left him paralyzed from the neck down. Rather, he joked that I got the name of the hill wrong. He went on to say that what is important is that we are in the right State--meaning Iowa--at the right time, and right now. Senator Dole's legacy was secured that day on the Italian mountainside. As Second Lieutenant of the 10th Mountain Division, as he pulled his radio operator to safety, Bob's right shoulder was nearly blown away. The hit paralyzed him from the neck down. He waited for hours in the pouring rain, bleeding and in pain, before being carried down the mountain. Bob Dole was eventually sent home to Kansas in a body cast. He endured years of surgery, infections, rehabilitation in his relentless pursuit to walk again, and he did walk again. He learned how to write with his left hand, his right arm remaining paralyzed. Bob never forgot the people who helped him along the way: a doctor in Chicago or the medical professionals in Italy. They made it possible for him to serve later on in elective office. Even though Senator Dole endured more than his share of hardship, it surely didn't take away his sense of humor. Anybody who knew him knew that there was hardly a speech or a conversation in which something witty wasn't said. He was a master of witty one-liners, and he could defuse red-hot partisanship with a single quip. As Republican Senate majority leader, he finessed thorny policy issues with no-nonsense charm. He was able to find consensus with allies and adversaries alike. When Senator Dole became chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, he and House Speaker Tip O'Neill forged bipartisan consensus to rescue Social Security; and here we are, 35 years later, still rescued but still in need of some help. Less than 10 years later, he helped to broker the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 of which my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, played a very major role. His compassion for the disadvantaged informed his legislative achievements to expand Medicaid, school lunches, hospice, and food stamps. Senator Dole was awarded the World Food Prize in Des Moines with Senator George McGovern--a dual honor, that it was. That was the year 2008. They got this World Food Prize for their work to combat hunger, specifically nutrition for children in poverty. He never forgot from where he came, and his legislative record reflects his compassion for others. He was a compassionate conservative because of his instincts and because of who he was and not as a political gimmick. Senator Dole had an uncommon ability to make you feel like you were the most important person in the world. He was plain-spoken, not a smooth talker. His authenticity wasn't manufactured. It pumped through his bloodstream, shaped by the hardships in the dust bowl and sacrifice as a war hero. His Midwestern instincts guided his decision on one crucial factor here in the Senate--the looming deadlines. He knew when to fish or cut bait. Senator Dole mastered the art of compromise, embracing transparency and banked trust and the respect of supporters and opponents alike. Senator Dole knew what it took to make the Senate work. We all know that it is not so very easy to make the Senate work. One former majority leader referred to the job as majority leader as a job of ``herding cats.'' Leader Dole was effective because he was exceptionally skilled at figuring out what each side needed to claim victory. You can't be an effective leader if you don't have followers, and Dole had lots of them. He was a war hero and a workhorse rolled into one; a soldier, a Senator, a statesman. He led the 10th Mountain Division to defeat tyranny and championed the 10th Amendment to uphold the blessings of freedom and liberty. When Senator Dole stepped away from public life, he didn't stop public service. He poured his heart and soul into honoring veterans. He was instrumental in getting the National World War II Memorial established. For nearly two decades, he went there often to greet veterans at the memorial face-to-face, each time thanking them for their service and their sacrifice. Barbara and I extend our condolences to Elizabeth and the entire Dole family. So many are grieving the loss of this extraordinary American here at home and also around the world. From his former colleagues to the corps of loyal staffers who worked with him here in the U.S. Senate, to legions of volunteers and supporters who worked for him on the campaign trail, Senator Dole was a widely respected leader on both sides of the aisle. Senator Dole referenced Scripture when he resigned from the Senate in 1996 to hit the Presidential campaign trail at full speed. He said: To everything there is a season. A quarter-century has passed since he shared those very words with us here in this Chamber. Today, the time has come to say farewell to my mentor and brother in Christ, Robert Joseph Dole. The Lord has called him home as a loyal servant. Until we meet again, enjoy the new balcony of Eternal Paradise. It has got a better view to keep watch over Washington and your beloved Sunflower State. It is fair to say that ``Dole Beach'' is now even closer to the Sun. May you enjoy the warm sunshine upon your face in life everlasting. And may the yoke of hardship born upon your shoulders, worn with grit and grace, weathered by ravages of time and war, be taken now by our Lord God and Savior. Always at the end of the day on the campaign trail, whether it was getting on an airplane to fly to the next stop or whether it was in a car going to the motel or a car going to a restaurant, we always heard Dole at the end of a day of maybe four or five campaign stops saying ``Free at last. Free at last.'' Well, Bob Dole now is free at last. Godspeed, my friend. You have made a difference in my life. You have made a difference in our country. Your service and sacrifice will be celebrated for generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to give some remarks. I want to start off with a process question to all the 100 Senators. Obviously, this is an important issue with a lot of people. Democrats control every committee in this body, and this bill is being offered, when it could be brought up in the committee under regular order because they control the agenda of, in this case, the Judiciary Committee. So why hasn't that come up? Then I would remind people that in 2013, we actually had a vote on a Grassley-Cruz amendment that got the most votes so far of any gun issues. That was in, I think, the year 2013. Let's get to the issue that was brought up today by the Senator from Connecticut. Let me say that we have to have real regard for the position he takes because of the tragedy that happened in his State in 2012. Nobody is going to justify that. If they did, they would be crazy for trying to say that something bad like that happened and that it is not a crisis for everybody. Let me start off by saying in regard to what happened in Michigan that the senseless tragedy we saw in that State should not have happened. The shooter, as we have been told, killed four and injured others in a shocking act of violence. I cannot imagine what those families of the victims are going through because I guess you would have to go through it to try to get their feeling about it. You see it expressed on television, but it doesn't make the same impact on the people who are listening that it makes on the family of the victims. Difficult topics require across-the-aisle conversations, particularly when you have to have 60 votes to get anything done in this body. I would invite my colleagues across the aisle to have a bipartisan conversation on this topic and a lot of related topics to it. Violent crime and violence at schools are serious problems. I have supported legislative efforts to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which we call NICS. For example, I introduced the EAGLES Act, a bipartisan bill that would help reauthorize the U.S. Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center, where they study targeted violence and proactively identify and manage threats before they result in tragedies. However, in regard to the motion before us, I have serious concerns with the bill raised by the Senator from Connecticut. This bill is hostile toward lawful gun owners and lawful firearm transactions. This will not solve the problems that it seeks to solve. So-called ``universal'' background checks will not prevent crime and will turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. I have introduced legislation, along with Senators Cruz and Tillis, called Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act. Our bill will be much more effective than the underlying bill and has been supported by a majority of the Senate in the past. And I think that is the same thing that I was referring to--a vote that got a majority but not 60 votes in 2013. But the Democrat leadership has blocked that approach, which I assume that they will do again today. This legislation, S. 1775, would reauthorize and improve NICS, increase resources for prosecution of gun crime, and address mental illness in the criminal justice system, which if it had been addressed properly in the case of the Parkland, FL, shooting, that individual who had been identified, I think, somewhere between 30 and 40 times as having very serious mental issues, if he had been identified, he would have been in the NICS system and not been able to buy that gun. And that is just one thing, mental illness being a problem. And this legislation would also strengthen criminal law by including straw purchasing and illegal firearms trafficking statutes. It does that without burdening any Second Amendment rights of Americans. In addition, this bill would require a commission to study and report to Congress the underlying causes and triggers for mass shootings. The commission and study proposed could not come at a more important time, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that I will suggest to the Senate on a UC request. Therefore, Mr. President, I object to the motion that you have asked UC on.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I made the request. So there isn't any objection, so my bill passes?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 62, which is S. 1775, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2021; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Before I give up the floor, I would like to suggest that we can start sitting down with the Senator from Connecticut and a lot of other Senators who are interested in this issue, both on the Republican side and the Democrat side, with the legislation that I have suggested. The other thing I would like to comment on, just to clarify, is the Senator's statement about the recapture of gun rights under our bill: He is right. But you have got to look at why those Second Amendment rights were taken away in the first place, and I think it is the same principle that applies to people that have gone through the Social Security system and the people that have gone through the VA system. It is as simple as a little thing, that you have got to have a third party handle your finances for your family or whatever finances you have. You have to have a third party to do it. That name gets put in the NICS system, and it shouldn't be there just because you can't handle your finances. That has got nothing to do with that you ought to be denied your Second Amendment rights. And so our legislation provides a process to make sure that the due process of the Second Amendment rights that have been denied can be recaptured, so they can have the Bill of Rights as was intended. 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, it is typical for commentators to talk about how China is no longer really a communist nation. Of course, only the most ardent China apologist would question that China is still a one-party, authoritarian state. It is just that the economic policies pursued since the early 1980s are hard to square with Marxism-Leninism. I want to say to everybody: Not so fast. The sixth plenary session of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party contained a brand new historical resolution. This is only the third such paper since the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. The first, historians will remember, was when Mao Zedong put out one in 1945, and the second one was Deng Xiaoping in 1981. Now, revising the historical narrative has been used in the past to set a stage for a whole new era in China and a whole new era for the Communist Party. Most China watchers see this paper as a consolidation of power by the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jingping. But to what end does he pursue? His rhetoric sounds more like Mao than the Chinese leader--any Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. General Secretary Xi's historical resolution reads as a break from China's economic policies--what we thought was moving towards a free market system since the 1980s, and until the last few years, I would say it was moving towards a free market system. But it is too late to turn back now, right? Well, don't be so sure. The Soviet Union pursued its New Economic Policy as a short-term effort to strengthen the state before returning to a more pure Marxism. In a similar vein, General Secretary Xi has been cracking down on non-state-owned businesses, giving seemingly no care to the cost to the Chinese economy. General Secretary Xi's recent policies reportedly wiped out up to $1 trillion in stock value. He is doing this under the banner of so-called ``common prosperity,'' giving a socialist ideology backbone to what seems to be a power play to put him in a position of forever, the rest of his life, governing China. American businesses need to pay attention to all this. Even if they don't care about the slave labor camp full of Uighurs, even if they don't care about the suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, if our business leaders don't care about China's increasingly aggressive military posture--even willing to look the other way to China's stealing intellectual property and trade secrets--considering all that for American business over there, I would urge extreme caution to any business that still sees the Chinese market as a cash cow. Many people thought China would become very democratic once it was sufficiently capitalist. Maybe General Secretary Xi is worried about just that--being too capitalistic, making too many people successful without the help of the government. So if anyone thinks that General Secretary Xi would not dare sacrifice economic growth in the pursuit of power, think again. Emerging market funds with a lot of exposure to China ought to think about rebalancing. Pension funds that are overexposed to the Chinese market are risking wiping out the retirement savings of American workers, just like we have seen so far--$1 trillion less value in Chinese stocks because of General Secretary Xi's policies. My advice, then, to American business is that China is not a safe bet--surely, not the safe bet that many American businessmen thought it was. So a little bit of advice: Anyone investing in China ought to go in with open eyes and a big tolerance for risk as long as General Secretary Xi goes down this line of accumulating political power and not caring about destroying what private sector is left there. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on November 3 of this year, Special Counsel Durham indicted Christopher Steele's primary subsource, Igor Danchenko. He indicted him on five counts of lying to the FBI. He lied about his contacts and the identity of his sources. One of the more serious lies was about Sergei Millian. The indictment shows that Danchenko alleged a phone call occurred between him and Millian about a Trump-Russia conspiracy. That call was part of the basis that the FBI used to get a FISA warrant on Carter Page. Now, according to Durham, Steele's source lied about the call because that call never happened. This is yet another stunning, fatal defect against the Obama-Biden administration's fake predicate to investigate Trump--specifically, yet another illustration of Justice Department and FBI failure. Now, as a result of these failures, this country has been dragged through the mud for years. That statement is well understood at this point, but I have more to explain about it. The indictment also shows that one of Steele's sources was a ``longtime participant in Democratic Party politics'' and that he ``fabricated'' at least some of the information that he gave to Danchenko. This source, identified as Charles Dolan, ``actively campaigned and participated in calls and events as a volunteer on behalf of Hillary Clinton'' during the 2016 election. Another one of Danchenko's sources was also a Hillary Clinton supporter. Charles Dolan gifted to this particular Russian subsource an autobiography of Hillary Clinton signed with these words: ``To my good friend, a great Democrat.'' Now--get this--while the Democrats were smearing Trump with false Russia allegations, they were the ones rubbing elbows with Russians and spreading false information in the media, and, of course, the media, as we know, gladly ran with that information. For example, President Biden's current National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, promoted the false story about the Russian bank called Alfa Bank communicating with the