Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, first, I thank Senator Cornyn for his remarks, particularly the points he made about the ruling of the Parliamentarian. I come to the floor to address the same issue. We received last night guidance from the Senate Parliamentarians regarding the unprecedented attempt to include wide-ranging immigration provisions in the upcoming reconciliation bill. Now, for the public at large, when they hear the word ``reconciliation,'' it is a process by which you don't have to have 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to get to finality on a bill. But reconciliation is something that has been used only twice, I believe, in the last 5 years. So it is not something that you just willy-nilly go to to get a lot of things done that you couldn't otherwise get done. But this looks like what the Democrat majority is trying to do in the reconciliation bill with the issue of immigration, and so I am thankful for the decision made by the Parliamentarian. That guidance by the Parliamentarian indicated that a proposal to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants is not appropriate for inclusion in a budget reconciliation bill. As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, my office was deeply involved in the bipartisan discussions that took place with the Parliamentarian on this issue. I will say that I agree with the Parliamentarian's guidance. I think it reflects an obvious truth-- changing the law to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants is a major policy change with significant impact that reaches far beyond the Federal budget and not appropriate for reconciliation. More broadly, reform of our immigration laws is an important public policy issue. It is a topic that many Americans and many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle care deeply about. It is an issue that inspires fierce debate, sharp disagreements, and great passion in people on both sides of the argument. It does so because, at its core, the issue of immigration is about the policies that we put in place to give people from all around the world one of the most meaningful and precious gifts that we can give--the right to legally establish your life here and, in many cases, pursue American citizenship. And whether you pursue citizenship or not, you have the right to the American dream. And you can see how important that coming to the United States is by just the hundreds of thousands of people so far this year breaking our laws to come into this country. It shows you how exceptional our great America is and the economic and the political and the social system we have that is so endeared to people all over the world that they want to come here, even breaking our laws to get here. And, of course, whether it is citizenship or the American dream, that is not something that can be boiled down to a Congressional Budget Office score. It is not something that can be reduced to a line item in the Federal budget. I think everyone here in Congress and Americans around the country already knew that. That is what made this most recent attempt to abuse the reconciliation process by the Democratic leadership even more obvious. As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I look forward to continue working with my colleagues on measures to secure the border and improve our immigration system, but those measures need to be pursued in a way that complies with the rules of the Senate, not the subterfuge of what we call reconciliation. The recent proposal put forward by Democrats in the Senate clearly was not, and I hope we can engage in a more productive legislative process moving forward on the subject of immigration. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen Marine, Cpl Daegan William-Tyeler Page. Corporal Page was a son of the heartland, originally from Red Oak, IA, and raised in Omaha, NE. He is one of 13 brave servicemembers who gave his life in service to our country during the evacuation of Afghanistan. Just 23 years old when he was killed at the attack at the Kabul airport, he gave his life defending our citizens and our allies as they tried to escape from Afghanistan. Right after graduating from Millard South High School, Corporal Page joined the Marines and was part of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment. He enjoyed playing hockey, and was an avid sports fan, especially of the Chicago Blackhawks. Corporal Page loved spending time outdoors, hunting, and being in the water. He was a Boy Scout, a good friend to many, and a member of St. Paul's Lutheran Church. My prayers are with his parents, Wendy and Craig Adelson and Greg and Jenni Page, as well as his brothers and sister, his grandparents, his girlfriend Jessica Ellison, and his other family members and many friends. We all owe Corporal Page and his fellow marines a debt of gratitude. He and those he served with rescued countless Americans and allies. They went into the chaos of the withdrawal from Afghanistan to help strangers that they never met--to save lives. There is no doubt in my mind that many lives were saved because of Corporal Page's service, and his sacrifice will not be forgotten.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on another matter, today, I speak to my fellow colleagues on the extraordinary courage, bravery, and patriotism that the men and women in our Armed Forces showed to the entire world, yet again, in the last several months in Afghanistan. Now, we see plenty of evidence that they were placed in an impossible situation because of the bad judgment and leadership failures of President Biden. Despite President Biden's bad judgment, our men and women in uniform again exceeded expectations. In the process of doing their job for people whom they don't even know, we lost 13 of our best who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and 18 more suffered serious injuries. I pray--and I assume all Americans pray--for their families for the loss that those families have suffered. Those 13 young men and women will never, and should never, be forgotten. They are heroes. This disastrous exit was entirely avoidable, which makes the loss of life even more gut-wrenching. Intelligent and honest people can disagree on whether the Americans should have left Afghanistan, but it is unthinkable that anyone could justify the manner in which this administration carried out this disaster. The Biden administration left Americans behind. This is the United States of America. We never leave our people behind. I have heard from many Iowans who are outraged by this moral failure. When he took office, President Biden arrogantly announced that ``America is back.'' Now the world is seeing America in retreat. The Russians and Red China are crowing over this comedy. I and others have compared the imagery and the perception to the fall of Saigon. But, remember, in that case, we had pulled our military out before we broke our promises to the South Vietnamese military. In this case, it appears that crucial support for the Afghan military was withdrawn while we