Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I learned on Friday that the Department of Justice has opted not to pursue a civil rights investigation into government-run nursing homes in several States about their response to the COVID-19. Earlier this year, I urged the Department to pursue this investigation, and I, today, call on the Attorney General to reconsider this decision that I learned about last Friday. I do that in light of media reports suggesting that the obstruction of justice may have occurred in at least one of these jurisdictions. Close to 1 year ago, the Department sought information from four States. Those four States are New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The information sought was about the number of COVID-19 infections and deaths in their public nursing homes. The Department's request for this information came on the heels of media reports suggesting that State officials in these jurisdictions had pressured nursing homes to accept patients, regardless of their COVID-19 status. It was reported that officials in New York also may have engaged in a coverup by actively concealing from the public the actual number of COVID-19-related fatalities in that State's nursing homes. Serious questions remain to this day about whether the Governors in New York and these three other jurisdictions helped fuel the COVID-19- related death tolls in nursing homes through the issuance of their own executive orders that went against the advice of geriatricians. Yet the Department is declining to pursue the matter. And in the case of New York, this is particularly troubling. New York's Governor not only reportedly pressured nursing homes in his State to accept patients during the initial stage of the pandemic, regardless of their COVID-19 status, but his administration did not provide an accurate picture of the actual death tolls to the public. This lack of transparency was done to avoid accountability. So put very simply, the public deserves better. According to a report by the New York Post, a top aide to Governor Cuomo even apologized to a group of Democratic State lawmakers during a phone call for reportedly withholding data on COVID-19-related nursing home fatalities during this pandemic. The Department's Civil Rights Division won't investigate, but at least the FBI and prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office are looking into the matter. These Federal prosecutors' review reportedly focuses on whether Governor Cuomo's administration underreported COVID-19 deaths in the nursing homes in an effort to avoid negative publicity. At least someone is looking at this. However, I am disappointed that the Justice Department proper and Attorney General Garland have decided to pull their punches. As I stated today in a letter to the Attorney General, it would be a grave injustice to those who perished in these facilities during the pandemic to neglect to fully explore such widely reported and troubling allegations. And as others, too, have noted, promoting more accountability and transparency is vital under these circumstances. It would not only help prevent similar missteps in the future but also maintain public confidence in the Department, which is waning under the Department's current leadership. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached speech, which I delivered in honor of National Whistleblower Appreciation Day, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, because of the increase in hospitalizations because of the Delta variant of the virus, we are told that the CDC will soon be requiring, in about half the counties of the country, masks and other restrictions to prevent the spread of the virus. They say they are doing it because of the science. We are told they will not show us the data. The very essence of science is peer review, and pity anybody who wants to analyze it. In America, the public's business ought to be public. If we can't get this data, what the taxpayers are paying for and public policy is being made on, it seems to me that principle--that the public's business is not really public. And when people are able to cover up things and make policy decisions that are not public and transparent, it obviously brings about less accountability. So let's have that data. We want to know why you are requiring masks again.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Helaine Ann Greenfeld, to be an Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, PN459, and Christopher H. Schroeder, to be an Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, PN370. Last week, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's executive business meeting, I noted my intent to vote for both nominees but object to any unanimous consent request for their confirmation. Ms. Greenfeld will lead the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs and Mr. Schroeder will lead the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Both of these components are at the heart of my congressional oversight requests and the Department's failure to respond. I have made this decision clearly not on the basis of their credentials but on the basis of the Justice Department's failure to respond to congressional oversight requests. To date, the Justice Department has failed to provide a full and complete response to any of my oversight requests. I said the same thing when I objected to any unanimous consent request relating to the Kenneth Polite nomination on June 22, 2021. Nothing has changed. For example, on July 15, 2021, my staff had yet another call with the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Affairs, the very office Ms. Greenfeld will be in charge of. On that call, the Department