Trump organization, when he worked for the Clinton campaign. Notably, during congressional testimony, several years ago, Sullivan said that he wasn't sure who Marc Elias represented when he presented Trump opposition research to the campaign. Now, for crying out loud, Elias was the Clinton campaign's general counsel. My oversight work dating back to December 2016 has focused on the Democratic Party's and Clinton campaign's links to the Steele dossier. Last Congress, Senator Johnson and I obtained many records relating to Crossfire Hurricane. We were able to get many of them declassified for the public. I point you to our April 15, 2020; December 3, 2020; and December 18, 2020, press releases on this information. Some of the declassified records show that the FBI had reports in its hand that showed the Steele dossier was most likely tainted with Russian disinformation. One document indicates that the FBI received a U.S. intelligence report on January 12, 2017, warning of an inaccuracy in the dossier in relation to Michael Cohen. The report assessed that the material was ``part of a Russian disinformation campaign to denigrate U.S. foreign relations.'' That same day, the FISA warrant against Page was renewed for the first time by Acting Attorney General Sally Yates. This is when the Obama-Biden administration and the Justice Department were still in charge. A similar U.S. intelligence report arrived on February 27, 2017, undercutting a key allegation against then-President Trump. The report noted claims about Trump's travel to Moscow in 2013 ``were false, and they were the product of Russian intelligence services infiltrat[ing] a source into the network'' of sources that contributed to the dossier. Just over a month later, the FISA warrant against Page was then renewed for a second time. I would be remiss if I didn't mention that the FBI also opened a counterintelligence case on Danchenko and failed to tell the FISA Court about it. If this fact pattern was a movie script, nobody would believe it. With Durham's recent indictments, we now have even more proof that the Trump-Russia collusion investigation had the wrong name. It should have been the Clinton-DNC-Russia collusion investigation. The media and many members of the Democratic Party ought to be ashamed of the falsehoods that they were spreading throughout these years. Our political discourse has been damaged for decades to come because of that scheme. Recently, the Washington Post had to correct over a dozen articles relating to its previous Russia reporting in light of the extensive errors made by that newspaper--years of errors, I might add. I think it is somewhat unprecedented, and I am sure the Washington Post hated to retract and correct the record. As Durham proceeds, I would say this: Don't take your eyes off of government misconduct. The Justice Department and the FBI hid critical information from the FISA Court that would have cut against their case. They failed to correct the record when they should have corrected the record. Simply put, the Justice Department and the FBI misrepresented information to the court. That conduct can't be allowed to pass. Remembering Tom Riter Mr. President, on another matter, just a short point I want to make about a very important voice in agriculture journalism that has gone silent. Every Tuesday morning--probably for 52 weeks out of the year--I hold a conference call with agriculture reporters and farm broadcasters to discuss news and issues impacting the 2 percent of the Americans who feed and fuel the world. I am talking about our family farmers. For the past several decades, the first question each week came from a very familiar voice in the agriculture community: Tom Riter of WNAX out of Yankton, SD. Sadly, Tom passed away on November 21, just a few days before Thanksgiving. Tom rarely--and I mean very rarely--ever missed my weekly call. In fact, he always kicked off the discussion that was carried on by probably another dozen people--kicked off the discussion with a smart question about farm policy. Undoubtedly, his reports kept his listeners informed on issues that make a big difference to their lives, their farms, their ranches, and businesses in the American heartland. He happened to be a native of Rock Rapids, IA, not far from Yankton. He was a fellow University of Northern Iowa Panther. Tom joined WNAX in 1999, so he was around that station for 22 years, I think it adds up to. Ever since, I have looked forward to our weekly discussions. I am grateful for Tom's dedication to his craft, specifically his work to expand the public's understanding and appreciation of the ag community's contribution to our society--most importantly, that 2 percent of the people in this country who produce the food for the other 98 percent. My wife Barbara and I extend our sympathies to Tom's family and friends, the WNAX family, and his colleagues in the ag press community. We lost a very big voice for American agriculture. He will be greatly missed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I am going to highlight a new Hunter Biden record that I have recently made public. Before I get to that point, I am going to take a trip down memory lane--yes, down memory lane. On September 23, 2020, Senator Johnson and I released our ``Biden Report,'' as it has been called. That report focused on questionable financial transactions between the Biden family and foreign, government-linked individuals. On November 18, 2020, we released a supplemental to that report. I am going to read several statements from the media and my Democratic colleagues about our report. So, to start with, on September 23, 2020, a New York Times article by Nicholas Fandos described it in two ways: ``lack of meaningful new information'' and ``overlap with a Russian disinformation campaign.'' And the then-Democratic minority leader was quoted in the same article and said the report read ``as if Putin wrote it, not United States senators.'' A September 23, 2020, Salon article by Igor Derysh quoted a Democratic Senator saying that the report was the culmination of a ``sham investigation.'' In that article, the same Democratic Senator described our investigation as being ``rooted in disinformation'' from Russian operatives. Separately, a Democratic Senator also said about our report: ``Bottom line: The Johnson-Grassley investigation is baseless. It's laundering Russian propaganda for circulation in the U.S.'' In a September 23, 2020, CBS article by Melissa Quinn, another Democratic Senator said about our report, meaning the Johnson-Grassley report: ``The chairmen have amplified a known Russian attack on our election,'' and ``It is unconscionable that the chairmen are continuing to advance false information intended to undermine our democratic process at the expense of bipartisan work that we should be doing to protect our national security.'' That same CBS article said that our report ``reveals little new information.'' And one Washington Post columnist, Josh Rogin, said: ``Even after accepting disinformation from Russian agents, Johnson and Grassley couldn't come up with anything new or interesting on Hunter Biden.'' So understand this: Week after week, month after month, year after year, the media and my Democratic colleagues falsely attacked our investigation with reckless disregard for the truth. I have spoken at length on the Senate floor rebutting all these false charges with example after example. I did so on May 11, 2021; March 18, 2021; December 14, 2020; December 10, 2020; October 19, 2020; and September 29, 2020. Well, on November 15, this year, Senator Johnson and I publicly released a record that I placed in part on this poster next to me, and I will get to this in a minute. The full document illustrates an assignment and assumption of business interests. The part next to me is a signature block in unaltered form, including one typographical error. The signature block includes Hunter Biden, two of his companies, and individuals connected to the communist Chinese regime. These are the main companies that Hunter Biden and his associates used to funnel money all over the world: Hudson West III, Hudson V, and then the other ones are ColdHarbour Capital and Owasco. Owasco is Hunter Biden's firm that was the recipient of millions of dollars from questionable financial transactions. Gongwen Dong was the right-hand man for the owner of a company called CEFC China Energy Company. Mervyn Yan was his associate. CEFC was an arm of the Chinese Government. Hunter Biden was a close business partner of these men and their companies. Therefore, this signature block shows a direct financial and legal relationship between Hunter Biden and individuals connected to the communist regime. Now, these