were relying on that same military to hold off the Taliban long enough to complete our withdrawal. I have been at many briefings related to President Biden's Afghan exit. I have tasked my oversight and policy staff to do the same. Some have been classified briefings; others were not classified. What I can say--and what I believe the American people ought to know--is that this administration couldn't track the state of play on the ground in the way that they should have had the capability to do. Every briefing gave a more dire and desperate picture than the one briefing we received before. It was obvious that this administration was losing control. Yet it was clear to me and my colleagues that the administration never sufficiently changed its posture in the region as the facts on the ground changed from bad to worse. When the administration officials were questioned about this strategy, they often publicly responded that what they were doing was based on Presidential-level decisions. Joe Biden owns this disastrous exit, plain and simple. But, also, Secretary Austin, Secretary Blinken, and General Milley are not without blame. The exit has realized the worst fears of every Afghan who, over 20 years, learned to dream of peace, and every naysayer who said: Wait, and they will leave. Our enemies were right, and now we have left. The Biden administration certainly left the women of Afghanistan behind. They are once again being beaten, killed in the streets for supposed crimes, such as daring to speak, wanting an education, not covering their faces, and, in some cases, simply walking in public. The Biden administration, in its hasty exit, effectively armed the Taliban with advanced American military weaponry that is now being used to oppress the Afghan people. The Taliban is now patrolling our streets in Kabul in American vehicles, wearing American uniforms, and carrying American-made weapons. Some of the violent terrorists released by the Obama administration are now in political leadership roles in this Taliban regime. Other members of the Taliban leadership have remained on the FBI's most wanted list, and they have been on that list for many years, including one with a $10 million bounty. Now, if this were a movie script, nobody would believe it. In addition to the equipment and the funds, it is crucial that we remember the human cost in Afghanistan. We lost 2,461 servicemembers, 18 of whom came from my State of Iowa. We also lost 3,846 contractors, 66,000 American military and police, 1,144 allied servicemembers, 444 aid workers, and 72 journalists. These numbers hit home. They hit deep. And we should never forget them. These numbers also don't account for the stain on our national reputation for blatantly disregarding the welfare of the Afghan people who fought alongside us to help us accomplish our mission there. Leaving behind allies will have consequences that will affect our ability to build coalitions in the future. It will negatively impact our ability to defeat future enemies. Looking through the negatives, the heartache and the pain that our country has suffered from this terribly executed exit, I remain hopeful. Where the Biden administration has failed, we have seen veterans and current members of our armed services filling the leadership gap. Where our government didn't keep its promise by working together, these veterans and current members of our armed services and the groups associated with them quickly built ad hoc networks to ensure their Afghan brothers-in-arms and their families were able to leave their crumbling country safely. Americans have been inspired by reports of Operation Pineapple Express, organized by special operations veterans who, without even being asked or without even asking for permission, helped hundreds of Afghan allies and their families to safety. One of the more inspiring stories from this disastrous exit involved an Afghan family being guided by his former U.S. marine brother to Abbey Gate at the Kabul airport. The Afghan family was instructed by the U.S. Marine veterans to carry signs with them that invoked Marine Corps phrases that our marines at Abbey Gate would understand but the Taliban would not understand. After several attempts, the marines on the wall saw the signs and were able to retrieve the family and escort them through Abbey Gate only moments before the suicide attack that took the lives of 11 marines, a Navy corpsman, a U.S. soldier, and scores and scores of Afghan civilians. When the Marine Corps veteran network was eventually able to make contact with the interpreter, he was asked if he and his family were all right. His reply was, ``Of course I'm good. I'm with marines.'' Now, that is just one story, but this isn't the only amazing story regarding our veterans and our servicemembers. Pictures that were taken during this time show the desperation of the Afghan people: mothers desperately throwing their children to American troops in the hope that even if the parents couldn't reach safety, their children could. These pictures also show the pure hearts of these American warriors whom we honor. During this 20-year conflict, our service men and women have never wavered in their duty to God and country, consistently showing their ability to annihilate the enemy. They defeated the Taliban, liberated the people of Afghanistan, and protected our country from further terrorist attacks for 20 years. During their final hours in Kabul, our young warriors did something unimaginable for almost any other country's military: They injected humanity into the dark fringes of a war-torn conflict during a mass evacuation. We have seen the pictures of marines in full battle attire holding crying infants. We have seen our servicemembers giving the shirts off their backs to keep children warm. This stands in contrast to the actions of political leaders thousands of miles away here, where we stand this very day. Despite the Taliban's most recent acts of barbarism, the Biden administration has begun discussing potential recognition of the Taliban as a government. The possibility of taxpayer-funded foreign aid has been dangled as a carrot to incentivize their good behavior. This is pure naivete on the part of anybody in this administration thinking about that. The Biden administration's string of foreign policy blunders has created a domino effect that Americans will feel for years to come. Afghanistan could once again become the epicenter for terrorist activities that will launch future attacks on our Nation--hopefully not another 9/11. I pray that my concerns will not become reality, but somehow I have to have fear that they will be reality. At the very least, Americans' credibility on the world stage with our allies, even with our enemies, has taken a huge hit. In the unfortunate event that our worst fears come to light, my solace is in the knowledge that our service men and women continue to have the strength to overcome the failures of our own political leaders. So, to my fellow Americans, let us never forget the sacrifices of our men and women in the armed services and the sacrifices that that means for protecting our freedom and security. Their service and sacrifice have been of immeasurable value. All Americans owe a debt to them that can never fully be repaid.