wanted to know why I had a hold on Mr. Polite and whether they could do anything to change my mind. My staff made clear to the Department that the issues before them are quite simple: Attorney General Garland must respond to my oversight letters and records requests. The Department asked for that call with my staff, and the Department did not provide my staff a substantive update on any of my oversight requests. It is absurd for the Department to schedule a call relating to my hold on Mr. Polite, which was done due to the Department's consistent failure to respond to my oversight requests, and then have no updates relating to any of my oversight requests. As one of many examples of unanswered questions and requests, on February 3, 2021, and March 9, 2021, Senator Johnson and I requested information from the Justice Department relating to Nicholas McQuaid. Mr. McQuaid was Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, the position Mr. Polite now holds. In those letters, we raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in light of the fact that Mr. McQuaid was employed at Latham & Watkins until January 20, 2021, and worked with Christopher Clark, whom Hunter Biden reportedly hired to work on his Federal criminal case. This arrangement presents an ongoing potential conflict of interest given the fact Mr. McQuaid is still employed at the Criminal Division as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General. A core function of congressional oversight is to ensure that governmental departments and agencies are free of conflicts of interest. That is especially so with the Justice Department and FBI. If conflicts infect them, those investigations and prosecutions--the very purpose of the Department's existence--could be undermined. As a part of my oversight, I have requested a recusal memo for Mr. McQuaid. I have also requested to know, as a threshold issue, whether one even exists. Attorney General Garland has failed to answer and provide the requested records. I have noted to the Department that in 2016, I received from the Department Andrew McCabe's recusal memo to illustrate precedent exists for such a production to Congress. Still, the Justice Department refuses to provide the same for Mr. McQuaid. On the July 15, 2021, call with my staff, they again raised my questions about Mr. McQuaid. The Department was unable to provide any legitimate basis upon which it could not answer my questions and again failed to provide any update on the Department's response. As I have noted before with respect to the Federal Government's failure to respond to legitimate congressional oversight requests, there is nothing more eroding of public faith than an unresponsive executive branch that believes it only answers to the President and not the U.S. Congress and, perhaps most importantly, ``We the People.'' This administration's continued, ongoing, and blatant lack of cooperation has again forced my hand. Thus, unfortunately, I must object to any consideration of these nominees. My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Ms. Greenfeld and Mr. Schroeder in any way. The executive branch must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

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, many bills get introduced in the Senate and don't seem to go anyplace. The reason is that they are meant to be simply messaging documents, making a statement, telling people what you believe, not necessarily with the motive of passing a piece of legislation. Now, I usually do not care to comment on these bills. It is simply not worth the time. But when I see the combination of false information spread in messaging bills that could negatively impact my State, I must set the record straight, and that is why I am here. Several colleagues just introduced a bill to repeal the renewable fuel standard. I have been a proud advocate for renewable energy. Iowa is the leader in both wind and renewable fuels. When it comes to the renewable fuel standard, it is hard to argue that there has ever been a more successful clean-fuel policy implemented across the world. Between 2008 and 2020, the use of biofuels under the renewable fuel standard resulted in a savings of 980 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent of removing over 200 million cars from the road for 1 year. The renewable fuel standard makes gasoline more affordable. It generates good-paying jobs. It reduces oil imports and reduces our country's greenhouse gas emissions. The messaging coming from the bill rehashes the same talking points about ethanol that Big Oil has trotted out for the past decades. So, once again, Big Oil raises its ugly head. Of course, Big Oil's talking points have been completely debunked by the latest science and even our nonpartisan research from the Congressional Budget Office. And Congress depends a great deal upon the research done by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group of professional people that study things a long time before they release their information. Now, my pro-oil colleagues say that the renewable fuel standard causes food and feed prices to rise. However, in 2014, the CBO looked at this issue and the impact on food prices if the renewable fuel standard was fully repealed. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that American food prices would be just one-quarter of 1 percent higher if the renewable fuel standard was kept in place versus a total repeal. Out of a $100 grocery bill, the impact is no more than a quarter. But when you consider that there is a savings of $5 every time you fill up your gas tank due to the renewable fuel standard, consumers save money overall with the renewable fuel standard in place. My colleagues who introduced this messaging legislation also claimed, falsely, that corn ethanol achieves little to no reduction in greenhouse gases. Now, this must be the most ridiculous assertion made against ethanol. I would like to invite my colleagues to visit Iowa to see how far ethanol has come in reducing emissions. The most recent research from Harvard shows that corn ethanol greenhouse gas emissions are 46 percent lower than gasoline. Research by the U.S. Department of Agriculture found the reduction in CO2 could reach 71 percent by next year if farmers follow best practices. At a time when the Nation is working to reduce fossil fuel consumption and protect our environment, why would my colleagues introduce a bill that would increase our dependence upon foreign oil and, at the same time, increase greenhouse gas emissions? And some of these people on this bill have the most pure environmental record in the U.S. Senate. Renewable fuels like ethanol have a 40-year track record of making fuel more affordable and vehicles more efficient. To limit this consumer choice at the pump is completely irresponsible. Attempts to limit consumer choice, which are driven by big oil interests, must be defeated. The United States should continue to build on the progress of the renewable fuel standard and bring policy to the table that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and brings jobs to rural America. Let me end with a history of the RFS because this legislation is a story of irony if you consider how we got to the renewable fuel standard in the first place. You see, Big Oil wanted it. Why did they want it? Well, a lot of States where they had smog had what we call the oxygenate requirement. It was required in the Clean Air Acts that Congress has passed over the decades. In order to meet that standard, Big Oil would add what they call MTBE, a product made out of petroleum that they added to their gasoline to meet the oxygenate standards, to reduce smog. After a long period of time, people realized that the MTBE was poisoning groundwater in California--maybe other places as well, but I remember mostly the conflict being in California--and they were being sued. So by 2005, Big Oil decided they didn't want to be sued, and what could they do to get out of it? Well, the RFS was the answer. I was chairman of the Finance Committee at the time. They came to us with the ideas of the RFS, and it fit into a lot of things that we from agricultural interests were trying to accomplish as well. So the renewable fuel standard was written in cooperation with Big Oil--the first time in three decades that Big Oil had any interest in working with ethanol industry. Then, what, after 3 or 4 years of working with us, they have been attacking the RFS since then. This piece of legislation I am speaking about today is just one more example of Big Oil trying to attack ethanol. And I gave all the facts about ethanol being good for the consumer, good for the environment, and good for less reliance on foreign countries for our energy sources. In fact, everything about ethanol is good, good, good. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, to finance their big spending agenda, President Biden and Members of his party in Congress have called for over $3 trillion in new taxes. This group claims that these tax hikes are targeted solely to the very wealthy. However, deep down, embedded in their tax-hike proposal, is a direct attack on family farms and resulting ruination of rural communities. If Democrats get their way, family farms would be decimated through the enactment of a second death tax that operates on top of the existing estate tax. This second death tax would subject the paper gains of business and investment assets to tax upon transfer to the next generation. At the same time, the current long-term capital gains rate would be nearly doubled. Now, as a result, decades of paper gains in farmland and other property could be subject to capital gains taxes at a rate as high as 43.4 percent. Given inflation as well as the escalating value of farmland over the past several decades, some Iowa farms could easily generate a half-a- million-dollar tax bill or even more based upon land values alone. And those land values have gone up as a result of inflation and nothing else. Moreover, according to an analysis by KPMG, family farms captured both by this new death tax and the existing estate tax could see tax rates exceeding 66 percent. Now, it is pretty simple. That is not taxation; that is confiscation. Proponents claim this new tax--or you might say this new confiscation--is needed to close a loophole that allows the appreciation in value of property over one's lifetime to go untaxed, but death isn't a loophole, and it shouldn't be a taxable event. In fact, rather than solving a problem, this proposal would resurrect failed policy from a decade past. As part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, Congress experimented with a similar attempt to subject paper gains in inherited assets to tax. This change was immediately met with outcries from farmers, ranchers, and small business owners, resulting in its repeal in a few years. In fact, it is such a complicated process, it is probably impossible to administer such a tax; at least that was the main point made in the late 1970s against that 1976 legislation. Now, as problematic as this change was for farmers in 1976, what Democrats have in store would actually be far worse. Where in 1976 no tax was due until an asset was eventually sold by an heir, current proposals could result in a tax bill due in the year of that person's death. As is often said, and with a lot of truth to it, farmers are land rich and cash