are the same folks and companies that we discussed at length in our September 2020 report. This new document is yet another record that substantiates our report that we issued September 2020-- that same report that the media and my Democratic colleagues said was based on Russian disinformation. So I now say to the media and I now say to my Democratic colleagues who said our report was Russian disinformation, this question: Is this signature block Russian disinformation? Are the names of these companies Russian disinformation? Is this document disinformation? No. This is a legitimate record that my staff uncovered, and it didn't come from the Hunter Biden laptop. This is the same type of record that Senator Johnson and I based our report several months ago on. To my Democratic colleagues who falsely smeared our report: You are in the majority. You are now committee chairs, and you have jurisdiction over these matters. So I want to challenge you to use the same effort and energy that you exerted in the Trump-Russia investigation to expose the extensive ties between the Chinese regime and members of the Biden family. I think I speak with some credibility on this point because you know there was a President Trump, and at the time there was a President Trump, I investigated Donald Trump, Jr., on things that were appropriate at that time to ask legitimate questions about in the constitutional role of congressional oversight. Education Madam President, on another matter--and this will be my last statement for the day--I have always been a critic of one-size-fits-all government, and there are few places where this is more inappropriate than education. Each child is different, and if we offer a cookie- cutter, assembly-line education, it will hurt all students. Whether we are talking about students with gifts and talents or those with learning disabilities, students with unique learning needs must have teachers trained to address their way of learning. It may seem like common sense to say that, that students benefit when their education is tailored to their individual needs. Any parent can tell you that. You can't expect all students to learn at the same speed and depth in every subject. Unfortunately, those like outgoing New York Mayor de Blasio want to scrap programs for gifted students. Citing the fact that White and Asian students were overperforming compared to students from other ethnic categories, de Blasio tried to end the city's program. His focus on maintaining equality of outcomes by preventing any students from excelling is a misguided policy. It would have the perverse effect of reducing opportunity for the very students who need it most, including historically disadvantaged minority groups. Now, we all know that wealthy families can afford to put their kids in private schools or pay for services outside of the schools. It is those students who aren't as well off who need access to services to address their unique learning needs. Families from less advantaged backgrounds are not helped by limiting opportunities for all students in public schools. They are the ones who have the most to lose when public schools cancel needed services. Thankfully, the incoming New York mayor recognizes the importance of gifted and talented programming and has pledged to keep it. I introduced the TALENT Act to address these unique needs of gifted and talented students and ensure that they don't slip through the cracks. Thankfully, much of this bill was included in Every Child Achieves in the year 2015. But I am also a strong supporter of Javits Gifted and Talented Education. This is the only dedicated Federal program to develop and help teachers implement teaching methods that meet the needs of gifted students, and it is targeted specifically to disadvantaged gifted students. Thankfully, my State of Iowa is a leader in this area. Iowa law requires gifted education services for kids who need to be challenged. This applies to all students, whether or not they can afford private schools. Iowa has recognized that we should aim to challenge kids with gifts and talents and give them the resources they need to excel. We should help all students achieve their potential, not try in vain to find one identical education for every kid. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my fellow Senators: On November 4 of this year, I introduced an amendment to this year's national defense bill. This amendment focuses on the Office of Net Assessment. That office is within the Pentagon. The Office of Net Assessment's purpose is to produce an annual net assessment, which is a long-term look at our military capabilities and those of our greatest adversaries. In 2019, when I began to look at Stefan Halper's contracting work for the Office of Net Assessment, something didn't look right. So I asked the inspector general to look into it. For those who are unaware, Halper was a central figure in the debunked Russia collusion investigation. And I don't have to explain the Russia collusion investigation; everybody in the U.S. Senate knows something about that and they know what it refers to. Halper secretly, at that time, recorded Trump campaign officials during Crossfire Hurricane. Halper also received over 1 million taxpayer dollars from the Office of Net Assessment for several research projects. But the question is: Were they really research projects? But the inspector general found some problems with his contract: The Office of Net Assessment didn't require Halper to submit evidence that he actually talked to the people he cited in his work, which included Russian intelligence officers. Secondly, the Office of Net Assessment couldn't provide sufficient documentation that Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with the law. Thirdly, the Office of Net Assessment didn't maintain sufficient documents to comply with all of the Federal contracting requirements and OMB's guidelines. The inspector general also found that these problems weren't unique to Halper's contract. This is the inspector general speaking up on this. I am reporting what he said. So these findings indicate systemic issues within the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon. Moreover, this office has spent taxpayers' money on research projects unconnected to net assessments. In other words, they are spending money and wasting money that doesn't deal very closely with our national defense. Two cases in point: The office funded a report titled ``On the Nature of Americans as a Warlike People: Workshop Report.'' Now, that report highlighted the ``level of American belligerency which is the result of the persistence of Scotch-Irish culture in America.'' That ought to get a lot of your attention. What does that have to do with the assessment of the capability of us to deliver on the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government to the defense of the American people? Or what does that have to do with our assessing the capability of our enemies? Yet another report focused on Vladimir Putin's neurological development and potential Asperger's diagnosis. Now, I have highlighted these reports for the Pentagon, and I have asked for records from the Office of Net Assessment relating to some of its other work as well. To date, they still haven't been able to provide all of the records that they ought to provide to the Congress of the United States, under our constitutional responsibility, to see that money is faithfully spent according to congressional intent and that the laws are faithfully executed. While the Office of Net Assessment was busy wasting taxpayers' money and not responding to congressional requests, China built its hypersonic missile program. Are we on top of that program? It has got something to do with our enemy's capability. As a result of all of these failures, then, like I told you, I introduced my amendment to the defense bill on November 4. The amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to determine how much taxpayer money this unit actually uses for net assessment--the reason they were set up. Are they doing their job? Are they following the law? Are they spending the taxpayers' money responsibly? I think I have shown, in some instances, where they have not. The amendment would filter out taxpayer-funded research that has nothing to do with net assessment. In other words, the Office of Net Assessment ought to be doing net assessment, and that deals with the capability of the U.S. Government to do the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government: the national defense of the American people. The second responsibility of this Agency is to determine the capability of our enemies to do damage to us. In other words, it is time that we find out how much money the Office of Net Assessment needs to actually do its job instead of acting like a slush fund for irrelevant or political research projects. Of course, if this happens and the taxpayers' money is spent properly, this, in turn, will save the taxpayers, potentially, millions of dollars a year. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on November 15, the Pentagon announced that it completed its fourth consecutive annual audit and received a fourth consecutive failing opinion. This is what the Pentagon believes: If it somehow merely just conducts an audit, then somehow conducting that audit is a success despite the fact that it has been a requirement under the law for the last 30 years for Agencies--and that means all government Agencies--to conduct and pass an annual audit. The Department of Defense is about the only one that doesn't meet the requirements of the law. The Department points to other signs of progress, such as that they were able to downgrade one material weakness from a previous audit and the closure of some 450 adverse findings. That, somehow, is progress. It is not progress--at least, it doesn't meet the demands of the law. However, the fact remains that the Department of Defense is unable to accurately account for billions of taxpayer dollars it spends each year. Funding for the Department of Defense is crucial to our national security. Men and women who volunteer to wear the uniform and, hence, defend our country--these people deserve to be well paid and well equipped. In light of the rising threats around the globe, it is more crucial than ever that not one dollar is lost to fraud, waste, and abuse. A clean audit, which the Defense Department has never had, is the key to whether Department of Defense money is spent responsibly. A key underlying problem to the continued failed audits is the financial management systems used by the various military Departments. The Department of Defense uses hundreds of different financial systems that are outdated and are unable to communicate with each other. They cannot generate reliable transaction data and are not auditable. There are inadequate internal controls in financial management systems, presenting an environment that is ripe for waste and fraud. Without internal controls at the transaction level, military leaders can never know how much things cost. I have tried to work with leaders in the Department on this subject for years, but time and again, I have been disappointed. The Defense Department's inability or its unwillingness to make necessary and overdue changes should be unacceptable to any Senator. I filed an amendment to the bill before the Senate this year to address the root cause of the Pentagon's failed audits. The underlying bill provides for an independent Commission tasked with examining the budgeting and planning processes at the Pentagon. My amendment will require that very same Commission to also make recommendations on bringing financial management systems up to snuff. The Department of Defense will never be able to get a clean audit opinion while these systems remain unfixed, and the Department of Defense has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to deploy an accounting system capable of capturing payment transactions and generating reliable data. If you can't follow the money, you will never be able to get a clean audit. I am glad that my amendment has been included in the substitute amendment of the Defense bill before the U.S. Senate now, and I urge my colleagues to support this effort through to final passage to finally make real progress towards getting to a clean audit opinion. Fiscal accountability and military readiness are not mutually exclusive. It is not an either-or scenario. Earning a clean bill of fiscal health will strengthen military readiness and boost support for necessary increases to defense spending in Congress, and it would get the backing of the American people to a greater extent than it does today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, inflation soared to a 31-year high in October. Now, after thinking about it, it seems President Biden and his allies are sensing inflation may endanger their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. Now, as a result, they have taken to arguing that the cure for the inflation spurred by their reckless spending is to pursue even more reckless spending. I am not buying it. The American people aren't buying it either. President Biden and his allies have been wrong about inflation from day one, and they are wrong now. Immediately after taking office, we all know what happened: They pursued a partisan $2 trillion liberal wish list package under the guise of COVID relief, and only 9 percent of it was to fight COVID. Congress had already approved $4 trillion in bipartisan relief, including a nearly $1 trillion bill, only a month prior to the President's inauguration. And all that money that was spent recovering from Congress shutting down the economy in March of 2020 was all passed in a bipartisan, cooperative way, not like bills this year are tuned up to just be partisan, with the majority Democrats of the House and Senate supplying all the support. Now, our economy was already on the road to recovery when the President was sworn in, and highly effective vaccines were allowing economic activity to bounce back, and it did bounce back quickly. I, along with many on my side of the aisle, warned that adding $2 trillion on top of the existing relief--that money still entering the economy--risked sparking inflation, and it has. And it wasn't just Republicans sounding the inflation alarm. Longtime Democratic economist Professor Larry Summers, who held top posts in both the Obama and Clinton administrations, also made his inflation concerns known. So Democrats in Congress and the White House don't even heed the advice of their own. In a February Washington Post op-ed, Professor Summers warned President Biden's so-called COVID package might ``set off inflationary pressures of a kind [that] we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability.'' Six and two-tenths inflation just announced, which proves that Professor Summers was right. With a prominent liberal economist such as Larry Summers raising inflation concerns, wouldn't one think the President of the United States would begin to take the risk of inflation very seriously? It is not how it is turning out. Instead, President Biden and senior administration officials are doubling down, arguing the real risk was not spending enough. Now, think about that for a second. Congress had already spent almost as much responding to COVID, in inflation-adjusted dollars, as it did in waging World War II. Yet we are somehow expected to believe too little spending, not inflation, was the real risk. In reality, President Biden and congressional Democrats were simply determined to not let a crisis go to waste. They couldn't let a ``high class problem'' like inflation get in the way of passing ``the most progressive piece of legislation in history.'' How out of touch is that? Remember, inflation is a regressive tax that hurts the poor the most, increasing the cost of food, clothing, and shelter; in other words, affecting the basic essentials of life. Then, in the months to follow, inflation began to tick upward. In April, inflation clocked in at an annualized rate of 4.1 percent--the highest spike since the financial crisis of 2008. Nothing to see here, the Biden administration officials said. That inflation was solely due to ``base effects''--those are their words, ``base affects''--that resulted from prices being suppressed during the pandemic. In a month or two, they said inflation was to return to normal or you heard the word ``transitional'' inflation, as Fed Chairman Powell was preaching to the entire country. Now, of course, Powell has changed his mind, to some extent. Now, around the same time, President Biden released his reckless tax- and-spending agenda, calling for an additional--can you believe it?