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, border security is one of the government's most important responsibilities. A sovereign, successful Nation's self-determination and safety depend upon it, and we are no exception. Our border security rests exclusively with the Federal Government. And the Department of Homeland Security--a Cabinet created in 2002, I believe, in the aftermath of the September 11 attack--is entrusted with this paramount duty of protecting our border. Fusing homeland with security for its name wasn't an accident. That wordage casts the Department's purpose to protect the country from external threats, both from people and from products. And Americans pay for that Department handsomely and for its responsibilities about $52 billion a year. However, a grave, unprecedented crisis exists at our southern border. Our television reminds us of that fact daily. Foreign nationals are illegally crossing into our country from Mexico by the thousands every day. I heard recently that last month was the biggest number coming in for over 20 years. But illegal immigration isn't the only crime cascading over our borders. Mexican cartels are importing deadly drugs and trafficking humans. These horrific, unabated events make very clear that the cartels effectively control our southern border. They actually manage who and what enters our country from Mexico. But the danger is preventable. The trouble exists because the current administration deliberately refuses to secure the border. Homeland Security's border dereliction is inexcusable, and it happens to be life-threatening, not only from drugs but from criminals and for national security because terrorists have been arrested. Communities across all States, then, are plagued by the crime and the drugs killing Americans by the tens of thousands every year. The figure from 2020 is over 93,000 Americans dying from drug overdoses--a 31- percent increase from just the previous year. That exceeds the Rose Bowl's capacity, as just one example of comparison. One drug is very prolific: Mexican fentanyl, probably fentanyl coming through Mexico from China. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid. It is 50 times more potent than heroin. An infinitesimal amount, even as small as a grain of salt, can cause a death. The cartels are producing the deadly drug and smuggling it into the United States at record highs. They are also adding fentanyl to other drugs for increased potency and, of course, increased profits--often without the user of that drug even knowing that fact--and sometimes even market that fentanyl-laced drug into heroin. Unsurprisingly, then, deaths result. From January 2019 to June of 2019, almost 62 percent of the overdose deaths involved a fentanyl- related substance. The authority scheduling fentanyl analogs expire next month. Congress must act to permanently schedule these drugs and punish the cartels and the drug dealers who spread this poison across our communities. We are a nation of compassion, but we are also a nation of laws. We are not obligated under any charade of compassion to ignore border crime, particularly the surge of deadly drugs killing tens of thousands here each year. But the government, as we see, sits idly by as cartel drugs poison Americans and unleash drug-related violence upon our communities. Border security is essential in keeping our public safety threats and a cartel-controlled border presents our greatest criminal threat. The Federal Government must be a staunch ally to the States in stopping the crime. The cartels benefit immensely from an unsecured border, and they are not exactly screening for threats to our national security and public safety. We have reached a critical juncture and must choose who actually controls the southern border, and, consequently, our self-determination and our safety. Violent drug cartels or home security--which is it? The choice directs our future.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I call up amendment No. 3251, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Now hear me. You will be shocked what the Democrats want to do in their budget. They want to use reconciliation to provide a $120 billion tax cut to the wealthy through SALT relief. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates 51 percent of the benefit from that repeal would go to those making over $1 million, while those with incomes under $50,000 wouldn't see any benefit. The liberal Tax Policy Center says the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households would receive an average tax cut of $144,000 a year. Democrats cry the wealthy are not paying their fair share, at the same time proposing to give billionaires six-figure tax cuts. If my Democratic colleagues are genuine in their concern about the wealthy paying too little taxes, their budget is not the way to do it. So vote to support my amendment to impose restrictions on repealing and modifying the SALT cap that would result in tax cuts for the wealthy. I reserve my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Do I have any time left?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon should have read the 2017 tax bill, and he wouldn't give a speech like that. The Wyden amendment is an example of Democrats on the one hand complaining the wealthy pay too little tax while supporting massive tax cuts for the rich. Nothing in my amendment prevents changes to the Tax Code that would make it more progressive. Capping the SALT deduction as part of the 2017 tax bill increases the progressivity of the Tax Code and allowed for larger tax cuts to the middle class. Undoing the SALT cap would make the Tax Code less progressive and jeopardize middle-class tax cuts that it helped enable. Anyone who supports the wealthy paying their fair share should have supported my amendment and vote no on the Wyden amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 3569