poor. This means it is unlikely for a decedent's estate to have cash on hand to satisfy a six-figure tax bill. Now, as a result, all or portions of a family farm might have to be sold to satisfy an oversized tax bill. This would endanger the continuation of family farms from one generation to the next, and it would devastate rural communities along with it because, you see, most people, if you invest in farmland, you don't invest today because you are going to sell it tomorrow; you invest in it to work it and you work it for a generation and you pass it on to the next generation. Now, we had one recent study that found subjecting paper gains to a tax at death could cost as much as 80,000 jobs each year over the next decade. So I say to my Democratic colleagues, pursue this policy at your own peril. I assure you, farmers, ranchers, and small business owners are paying close attention. If you aren't, you better. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I come to the floor to discuss an issue that I have raised during the course of multiple Republican and Democrat administrations. This is a problem that crosses political boundaries, whether you have a Republican or Democrat President. That issue is responding to legitimate and valid congressional oversight requests. In my time as a public servant, I have seen my fair share of unresponsive government, sometimes downright obstructive government. I have seen it rear its ugly head from decade to decade. There is nothing more eroding to public faith than an unresponsive executive branch that believes that it only answers to the President and not to the U.S Congress and perhaps, most importantly, we the people. Based on my interactions with the Biden administration's Justice Department and its component Agencies--specifically, the FBI--the current officials in charge of those Agencies are, at best, unresponsive public servants. That goes all the way to the top, to the President, because the buck stops there. As I say to many nominees, either you are going to run your Department or the Department runs you. Right now, it looks like the Justice Department is running the Attorney General's office, and that is a great big shame. I voted to confirm the Attorney General. I had high hopes he would follow through on his public statements of ridding the Department of political infection. Instead, I fear he has taken the Justice Department to new politically charged heights. To date, I haven't received a full or complete response to a single oversight request from the Justice Department. As one example, on February 3 of this year and March 9 of this year, Senator Johnson and I asked the Department about Nicholas McQuaid. Mr. McQuaid is the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, of which Mr. Polite will be taking his place upon confirmation. McQuaid was employed by a law firm until January 20 of this year and worked with Christopher Clark, whom Hunter Biden reportedly hired to work on his Federal criminal case. This arrangement poses a clear potential conflict. A core function of congressional oversight is to ensure that governmental Departments and Agencies are free of conflicts of interest. That is especially so with the Justice Department and the FBI. If conflict infects them, those investigations and prosecutions, the very purpose of the Department's existence, could be undermined. So I have requested a recusal memo for McQuaid. I have also requested to know, as a threshold issue, whether one even exists. Attorney General Garland won't answer. Now, can you believe that? Here we have a Federal criminal case that implicates the President's son, and the Attorney General won't even answer Congress as to whether or not an employee of his Department who has an apparent conflict is recused from that matter? It certainly looks like the Garland Justice Department is doing all that it can to protect the President's son. Let me remind the Attorney General that I was the one who led a transcribed interview with President Trump's son. For all of the grief that Trump and his family got from the Democrats, at least that family showed up and answered the questions of legitimate congressional oversight. Early on in the Attorney General's tenure, I instructed my oversight staff to work diligently and, of course, in good faith with their counterparts at the Justice Department. My staff have done the phone calls. They have had the meetings. They have sent emails, many of which go unanswered. My staff has done this all in good faith. At my level, I have made every effort to get the Attorney General on the phone to discuss my oversight requests. It took him 2 months to get on the phone with me for a one-on-one call. I found out just the other week that Attorney General Garland's staff never told him of my request to speak with him. This omission is a dereliction of duty by the Department staff, to keep something like that from the Attorney General. Like I said, either you run the Department, or the Department runs you. This type of unresponsive conduct has consequences. These consequences might not be immediate, but eventually, as I have seen over the years, ultimately the consequences arrive. The more their government tries to hide from them, the more the American people lose faith in government institutions. With such bad government conduct, I don't blame the people for losing faith. The fault is with the government, not the American people. After all, we work for the American people; they don't work for us. It is sad to say, but many in Washington, DC, don't understand that very fundamental precept of our constitutional Republic. My fellow Senators, this type of conduct from the Biden administration and the Justice Department is unacceptable. But it isn't just this administration or this Justice Department; it is something I have seen too long under both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and it will have long-term consequences for the integrity of our governmental institutions. In light of the Department's consistent failure to respond to my oversight requests, I will object to any unanimous consent request that Kenneth Polite be confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. I do not do so on the basis of his credentials, which I don't question; I do it as a message to the Attorney General that he needs to improve DOJ's interaction with the Congress.