-- $4,000 in spending? Professor Larry Summers again sounded the inflation alarm warning, ``[W]e are injecting more demand into the economy than the potential supply . . . and that will generate overheating.'' Now, skip ahead a month to June. Inflation surges to 5.4 percent. Again, the administration claims that there is nothing to worry about. Again, we are told inflation is merely transitory and solely the result of bottlenecks in the supply chain. Inflation remained at those elevated levels of 5.4 percent July through September. Inflation was persisting longer than the administration expected. But they were still sure it was only transitory. According to President Biden, ``[N]o serious economist''--those are his words--``[N]o serious economist'' was predicting spiraling inflation. Really? Larry Summers, a Harvard professor and former Clinton Secretary of Treasury, isn't a serious economist? I will tell you how serious of an economist he is. I think he got on the Harvard staff at a very young age with a title of distinguished professor. And I think he was only about 30 years of age at that time. Then, early this month, the inflation numbers for October were released. Inflation surged to 6.2 percent. That is the highest inflation rate in 31 years. Only then did the administration begin to acknowledge that inflation is a problem. To do otherwise would be an insult to the intelligence of the American public. Hard-working Americans have been experiencing historically high price increases for more than half a year. The Biden inflation tax on average Americans is now $175 a month, which equates to about an extra $2,100 of costs every year. Gone are the claims that inflation is transitory. Instead, according to President Biden, ``[i]nflation hurts Americans' pocketbooks, and reversing this trend'' is his ``top priority.'' Now, President Biden and his allies claim the key to reversing this inflation trend is to enact the same reckless tax-and-spending agenda that they have been pursuing all year. How convenient. The solution to surging inflation is the same agenda he has been passing all along. I won't go as far as President Biden and try to claim no serious economist agrees with him. However, even the economists cited by the administration as supporting their agenda do have caveats. Those caveats include that their spending policies are entirely paid for and are structured in a way that will increase labor productivity. The current version of their spending plans doesn't come close to meeting those huge caveats. The President claims his agenda is completely paid for, but those claims rest solely on sleight of hand and budget gimmickry. Their largest gimmick comes from artificially sunsetting spending provisions that they do not intend to expire while imposing a permanent tax hike. In other words, increasing taxes and accounting it for over the 10-year period of time that the Congressional Budget Office looks ahead--spend that money in the first 2 or 3 years, and then supposedly the program is going to sunset. But everybody knows that these programs won't sunset. So you better figure what the long-term cost is. And that is that $4.2 trillion that has been in the press since this Build Back Better program hit the press. Now, on another point, even taking President Biden's claim at face value, his agenda will result in hundreds of billions of dollars of increased deficit spending in the near term, fueling current inflation pressures. Moreover, according to a Penn Wharton Budget Model and its analysis, under the more realistic assumption that their spending proposals are made permanent, their plan would increase debt and deficit by more than $2 trillion over 10 years. The Penn Wharton Budget Model shows that. As a result, then, by 2050, government debt would be 24 percent higher, economic growth would be 3 percent lower, and wages would be 1.7 percent less than they otherwise would be. Now, he calls the program Building Back Better. This is a recipe for building back worse. The bottom line is that the President's ill- designed spending-and-tax spree isn't deficit neutral. It won't boost productivity, but it will fuel inflation. So I think after this October report comes out of inflation being the highest in 31 years at 6.2 percent, it is time to pause and rethink this entire approach. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as the meatpacking industry became increasingly concentrated in the 1990s, fewer animals were sold through negotiated purchases--or, you could say, you could call that cash purchases or you could call it the spot market. In the 1990s, we saw increased use of alternative marketing arrangements that were not publicly disclosed under voluntary reporting. Livestock producers knew that these arrangements were not allowing them to get a fair market price for their livestock going to slaughter so they called for livestock mandatory reporting, also known as LMR. This new law would apply to packers who purchase livestock, process them, and market the meat. When the livestock mandatory reporting legislation was first considered in 1998, it unfortunately didn't get very far. I want to read for you an article from March of 1999 because it is going to have some relationship to a similar issue that we hope to get before Congress before the end of the year, and that is a bipartisan piece of legislation I am referring to. I want to read an article from March 1999, from the Southern Livestock Review. That article is entitled ``How Campaign Money, Republican Lobbyists Killed Mandatory Price Reporting.'' I am going to read that article into the Record in its entirety, only I will not read names. I will refer to former Senators as Senator 1, 2, and 3, and I will refer to lobbyists' names as Lobbyist 1 and Lobbyist 2. My point is to remind my fellow Senators today not to be blindsided again by the American Meat Institute, like happened in 1998 to kill legislation back then, because I don't want a similar thing to happen with what some of us Senators are proposing this year. This is important because Senator Fischer and I are soon to introduce legislation to update livestock price transparency. Now, I will read. This is a long reading. How Campaign Money, Republican Lobbyists Killed Mandatory Price Reporting: In the heat of last October's upcoming election and Congress' hurry-get-out-of-town legislating, the draft of a massive $4 billion farm bailout bill--which included federal relief for cash-strapped farmers and mandatory public price reporting in livestock markets--was in place as congressmen and senators flew home for a weekend of campaigning. When the lawmakers returned the following Monday, however, mandatory livestock price reporting was virtually gutted, butchered by well-connected Republican lobbyists and huge sums of political action campaign money from the meatpacker- backed American Meat Institute. How this deboning occurred is an object lesson in how private money often thwarts public will and why solid, sensible farm policy often dies at the hands of craven politicians and legions of lobbyists. In July 1998, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD, put mandatory price reporting in livestock markets into what was then a modest $500 million farm drought relief bill. Daschle, responding to years of complaints from his state ranchers over meatpacker concentration, didn't ask for the moon. All he wanted was a one-year experimental program that required meatpackers to publicly disclose the prices they paid when buying livestock from producers. But as the ag economy continued to skid in late summer, the bill's cost escalated and so did the warning over what the bill would include. Daschle's price reporting request also came under attack from the AMI, the meatpacker lobby in Washington. Packers viewed the idea as costly-- estimated by USDA at $60 million per--and unnecessary. Yet as momentum picked up for an even bigger farm relief bill, mandatory price reporting opponents like AMI sensed Daschle's efforts would be adopted as the ``save-the-farm'' rhetoric built after Labor Day. To shoot down Daschle's plan, AMI hastily bought some bazookas. In early September, AMI hired [Lobbyist No. 1] . . . a member of one of Washington's most powerful Republican lobbying firms. For an extra pop, reported the October 25, 1998 Washington Post, AMI also hired two other Republican leaders-turned- lobbyists, [Lobbyist No. 2] and [Lobbyist No. 3]. . . . Now plugged into the Republican power grid, AMI turned on the juice. During the 1998 election cycle, AMI doled out $198,473 in political action committee money raised from executives of member firms like Cargill's Excel, ConAgra's Monfort, Kraft's Oscar Myer, Premium Standard Farms, Farmland Industries, and Smithfield Foods. Most of the money went to Republican candidates. In fact, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign watchdog group, $165,973 or 84% of AMI's 1997-98 PAC cash landed in Republican campaign coffers. House Republican candidates got $114,973 of the meatpacker lard; Senate Republicans got $51,000. But as the crucial October legislative deadline approached, mandatory price reporting was still alive in the farm bailout bill's final draft. Then AMI lobbyists and money began to get traction. The lobbyists, in particular [Lobbyist No. 1], a longtime pal of fellow Mississippians--and Republican Senators-- [Senator No. 1] and [Senator No. 2] got the