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3650 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. GRASSLEY. This amendment creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants with criminal records from obtaining lawful permanent resident status in our country. It is pretty simple. Prohibiting illegal immigrants with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges from receiving legal status in the United States should be a very easy call and shouldn't be very controversial. I urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve my time.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday, the Democrats unveiled their reckless tax and spend budget plan. With our country experiencing the highest inflation it has seen in decades and our national debt approaching an alltime high, common sense would dictate that we ought to use the budget process to get our fiscal house in order. Instead, my Democrat colleagues are intent on using the budget to embark on a liberal wish list spending spree. My Democrat colleagues' budget calls for over $4 trillion in new spending over the next decade and annual deficits would average $1.6 trillion over that period. As a result, the national debt would reach 119 percent of our economy, shattering the World War II record of 106 percent. Much of this new spending, ballooning the debt and deficits, is the product of a single bill Democrats hope to pass before the end of the year under the guise of so-called ``human infrastructure.'' Infrastructure is popular and needed. It helps keep our economy competitive over the long run. That is why Democrat leaders initially wanted their multitrillion dollar wish list to ride along on an infrastructure package. That plan fell apart when a bipartisan group was able to agree on a separate bill with just real infrastructure. This new spending spree, far from being an infrastructure bill like the bipartisan bill, has nothing to do with building roads or bridges. Instead, it would create massive new entitlements and impose massive new tax increases. This mishmash of massive new spending and job-killing tax hikes would act as a double whammy on middle-income Americans, small business owners, and farmers. Trillions of dollars in new spending is likely to set inflation ablaze. Inflation is a stealth tax that steals the value of the dollars Americans already earned. Hard-working Americans are already paying the price of excessive spending in the form of inflation with prices rising throughout the economy. As a result, while wages increased at a pace of 3.6 percent last month, Americans found themselves struggling to keep their heads above water with prices soaring 5.4 percent. Now, Democrats want to add tax hikes on top of this, which will slow economic growth, reduce business investment, and result in lower wages and fewer jobs over the long-run. What is more, the tax hikes that are being discussed take direct aim at family run business and farms. This includes raising their income taxes, their capital gains taxes, and imposing a confiscatory new death tax when operations are passed to the next generation. Higher taxes, excessive spending, and escalating debt are not a prescription for prosperity. They are instead are a recipe for fiscal disaster. I urge my Democrat colleagues to tap the brakes before it is too late. Please think about the future and abandon your reckless tax and spend agenda.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last week, Judiciary staff interviewed Jeffrey Rosen, Trump's former Acting Attorney General, and Mr. Rosen's Deputy at the Justice Department, Rich Donoghue. These interviews were done as part of the Democrats' never-ending series of investigations into former President Trump. Their obsession with him has been very consistent, I will give them that. So, too, are the Democrats' public comments that grossly mischaracterized--at least for now--the state of the evidence. I will start with a little history. This country has had to deal with Democrats' obsession with destroying Trump for much too long. In the process, I fear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done and will do lasting damage to our political system. For example, in May 2017, then-Ranking Member Feinstein and I met with then-Director Comey about Crossfire Hurricane. At that classified briefing, Comey said Trump was not under investigation. But that didn't stop the Democrats from publicly saying that Trump was under investigation. And because Comey kept the answer classified, he couldn't and didn't rebut it. But Democrats knew it was a lie, and they kept on saying that lie until Trump fired Comey because Comey wouldn't make the fact that Trump wasn't under investigation public. Unfortunately, the Democrats' big lie eventually got them what they wanted because Comey then helped orchestrate an investigation over his firing. Day after day, year after year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle misled the country about the true facts relating to the Crossfire Hurricane. In doing so, they undermined their credibility. But, somehow, they kept investigations going, along with an all-too supplicant press. My staff has participated in these staff-led interviews that have occurred in the last week, and I have been briefed on the matters at hand. I was also at the Rosen interview. Within hours of Saturday's Rosen interview, the Democrats were already on television and in papers talking about the substance of the interviews. In their public comments, they provided politically slanted mischaracterizations about where the investigation currently stands. I would like to specifically note that the chairman of the Committee, Senator Durbin, said, in part, to CNN on Sunday about the Rosen interview that ``the Justice Department had set it up for us and said we're waiving any privilege. He''--meaning these people being interviewed--``can speak to any issue. We're not holding back.'' At the Donoghue interview on Friday, the Justice Department, contrary to what I just stated to you, objected to my staff's questions on several occasions and prevented Donoghue from answering. So to go back to what I said from the quote on CNN, it had been set up ``for us and said we're waiving any privilege. He can speak to any issue.'' But when it comes to some of the questions my staff was asking, that wasn't true. The same happened at least once in the Rosen interview. And I believe the Justice Department made an objection even to a Democrat-led question in Donoghue's interview. So we were not able to ask any questions as we were promised. So when the Democrats say these witnesses can ``speak to any issue,'' well, apparently that is not the case. The Biden administration and its Justice Department have waived executive privilege for these witnesses to speak about close and intimate conversations that the President had with his advisers. If you get even a little bit away from Trump, then, in your questioning, well, then the Justice Department doesn't want Congress to know the facts. You see what I mean by saying that Justice objected to some of my staff's questions? Mind you, now, the Justice Department and other executive Agencies consistently refuse to produce records to Congress, claiming what we call deliberative process. When it comes to Trump, the usual order doesn't apply. Given the new executive privilege position that the Biden administration has created here, it is entirely possible that at some point in the future, we could all be talking to President Biden's closest advisers about their internal deliberative process. Or is there a double standard? I have to laugh a little bit at that possibility, knowing how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will complain about how such a decision to seek information is political in nature. With respect to Trump and what was said at these high-level meetings, those are the types of meetings where all kinds of things are discussed. That is the whole point. The President has every right to discuss ideas and strategies with his closest advisers. The