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, before we proceed to a vote on final passage of the VOCA Fix Act, on which I teamed up with Senators Durbin, Graham, and other members of the Judiciary Committee, we first will turn to the Toomey amendment. This amendment is loosely based on a bill introduced by Senator Toomey in 2015. That 2015 measure, entitled the ``Fairness for Victims of Crime Act,'' would have created a budgetary point of order against legislation that required the Crime Victims Fund to disburse less than the average amount collected by the Fund over the previous 3 fiscal years. The Senate held a field hearing on this legislation, which was introduced by Senator Toomey, the same year. The Budget Committee, of which I am a member, then approved the legislation by unanimous voice vote. I still support the premise behind this bill, which is to promote fairness for crime victims and restore the original intent of the Victims of Crime Act. Some years ago, appropriators placed an arbitrary cap on the amount of money that could flow out of the Crime Victims Fund each year. The imposition of this cap meant not only that billions of dollars accumulated, unspent, in the fund in later years, but also that this sum could be used as an offset to support other projects backed by congressional appropriators. Meanwhile, the availability of so much unspent money in the Crime Victims Fund made it an extremely tempting target for budget dealmakers. On one occasion in 2015, during the Obama administration, budget negotiators simply rescinded at least a billion dollars of the fund for a budget deal. As noted by Senator Toomey today, the President's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year indicates that he proposes to rely on $26 billion in the Crime Victims Fund and cancellations in the Children's Health Program to offset an equivalent amount in new discretionary spending. Table S-8 to the President's budget shows that this is the intention. Every last penny brought into the Victims of Crime Act Fund is supposed to help victims rather than serve as a funding gimmick for other projects supported by appropriators and the White House. It is for this reason that I support the Toomey amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have been to the floor several times with Senator Gillibrand not only to compliment her on the hard work she has put into this bill for so many years now--I think going back to 2013--but also to give my support to this effort as well. She doesn't need the compliments. She doesn't want them. But I say that she is entitled to the hard work that she has put into this bill, and it is time that we pass this legislation. We are told that the bill will be considered by the Armed Services Committee as part of the NDAA. That is not a good reason to deny consideration as a stand-alone bill on the floor, which is what Senator Gillibrand has been to this floor numerous times to get done, and each time was objected to. Now, the Armed Services Committee serves this Senate well for what it does on military policy, but when it comes to this particular piece of legislation, it is unfortunate that the Committee has a track record of gutting provisions that they don't like, even after the provisions receive the votes to be included. On another issue, I want to recall what the Senate and House conferees did to a bill to prevent cuts to the Air National Guard. The provision was included in both the House and Senate NDAA but was quietly struck from the conference report. And bringing this bill separately on the floor of the U.S. Senate and getting it passed will prevent like things from happening to this sexual assault legislation. So this legislation is needed now. I think Senator Gillibrand has said it has 66 cosponsors, and that is exactly right, because there are far too many women and men in the Armed Forces being sexually assaulted and most never see justice. The rates of retaliation are too high, and prosecutions are too low. Now, over the past month, I have heard favorable comments about attacking this issue from President Biden. I have heard an independent commission at the Pentagon speak to it. I have heard Secretary Austin speak to it. Now, whether they specifically support this legislation or not, they at least have admitted that sexual assault in the military is a major, major problem that needs to be dealt with in some way, but I am saying it will never be dealt with until we get Senator Gillibrand's legislation passed. More importantly, it has the votes--66 votes in the U.S. Senate, for sure, and probably more when people have to put their vote on the line to be a stand-alone piece of legislation. It is time for the legislation to finally move forward, and I would urge my colleagues to allow it to proceed. But as has happened before, we found out today is not that day. But that day should have been years ago, considering this problem is getting worse from year to year and, more importantly, the fact that it is such a big problem, and retaliation is such