price reporting legislation pulled from that ag bill. Senate Democrats and a few of their farm state Republican colleagues were furious. Daschle struck back. With [Senator No. 2's] blessing, he folded mandatory price reporting into the even bigger $520 billion omnibus 1999 Budget Bill that was still hanging fire. Two days later, it too was gutted by Republicans into a meaningless ``confidential one-year government investigation, during which livestock prices would not be disclosed'' by the packers, according to the Washington Post. Sources say [Lobbyist No. 1] buddy [Senator No. 1] wielded the knife. As chairman of the Senate Ag Appropriations Subcommittee, [Senator No. 1] refused to fund any new price reporting effort as part of the bailout bill, thus killing it there. Later, at the behest of [Lobbyist No. 1], [Lobbyist No. 2], and [Lobbyist No. 3], [Senator No. 1] neutered mandatory price reporting in the Budget Bill by keeping any information gained through it ``confidential.'' Now the National Pork Producers Council, a past opponent of mandatory price reporting, the American Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman are calling for publicly disclosed, mandatory price reporting legislation from Congress. An AMI spokesman said the group will fight the new effort, but didn't know if [Lobbyists 1, 2, or 3] would carry water for the packers in 1999. Yet, he adds, referring to [Lobbyist No. 1], ``He served our purposes well last year.'' No kidding. But the meatpackers paid assassins--[Lobbyist No. 1] and his Republican pals--stuck a knife in the back of every livestock producer in America last fall. And it's still there. Now, that is the end of my reading of the March 1999 article by Alan Guebert in the Southern Livestock Review. So you see, many of the same hurdles that we went through in `98 are the hurdles that we are facing now with making needed cattle market reforms. The same high-powered and well-connected lobbyists who work for the Big Four meat processors are still the same high-powered and well- connected lobbyists who are lobbying against the market reforms of today. Those reforms are being proposed by a bipartisan group of Senators and will soon be introduced. But I have got news for you. The special interests of the meat packers don't have a vote in the U.S. Senate. Last week, Senators Fischer, Tester, Wyden, and I announced a framework to increase price discovery and transparency in the cattle market. You will never guess who, once again, is fighting this commonsense legislation--the very same group that I referred to as AMI, the American Meat Institute, now called the North American Meat Institute; that same group that, in the 1990s--or--yeah, the 1990s--was against the livestock mandatory reporting legislation has come out against the independent cattle producers again today. See, these powerful corporations are against any reform that would give independent producers more leverage in negotiating a fair price for their cattle. In 1998, South Dakotan Tom Daschle led the charge against these big meat packers. And while the livestock mandatory reporting was stalled in 1998, in 1999, Senator Daschle was able to get that across the finish line. And it is still law, but it isn't a perfect piece of legislation, and our proposals ought to improve it dramatically. Now we have Senators, farmers, consumers from all over the country who want to see reforms. Livestock farmers are losing money, consumers are paying record high prices for beef, and meat packers are making record profits. Now, I am sharing this story today to show that even changes that we now view as common sense were once opposed by the meat industry. We still have time this year to make real market reforms that will help independent producers stay in the cattle business. I urge my colleagues to support a piece of legislation that we have entitled Cattle Price Discovery and Transparency Act and support independent cattle producers. I hope you will join Senator Fischer, this Senator, Senator Tester, and Senator Wyden and several other Senators in the last 24 hours that have joined this effort. These reforms are long overdue, and we can't let these special interest groups, like the North American Meat Institute, stop this important legislation like I just described for you how they stopped it in 1998. And thank God Senator Daschle didn't give up, because the next year he eventually got it done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate has unanimously passed a bill entitled Protecting America's First Responders Act. I authored this legislation to expand benefits to first responders who are injured in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program, or PSOB for short, offers a one-time lump sum payment to first responders who are killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. I think that legislation has been on the books since the 1970s. I started investigating this program when I heard complaints about long delays in processing payments. Those delays reached up to 3 years, on average. It is just not understandable why it should take 3 years for somebody who is killed in the line of duty to decide if the family should have help from that program. We fixed that particular issue with my 2017 bill entitled the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Improvement Act. However, my investigation uncovered a lot of other problems with that program, now 50 years old. The Justice Department was denying payments to folks who should have received those payments. In one case, a disabled police officer suffered a traumatic brain injury. The Department said that he wasn't disabled because he held a part-time position at Home Depot as a greeter. In another case, again, a police officer with brain injury was denied the benefit. Why? Because the officer tinkered around with motorcycles in his garage. It would take this officer months to do simple things that would otherwise have taken him just days. Still, the Department said that he wasn't disabled. They said it. It is unreasonable. But my bill that I described to you, which has now passed the Senate recently, will correct this problem. This legislation clarifies that first responders who are totally and permanently disabled but can still perform some very simple tasks can still get benefits. It adds a fair boost in payments to first responders who have waited years for these benefits. It provides the Justice Department with more tools so that it can process claims more quickly. Finally, my bill extends a presumption in the law that ensures that first responders who contract COVID on duty don't have to jump through hoops to prove it, because, you know, with COVID--did you get it when you were actually policing, or did you get it when you were in a restaurant, or did you get it when you were in church?--you don't really know. This bill will go a long ways in helping our first responders where it is impossible to show whether you got it when you were actually on duty. I would like to thank Senators Gillibrand and Booker, as well as all the other cosponsors. I also want to thank our House counterparts, specifically, Congressman Pascrell and his staff, who led the effort to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. Lastly, I want to thank the Justice Department for working closely with us to improve this language. Before I wrap up, I just want to say a few words about our first responders. Whether it is police officers, firefighters, or EMTs, first responders are the embodiment of the best qualities of Americans. Their daily sacrifices make our society better and safer. I am proud to have sponsored this legislation, and I urge the President to quickly sign the bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on September 23, 2021, I inserted for the record an explanation of my intent to hold the Intel Authorization Act because I was concerned with changes made to the whistleblower protections. Specifically, it would have prevented whistleblowers from going to any committee that had jurisdiction over the matter they were reporting on. I was also concerned that this bill could inadvertently overturn protections that I authored in 2016 for FBI whistleblowers. I have long advocated that whistleblowers should have as many avenues as possible to report waste, fraud, and abuse. So I placed a hold and made two simple requests: first, that the law permit whistleblowers to report wrongdoing to any committee of jurisdiction; and second, that language be inserted to clarify that nothing in this bill overturns protections guaranteed for FBI whistleblowers under the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. I am happy to report that Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Rubio