President, whether that President is a Democrat or a Republican, should feel unrestrained to bring ideas to his closest staff for robust discussion. Eventually, the facts will come out, and Trump will have to address them, good or bad, depending on the facts at hand. However, the essential question that should be asked is, What was the final decision? And that is my major concern about the recent public comments coming out of these interviews I have discussed relating to this new Trump investigation. Unlike my Democratic colleagues, I won't discuss the evidence publicly at this point in time, but let me remind the American public with a couple already-public points. Did Trump fire Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen? No, he did not fire him. Did Trump fire Rich Donoghue, Rosen's Deputy? No, he did not fire Rich Donoghue. Also, on August 7, 2021, a CNN article states--now, this is about those interviews that I have been talking about that happened in the last week. From CNN: ``The men testified that in their interactions with Trump''--I had better start over again or we will get this wrong. ``The men testified that in their interactions with Trump, he didn't order them to do anything illegal and eventually accepted their advice that the Justice Department couldn't take actions to claim fraud when it had no evidence of it.'' In other words--that is end of quote; I want to just interpret--claim fraud in the last Presidential election because there was no evidence of fraud. Incredibly, one of the same committee Democrats who spread the Trump lie today said criminal prosecutions could come out of this investigation. If the facts eventually fit the Democrats' narrative that they so badly want to be true of their narrative, then they fit. It is what it is. But I haven't seen anything backing up their misleading conclusions from either what I saw at the interviews or what my staff has reported to me from those interviews over the last week. Now, until that point comes that the Democratic narrative proves out to be what they want it to be, the Democrats should quit trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and they need to stop violating committee rules and protocols. Because of this, why would any witness want to testify now, at the risk of their words being leaked and twisted to satisfy a partisan agenda? Facts and evidence matter, not speculative, partisan cheap shots. 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 come to the floor to ask unanimous consent on two pieces of legislation. The first one is a bipartisan amendment that I have with Senator Klobuchar. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. It does not cost anything. It is noncontroversial, and I am not aware of any opposition or controversy about it. I filed this amendment as soon as we were on the bill and have been asking for a vote ever since. I am happy to accept a voice vote. I do not understand why that is not possible. This amendment is entitled ``Assisting Broadband Connectivity Act'' that Senator Klobuchar and I introduced last month. This amendment will make changes to the rural broadband program at USDA so that areas aren't automatically ineligible for Federal funding because a project previously received State funding. In other words, if a project got State money, now they can't qualify for Federal money. This change will ease the administrative burden for those applying to provide broadband in rural America. However, this won't change the requirements for Rural Utilities Service when they administer these programs, such as overbuild and coordination with other broadband entities. This bill also provides more flexibility with funding and resources by allowing States to use funds received from the Federal Government, such as COVID State funding, to be used for the matching fund provision that is required for most applications. This update will help rural America move forward by providing more coordination and funding availability for broadband projects. This is not unusual for the Rural Utilities Service. They currently allow CDBG and State revolving loan funds for water and wastewater to be used for matching purposes. This amendment will help our States and providers connect all the pieces from both the State and Federal level to help get some of these expensive and urgent rural broadband projects completed. This amendment has been cleared by the Senate Agriculture Committee. There is no reason it should not get a vote. I am not aware of any opposition. The second amendment is also--the second bill is also a bipartisan bill by Grassley and Leahy. My amendment provides anti-fraud provisions to the infrastructure package. This amendment combines two of my bills, the False Claims Amendments Act and the Administrative False Claims Act, both of which are bipartisan and have garnered support from both the good-government and inspectors general communities. By the way, this amendment is scored by CBO to bring in more than $100 million, and it seems to me that is a pretty significant amount of money, particularly when the infrastructure bill was scored by CBO to add $256 billion to the debt. This amendment provides long needed improvements to combat fraud perpetrated against the Federal Government. I would like to thank my bipartisan group of friends who have supported this bill and this amendment with their cosponsorship. Now, just to make clear, the only business interests that have anything to worry about--and I am emphasizing this because since this amendment was offered, you would be surprised, all the business interests that have come out in opposition to this provision. So the only thing these business interests have to have anything to worry about with this anti-fraud amendment are the same ones that are already found in a court of law to have defrauded the taxpayers. Since I got the False Claims Act passed in 1986, it has brought in more than $65 billion of fraudulently taken tax dollars. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letters of support