a big problem that you don't even get accurate statistics on the number of people that have been sexually assaulted, because they know if they go forward and report it, they will be retaliated against. It is a situation that we have dealt with for too long without the solutions that have been promised working, and so the only way to solve this problem is with Senator Gillibrand's legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, why is there such an increase in violent crimes in American cities? In New York City, the murder rate is up 37 percent from 2 years ago; in Atlanta, 53 percent from 2019. In Portland, OR, murders have increased over 500 percent. So everybody is asking: What is going on? Well, if you were to ask President Biden, he would say the usual rhetoric about how we need more gun control. The White House recently put out a so-called strategy to reduce crimes. What is the first thing that the President wants to do about this issue? Go after rogue gun dealers. Well, we all know gun dealers must follow the law, like doing background checks. We all agree on that. But I don't think anyone truly believes that legal gun dealers are responsible for the sudden spike in violent crime, including our own Department of Justice. Referring to a Department of Justice 2019 report, inmates who committed a gun crime most likely got their weapons from the black market--no background checks there. In fact, according to this report, only about 1 in 50 Federal inmates got a gun from a legal firearms dealer. Speaking of which, if Democrats really want to protect Americans from illegal gun sales, they should support my bill, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act, which would actually do that. But getting back to the recent crime wave, the real problem is what everyone knows but many of my friends on the left dare not say. The real problem is that for the past 14 months, police officers across the country have been vilified for doing their job, which has led to many of those same police leaving their job. In addition, liberal communities--and everybody knows most of our big cities of America are run by Democratic mayors--reduced the police forces and even reduced prosecutions. The result is that in San Francisco, for example, as you see on television, shoplifting appears to be a way of life. Some police have pulled back from making sure that we are all safe because in too many cities, elected officials don't have their backs. Last year, Attorney General Barr enacted Operation Legend, which paired Federal law enforcement officers up with local police in nine cities where crimes were soaring. This led to the arrest of 6,000 violent criminals by the end of last year, including hundreds of murderers. Now, does this White House have the will to support law enforcement so the police can make our streets safer? Does the President have their backs? Recently, the President's spokesperson said it was the Republicans who wanted to defund the police, not the Democrats. And that is just plain untrue and everybody knows it. What they were trying to say is that Republicans didn't support the Democrats' irresponsible spending bill back in March. That is not defunding the police. That is just being fiscally responsible. It is not Republicans who say things like: ``No more policing, incarceration, or militarization. It can't be reformed,'' or words like ``defunding the police means defunding the police.'' Let me give you another example. The push to take resources away from law enforcement is alive and well over in the House. A couple of weeks ago, the Senate passed three bills that would support police. The first one is the Protecting America's First Responders Act. That bill makes sure seriously injured first responders or their widows and children get the benefits that they are entitled to. The second bill, the COPS Counseling Act, creates a zone of privacy for police officers so that they can have counseling sessions for traumatic experiences and protect their privacy. A third bill, the Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Officers Protection Act, makes it clear that killing a law enforcement officer overseas is a crime in the United States. The Senate passed these bills because when it comes to law enforcement, we have their backs. But right now, Democratic leadership in the House is preventing a vote on these bills. Why? I don't know. They are bipartisan bills that should easily pass with resounding support. If you are with me on funding the police, I know you will support these bills. If the President wants to reduce crime, he should tell our police: Go out there. Patrol our streets. We have your back. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the countdown is on. Today marks the beginning of 100 days until the critical and lifesaving authority placing fentanyl-related substances in schedule I expires. In 100 days that expires. Congress has extended this authority multiple times, most recently in May. However, when choosing how long to extend this authority, Congress shortchanged itself by providing only 5 months to contemplate how to permanently control fentanyl analogs. I pushed for a longer extension, even spearheading bipartisan legislation that would have extended this authority into the next year, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted that 5 months was sufficient to work with the administration to find a permanent solution scheduling fentanyl-related substances. I had skepticism about this when the 5-month extension passed in May, and I have even more skepticism now. That is because we are only 100 days away from losing this essential authority and the administration still has not indicated how it intends to