agreed to incorporate these changes into the Intel Authorization Act. I would like to take this opportunity to commend both Senators Warner and Rubio for their commitment to supporting whistleblowers. Thanks to them, Congress is on the verge of passing much needed reforms with regard to how whistleblower complaints in the intel community are handled. I would also like to thank EMPOWER and the many whistleblower advocacy groups that wrote the Senate Intelligence Committee to show the need for these changes. However, the job is still not done, and the House must agree to support these changes. As such, I urge members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to support these much needed changes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to expand on my tribute to former Iowa Congressman Neal Smith. As I said yesterday, he was a true public servant, interested in doing right by his State rather than seeking self-aggrandizement. He was a real legislator, not a would-be pundit seeking the spotlight. These are attributes that make him a role model, and I feel lucky to have been mentored by him. When I was elected, I was the only Republican in the Iowa delegation. He didn't care that I was of a different party. He knew we both had our political views, but we were both there to represent the state we love. I will never forget his kindness in taking me under wing. Neal Smith is a legend in Iowa, as evidenced by the fact that his name is attached to several Iowa institutions, including the Neal Smith Wildlife Refuge, which he was instrumental in establishing, the Neal Smith Trail, the Neal Smith Federal Building in Des Moines, which I helped to name after him with Senator Harkin, and the Neal and Bea Smith Law Center at their alma mater, Drake University. His legislative legacy includes a long stint as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. Neal Smith was instrumental in creating Lake Red Rock, Saylorville Lake, and Lake Rathbun, which help protect Iowans from flooding, serve as reservoirs, and provide recreational opportunities for Iowans. He also authored legislation to help small businesses after a disaster and legislation helping small businesses with federal government contracts. Perhaps his most prominent legislative accomplishment was passing legislation combatting nepotism in the Federal Government. Neal Smith served in World War II as a bomber pilot, was shot down, and received a Purple Heart, as well as other medals. He and his wife Bea attended Drake University Law School together. When they graduated, she was offered less than him for the same job with the same firm despite her having had better grades, so he turned down the job and opened a practice with her. He soon entered public service locally, serving as assistant Polk County attorney and as chairman of the Polk County Welfare Board. In 1958, Neal Smith was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served for 36 years, longer than any other Iowan has served in the U.S. House. Even though he represented Iowa's largest metropolitan area, he came from a farm background like me and continued to farm near Altoona during his time in office. I remember him as a strong defender of agriculture. I value the friendship I had with Neal Smith starting as a freshmen Congressman and continuing through his time after leaving Congress. Again, I pay tribute to this humble public servant. Barbara and I will continue to remember his family in our prayers.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Lankford for letting me take 3 minutes to honor an Iowan who recently passed away, a former Member of the House of Representatives. And I think there is only one other United States Senator who would know who I am talking about, and this would be Senator Schumer, who served with this former Member of Congress from 1981 to 1995. Remembering Neal Smith Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to former Iowa Congressman Neal Smith, who passed away yesterday at the age of 101. He was a true public servant. He entered public life for the right reasons and had no interest in self-promotion. He cared about Iowa and tried to do his best for our State, and he did. Neal Smith was a humble but impressive man. He was a decorated bomber pilot in World War II. After attending Drake University Law School with his wife, Bea, and opening a practice with her, he became active in local government. In 1958, Neal Smith was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served for 36 years. That is longer than any other Iowan has served in the House of Representatives. When I was first elected to Congress as the only Republican in the Iowa delegation, Neal Smith forgot about politics and was a mentor to me. I have never forgotten that. I try to follow his example. We worked in a bipartisan way on behalf of the people in Iowa, just as it should be. I remember Congressman Smith as a real defender of agriculture, small business, as a great Iowan, and as a good friend. Barbara and I extend our condolences to his family. They will be in my prayers. I yield the floor and thank Senator Lankford.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it was a pleasure to work on this legislation with Senator Klobuchar, so we joined forces--it happens to turn out that there are 10 of our Senate colleagues--in a bipartisan way to introduce this legislation that we call the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. This bill has garnered support from all sides of the political spectrum and, of course, is a very commonsense measure, which is meant to increase competition on dominant digital platforms. Today, there are only a handful of dominant companies that control what Americans can buy, what they hear, and what they say online. Big Tech has powers over the economy that we haven't seen in generations or perhaps ever, and this power grows even larger, taking over yet more of our daily lives. With this power, Big Tech is able to pick winners and losers on their platforms. The goal of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act is to ensure that Big Tech can be held accountable when they engage in a discriminatory and anticompetitive manner. This legislation sets clear rules that businesses on dominant platforms must follow. This will help promote competition by targeting harmful conduct, while ensuring that innovation and pro-consumer conduct is protected. I want to be clear. Big Tech platforms offer great products to their consumers. This isn't about breaking up companies or penalizing them for being successful. This is about ensuring that small businesses have a fair and even playing field when utilizing a dominant online platform. I also want to address many of the falsehoods that have been spread by the opponents of this legislation. Nothing in this bill will require a company to shut down their marketplace or prevent those companies from selling their own branded politics. Also, nothing prevents a search company from showing maps or answer boxes in their search results. And, also, cellular phones can be sold with preinstalled apps. This bill simply sets clear, effective rules to protect competition and users doing business on dominant online platforms. I am a strong believer in the free market. The United States is still the greatest country in the world for starting and growing businesses. But Big Tech is making it more difficult for small businesses to realize success on these dominant platforms. So with this legislation, Congress must update our laws to keep up with the growing and evolving online ecosystem. Big Tech has the power to determine when and what we can buy, see, and say online. Big Tech also has the power to destroy companies, small and large, by denying them access to consumers and even to the internet itself. It is time that we ensure there is effective antitrust enforcement so the American people can take the power back from these Big Tech giants. I want to again thank Senator Klobuchar for her work with me on this legislation. I also want to thank all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have joined in cosponsoring this legislation. In the House of Representatives, we have Congressmen Cicilline and Buck, who introduced a similar bill earlier this year, which has already been marked up and passed out of the House Judiciary Committee. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act is a bipartisan, bicameral bill, and I hope that we can move it forward so we end up bringing real, positive change to the benefit of all Americans. I yield the floor and thank Senator Klobuchar once again.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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