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and reported by number: Grassley 2435, that is Grassley-Leahy; and Grassley 2500, Grassley-Klobuchar. So I want to emphasize, both of these are bipartisan pieces of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I will accept that modification, but I want to add, in fact, I think every Senator ought to get a vote. We have wasted all day Thursday, Saturday, and now through Sunday. That is enough time to vote on a multitude of amendments, and we just sat around those 3 days accomplishing nothing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in a little over a month, we will remember one of the most horrific events to ever occur on U.S. soil. The lives of those we lost can never be replaced. But their memories forever live on through their spouses, children, family, and friends. For the last 20 years, the Federal Government has failed these individuals. Tens of thousands of pages of documents relating to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks remain classified. Without their release, victims, their families, and the public still do not have the full picture of everything that led up to that day and who was involved. While some of these documents must remain classified for defense or national security reasons, a comprehensive review of these materials is long overdue. In fact, in 2004, the chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote that this declassification review should be conducted no later than 2009. We have fallen short. But today, I hope to remedy this wrong, and I am proud to join my colleagues, Senators Menendez, Cornyn, and Blumenthal, on the bipartisan September 11 Transparency Act of 2021. The bill follows familiar legislative precedent, requiring that any documents that can be released, must be released. It is the same step Congress took in requiring the executive branch to conduct a full review of the documents captured at Abbottabad during the Osama Bin Laden raid and publish all materials to the fullest-extent possible. This is not the first time I have requested this review. In 2018, I coponsored a Senate Resolution calling on the administration to declassify 9/11 documents to the greatest extent possible. I am sad to say, that review was never conducted. Last year, I joined my colleagues on a letter to Inspector General Horowitz, asking for an IG investigation into the FBI's handing of the 9/11 classified documents. We never received a response. I have been a long-standing champion of victims of terror, injured or killed both at home and abroad. For example, in 1992, I sponsored the Anti-Terrorism Act, allowing Americans who fall victim to acts of terrorism while abroad to seek damages in U.S. courts, and subsequent clarifying laws. And I plan to continue to stand firm for these individuals. September 11 is a wrong that can never be righted. But we can be on the right side of history and finally put lingering questions to rest by expeditiously declassifying any documents held by the Federal Government related to 9/11 to the greatest extent possible. Thank you.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on January 27 of this year, the Biden administration put out a wide-ranging Executive order on tackling climate change. Tucked in that Executive order was a line directing Secretaries of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce to develop a plan to conserve at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030. This plan is commonly referred to as the ``30 by 30.'' To reach the Biden administration's goal of 30 percent of the land in conservation by 2030, the Federal Government will have significant work ahead of them to accomplish that. This is what 30 percent means. Thirty percent of the land would mean that we will need 440 million additional acres in permanent conservation. To put 440 million acres of land into perspective, it is the equivalent of taking the State of Iowa and putting all of Iowa's land into permanent conservation. But that is still not enough to get to 440 million acres. You would repeat that 11 more times to reach the Biden administration's goal of 30 percent of the land in conservation by 2030. This is not really an attempt at conservation; it is an attempt at confiscation, even though the confiscation would be rewarded, presumably, by annual payments from the Federal Government. Between the 30 by 30 land grab and the Waters of the U.S. rewrite, it is clear that this administration simply does not understand rural America. If they did understand, then they would realize that farmers are the first and best conservationists because it is good for their pocketbook and good for the environment. If the United States decides to go forward with the 30 by 30 plan, we already know what will happen. This rhetoric empowers our Nation's corn and soybean competitors to increase their output Now, Brazil is the best example of our corn and soybean competitors, so let's look at Brazil. This week, the Brazilian House of Representatives advanced a bill that their President, President Bolsonaro, supports, that allows the squatters on public lands in the Amazon rainforest to more easily receive deeds to their properties. Now, there is nothing wrong with deeds to property, but what this is going to do is allow squatters to burn the forest to plant corn and soybeans. Let me tell you how significant this burning is, and this was a few years ago that I read this. I read something from the astronauts in our space station circling the globe. They said there were two significant things that stand out on the Earth's surface when you look down: No. 1 is the Great Wall of China, and No. 2 is the smoke coming from the burning of the rainforest. Now, Brazil has already plowed under more than half of the Cerrado, which is tropical savanna. The Cerrado is a vital storehouse for carbon dioxide that has been disappearing at rates faster than even the Amazon rainforest. If we tie the hands of American farmers, our competitors, like the ones in Brazil, will continue to meet the needs of a growing, hungry world. By 2050, the world population will grow to 9 billion people, and we are going to have to feed them. I don't think the United States should cede our leadership in production agriculture to other countries that already have poor environmental standards. So what you are saying is, in this Cerrado, where the carbon is already sequestered for millennia, that somehow we ought to have a policy here to store more carbon by more conservation to let them plow up more in Brazil. The 5-year farm bill already does a great job of encouraging farmers and landowners to preserve fragile lands, enhancing environmental benefits for all Americans. These farm bill provisions are referred to as ``working lands programs''--programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program that goes by the acronym EQIP, or the Conservation Stewardship Program we call CSP. These programs provide incentives to help producers adopt management practices on their ground that allows the land to stay in production while improving environmental outcomes. If the Biden administration focuses on these longtime conservation programs, my speech today would be praising those efforts; but, instead, this administration has proposals that take productive farmland out of production, placing the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage. We have learned from the Conservation Reserve Program--the CRP we call it in agriculture--the CRP program we have had around for decades. About 24 million acres is in CRP now. But we learned a lesson from the early days of CRP that if you take too much land out of production in a certain area, it hurts the small business people who either serve farmers after the products leave their farm or serve farmers with input into agriculture. So later on, we had to put a requirement that no more than 25 percent of one county can be put into the CRP. Even in doing that--we have counties in southern Iowa that have 25 percent of their land in CRP-- and we know even there that with the limit of 25 percent, we still have lost a lot of small business people who work with farmers, and we ruin the small communities of States that have that problem. So I would be praising these efforts if this is what the administration was satisfied with, but, instead, they have these proposals to take productive farmland out of production and putting our competitors in a financial advantage. These ideas also make it harder for new and beginning farmers to compete on rental rates and gain access to land--another lesson we learned in the years `13, `14, and `15. We changed it in the 2018 farm bill, but what we learned in `13, `14, and `15, is when the Government is paying more for farmers to take their land out of production than is the going rate for cash rent in those areas, when the government becomes an unfair competitor and pays more, then the farmer landlords put their land in the CRP. Then those farmers that were farming that land can't farm it anymore because they can't afford to compete with what the Government is paying. Now, there is a limit that cash rent from the Government can't be more than 80 percent of the average cash rent in a particular county. So we have kind of overcome that problem. But if you pay farmers now to put 30 percent of the land out of production, you are going to lose a lot of farmers that are cash renters, and we shouldn't be having the Government be an unfair competitor against the farmers that pay cash rent. So these farmers understand how conservation and sustainable agriculture affects productivity and generational prosperity. It is important for us to leave the land better than we found it for our children and grandchildren. So far the Biden administration has said their 30 by 30 plan focuses on voluntary measures. Well, farmers can make a choice to do it or not, but to get to 440 million additional acres in conservation, you would be foolish to think that voluntary measures are going to get to the goal this administration wants. Instead of focusing on taking more land out of production agriculture, let's work on a strategy that allows farmers to continue to farm their land while improving environmental outcomes. I yield the floor. Remembering Richard Trumka

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am reintroducing the Survivors' Bill of Rights in the States Act of 2021. This measure, which Senator Shaheen has joined me in sponsoring, builds on an initiative on which the two of us worked together in 2016. Entitled the ``Survivors' Bill of Rights Act,'' that earlier legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in June of 2016, during my tenure as its chairman. The House of Representatives introduced a similar package of rights some months later, and that version was enacted in the fall of 2016 with my strong support. The 2016 statute provides very important rights for victims of sexual violence, but that act only accomplishes those cases that are Federal. Such rights include, for example, the right to know the results of your forensic exam, the right to have evidence preserved for a certain period, and lastly, the right to notice before your forensic kit is destroyed. A young sexual assault survivor, Amanda Nguyen, who advocated for these rights at the Federal level, now is leading the effort to persuade other jurisdictions to adopt the same rights for all sexual assault victims. One of those jurisdictions is my home State of Iowa, which this summer adopted a package of rights that is closely modeled after the Federal Survivors' Bill of Rights. I want to take the opportunity to again thank Amanda, who arrived in my office 6 years ago and convinced me of the importance of working with her on this important initiative. Amanda also later testified before the Judiciary Committee, not once but twice, at my invitation, about the importance of protecting the rights of victims of sexual violence in our criminal justice system. Amanda worked with Senator Shaheen on this same legislation, as well as this Senator, and I am pleased to partner with Senator Shaheen again in introducing today's measure that will hopefully affect more States adopting this legislation. This bill that we sponsored, then, gives each State a financial incentive to adopt new rights for survivors in all sex crime cases, modeled on the same rights that victims in Federal cases now enjoy. Each State that extends these same rights to survivors of sexual violence would then be eligible to receive a Federal grant under the legislation that we have introduced. The amount of each State grant would be calculated based on the formula that is used to calculate STOP grant funding to States under a program that is authorized by the Violence Against Women Act. Finally, this measure that we have introduced would authorize $20 million annually for each of the next 5 fiscal years to support the implementation of the new grant program established by this bill. Once again, I want to thank Senator Shaheen for joining me in leading this legislation and for her commitment to working to increase protections for victims of sexual violence. I also want to thank the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence for working with us on the bill's development. Finally, I thank Congresswoman Jackie Speier and Congressman Kelly Armstrong for initiating this measure in the other Chamber. I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the contributions of the Ghost Army units of World War II and explain why I decided to join the Ghost Army Congressional Gold Medal Act as a cosponsor. The 23rd Headquarters Special Troops and the 3133rd Signal Service Company, together known as the Ghost Army, used deception tactics to fool the German Army about the location of American troops. These specialized units used inflatable tanks and sound effects to give the impression of a larger presence. While their role was theatrical, the units suffered causalities and operated close to the front lines. For over 50 years, these units and the contributions of the men who comprised them were kept a secret. I learned of the success of the Ghost Army from my constituent, Caleb Sinnwell of Nashua, IA. He won first place in the National History Day Project for his website about the Ghost Army and has been tirelessly advocating for this legislation to award the unit a Congressional Gold Medal. I thank him for his advocacy and for his admirable dedication to ensuring that those who sacrificed to ensure that the freedom and rights that we prize in America were protected are always remembered.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor because I am greatly concerned as to whether the Department of Justice is committed to fighting the violent crime committed by the gang known as MS-13. MS-13 is a violent gang that operates on the streets of the United States and throughout Mexico and Central America. MS-13's informal motto is--can you believe this--``kill, steal, rape, and control.'' Under the Trump administration, the Department established a task force to fight the murders and other serious crimes committed by MS-13 gang members, but the Department of Justice hasn't released any news or updates on this task force, called Task Force Vulcan, since way back on January 14 of this year. Right before President Biden's inauguration is when that January 14 date was. So you can see we haven't seen anything since this President has been sworn in. So we have no idea what the Department of Justice is doing to combat MS-13. From 2017 to 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection found or arrested over 3 million people, averaging about 750,000 people a year. In that same time period, Border Patrol apprehended an average of 294 MS-13 gang members every year. This year, however, Customs and Border Protection has already encountered or arrested over 1.2 million, well above the previous averages. But, this year, Customs and Border Protection has only apprehended 71 MS-13 members trying to enter the United States, suggesting many dangerous MS-13 gang members are successfully sneaking past Border Patrol as agents are focused on dealing with unaccompanied children at the border or asylum seekers. One Border Patrol chief in Laredo stated that MS-13 members are using the high number of migrants entering the United States to blend in and get past agents. We know MS-13 is still trying to sneak into the country; however, they are just more successful now. Customs and Border Protection is still arresting MS-13 members when they can identify them. In April alone, Customs and Border Protection arrested an MS-13 member who was a convicted felon with an outstanding warrant and one female MS-13 member traveling with a convicted murderer. Here, next to the Capitol, police in Maryland arrested an MS-13 member after he lured a 15-year-old girl into an apartment and tried to rape her. So even if Border Patrol agents in the field and local police are doing their best to stop MS-13, we still don't know what the Department of Justice is doing about MS-13 since they haven't released any updates on Task Force Vulcan since January. We don't even know if Task Force Vulcan still exists. This is a problem because we know MS-13 is ruthlessly operating on American streets. Congress and the American people deserve to know what the Department of Justice is doing to keep our streets safe and to keep us safe from dangerous criminal organizations like MS-13. So I will be seeking answers to this question from the Department of Justice. It is a pretty basic question: Do you have anything to update the American people about? We should know what the status of all this is.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, each year on July 30, we take time to celebrate whistleblowers and the very hard role that whistleblowers play in keeping our government transparent and accountable. But the task of supporting whistleblowers doesn't start and stop on July 30; it is a year-round job. And here in this Congress, it is something that we have been working on for decades. When I first came to Washington in the 1970s, most of the whistleblower laws we take for granted today didn't even exist then. I like to tell people, anyone who dared to blow the whistle back at that time was about as welcome as a skunk at a picnic. People in government would often retaliate by trying to run the whistleblower off and make them out to be the problem instead of the problem the whistleblower was trying to present. I still hear about that kind of retaliation going on this very day in far too many cases. But, today, we have better whistleblower protections in place than we did years ago, and whistleblowers have important advocates in their corner to support them. The Nation owes a special thanks for many of the key whistleblower protections that we have in place this very day to my former colleague and good friend, Senator Carl Levin, who died yesterday at the age of 87. Carl was the original sponsor of the Whistleblower Protection Act back in 1989, and a cosponsor of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. I was proud to have worked with Carl on those foundational pieces of whistleblower legislation. I know that if Carl were still here in the Senate this very day, he would be continuing to lead on whistleblower issues. Carl understood that whistleblower protections are not just important to Members of Congress and a small network of interest groups in Washington, DC; they are important for the entire Nation because whistleblowers play a critical role in our government. They call attention to the problems of waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency. And if you have the sort of transparency that comes because whistleblowers are ready to stand up for what is right, that transparency brings accountability to our government, and you can't have a democratic government that is not accountable. These whistleblowers help those of us in Congress to identify problems in the government so we can fix them through oversight and, if necessary, passing legislation. And so whistleblowers help keep government transparent and accountable to the people, and they help us find ways of saving taxpayers' dollars. As much as Carl accomplished during his Senate career helping whistleblowers, and as much as we have accomplished together over the years, there is still more that needs to be done to ensure that whistleblowers remain protected. One important resource for whistleblowers is the Merit Systems Protection Board, where whistleblowers can go if they face retaliation for blowing the whistle. And let me tell you, too many whistleblowers face retaliation for doing just what is right. We ought to see them as partisans for good government. Now, this Merit Systems Protection Board has been without a quorum for more than 2 years, and it has developed a significant backlog of cases. I am not sure what is keeping President Biden from sending us nominations for that board. I certainly believe he needs to do that without delay. There is also still work to do to make whistleblower protections stronger and more robust. I am working on several pieces of whistleblower legislation in this Congress. One of my bills will strengthen incentives and protections for whistleblowers who report potential money laundering. And I also have legislation to further strengthen the False Claims Act and an act entitled Program Fraud Civil Remedies by giving Agencies more resources to directly take on people who defraud the government. In addition, I am working on legislation that will establish stronger whistleblower protections for our FBI employees. Wherever there are still gaps in our existing laws, I am working to fill those gaps. This year, on Whistleblower Appreciation Day, the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus welcomes two new Members: Senators Collins and Hassan. As chair of the caucus, I am pleased to welcome my colleagues. I look forward to working with these new colleagues and our caucus co-chair, Senator Wyden of Oregon, as we continue our joint effort to make sure the whistleblower laws and protections we have in place next year and the year after are even stronger than the ones that we have in place today. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.