solve this problem. So Congress is operating in the dark. The administration says that a legislative proposal will be sent to Congress as early as next month. But this proposal won't be a done deal once it arrives on Capitol Hill because, you know, Presidents propose, Congress disposes. If it doesn't include measures to protect vulnerable communities, to prevent more drug overdose victims, and proactively deter and punish drug traffickers, then it won't be enough to solve the problems of a drug--fentanyl--killing several hundred thousand people. I have been beating the drum on scheduling fentanyl analogs for a long period of time because it is a fight worth having. We simply can't afford to let these deadly substances go unscheduled. What happens if we don't schedule fentanyl analogs in the next 100 days? Well, it is pretty obvious. Opioid-related deaths fueled by fentanyl analogs increased by 35 percent in my State of Iowa. What about the other 49 States? But 35 percent in Iowa last year. That happens to be in line with nationwide trends. So deaths will continue to rise if we don't buckle down and get onto this issue of scheduling fentanyl schedule I on a permanent basis. Also, according to the Customs and Border Patrol, so far this year, enough fentanyl and its analogs have been seized to kill the entire population of the United States not once, but 10 times over. Some may view drug crimes as victimless. You need to tell that to the hundreds of thousands of families who have lost their brother, sister, parent, or child to fentanyl. Tell that to Rob and Deb Courtney, the parents of Chad Courtney from North Liberty, IA. Chad died 5 years ago because of fentanyl. He used painkillers and then turned to abusing heroin. Rod and Deb tried to help their son through rehab and treatment. Then one day they received the call that they had been dreading. Their son died because a drug dealer laced heroin with a deadly fentanyl substance. Rod said that one of the last memories he has of his son was picking him up from treatment and Chad stating, ``I just want to make a difference.'' We owe it to Chad and the other 36,359 victims of fentanyl-related overdose deaths to make a difference now, and that means passing legislation that schedules fentanyl and its analogs permanently. Congress can ensure that we put people over profits and communities over cartels by permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances. I don't doubt that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to protect their constituents. Nobody wants more overdose deaths in their home States. So let's work together to put this issue to rest at last. Starting today, the countdown is on. As I said in the beginning, 100 more days. I hope the administration and my Senate colleagues are ready to get to work on permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances. I know that I am ready. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, like my colleague from Iowa who has just spoken, I travel Iowa as well, and in holding my county meetings and visiting with employers and employees--not just these last 2 weeks that we have been in recess, but all year--I have been hearing all of what Senator Ernst has referred to, that people are afraid of inflation and a lot of people are old enough to remember the 12- to 15-percent inflation we had during the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. We don't want to repeat that. Traveling Iowa, it is always refreshing to hear directly from my constituents because, as I often say, Washington is an island surrounded by reality. The Midwest seems to be the real America compared to what we know here in Washington, DC, where everything that dominates the economy is affected by government--and very Big Government. There is no better example of this than how the Biden administration and Washington elites talk about inflation and rising prices. To them, inflation is transitory or the result of base effects, and those words ``transitory'' and ``base effects'' are used to justify this inflation. Really something not to worry about, I think, is the impression they want to leave us with. To the Iowans I spoke with, inflation is real and persistent, as Senator Ernst has so colorfully shown. I heard concerns from my constituents about inflation wherever I went. And why? Because it is affecting people's lives right now. I heard about how inflation was cutting into families' budgets, making it hard to make ends meet. I heard how prices in grocery staples, such as milk, meat, fruit, vegetables, are on the rise, along with all manner of household goods. Yet the President and his top economic advisers say inflation is nothing to worry about, or as the President's Treasury Secretary put it, ``I don't think there's going to be an inflationary problem. But if there is, the Fed will be counted on to address it.'' They shouldn't be so nonchalant about it. As we know from the 1970s, once inflation takes off, getting it back under control can require very painful measures. They should take the advice of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Summers. He recently stated, ``The Fed has had almost no success gently bringing down inflation once an economy has started to overheat.'' Notice that word ``gently'' because everybody thinks this is going to just occur very easily, getting it under control, but we remember the results of the 1970s, early eighties. It took Paul Volcker to take a sledgehammer through the policies of the Federal Reserve to bring down interest rates. And a lot of farmers in Iowa lost their farms when they were borrowing on that inflation, trusting the government that there was no problem, and then we have just farmers going out of business because Volcker used a sledgehammer, and he probably had to use it because there wasn't a gentle way of doing it. Unfortunately, instead of taking inflation seriously, the current administration appears intent on stoking its flames, pouring gasoline on the inflation fire. In his budget, the President proposes government spending and debt at levels previously only seen temporarily during war or economic recession. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal both recently raised their inflation expectations. CBO raised its inflation projections because ``output now exceeds its potential level sooner and by a larger amount than previously anticipated.'' Output exceeding its potential is economic speak for the economy is starting to overheat. Consumer price data released yesterday shows inflation heating up. In June, prices climbed 5.4 percent over the prior year compared to 5 percent in May. Moreover, core inflation, which omits volatile food and energy goods, rose at the highest rate in 29 years The trillions of dollars in new spending proposed by the President could set inflation ablaze. If that occurs, it is not going to be the wealthy and the Wall Street elites that pay the price. The average hard-working American living paycheck to paycheck, and particularly tough on the retiree on fixed incomes, those are the people that are going to pay more and get less for paying more. The President would be well served to listen more to everyday Americans about how rising prices are affecting their lives today. President Biden might then realize pursuing another multitrillion- dollar spending spree isn't worth the risk. It could fan the flames of inflation and devastate the livelihoods of average Americans. It is incumbent upon the President and the Congress to avert catastrophe by pursuing responsible fiscal policies. We can't just expect the Federal Reserve to clean up our mess if we act irresponsibly by spending another $4 trillion. By that time, it could already be too late, waiting on the Fed. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Gary Tromblay, a detailee in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, every State of the Nation has many infrastructure needs. In Iowa, we rely on our roads, bridges, air, and freight to move our goods and people throughout Iowa, throughout the United States, and eventually throughout the world. I am encouraged that a bipartisan framework has been agreed to for moving forward on an infrastructure bill. I will be interested in seeing more details about the policy and the way to pay for the bill as the bill proceeds forward. Today, I would like to discuss one aspect of infrastructure, and that is our inland waterways. For Iowa, that is the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers. For other States, it is a lot of other important rivers. I ask my colleagues to take this important mode of transportation into account as they work on legislation. I have also sent this request in a letter to both the Senate Environment and Public Works as well as the Appropriations Committees. The inland and intercostal waterways and our ports are vital to the United States and serve 41 States throughout our Nation. Shippers and consumers depend on the ability to move around 630 million tons of cargo each year, valued at about $232 billion on these waterways. In turn, the inland waterways system supports well over half a million jobs. Now, I am going to go into some of the information that is on the chart here. Our Nation's inland waterways system also provides a safe, cost- effective, fuel-efficient, and environmentally friendly way to move our bulk products. This translates into more than $12 billion annually in transportation savings to the American economy. Furthermore--and when I say ``furthermore,'' this point is important for the environment--1 gallon of fuel oil allows 1 ton of cargo to be shipped 647 miles by barge as compared to 477 miles by rail and only 145 miles by truck. In addition, the inland waterway transport generates far fewer emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide than rail or truck per million tons of miles does. As for safety, there are 21--let's say 22 rail fatalities compared to 79 truck fatalities for every 1 fatality on the waterways system that I am addressing. By moving goods on inland waterways, we are helping to relieve congestion on the roadways and adding to the Nation's economic prosperity. Moving goods on inland waterways is the most efficient transportation mode. A typical inland barge has a capacity 15 times greater than 1 railcar and 60 times greater than 1 semi-trailer truck. One 15-barge tow can move the equivalent of 216 railcars pulled by 6 locomotives or 1,050 semi-trailer trucks, just as a comparison of the efficiency of this mode of transportation. If the cargo transported on the inland waterways each year had to be moved by another mode, it would take an additional 16 percent more tonnage on the railroad system and 49 million truck trips annually to carry the same load. U.S. trade policy and its effects on exports, and in particular agricultural exports, have a major impact on the U.S. water transportation system. The United States is the world's largest agricultural exporting country. U.S. agriculture exports in 2018--the last year we have figures for--generated more than $300 billion in economic output and directly supported more than 1 million jobs. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, about one out of every three acres farmed in our country are planted for export. Agricultural exports account for about a quarter of farm cash receipts, in which 73 percent of these exports and 65 percent of imports were carried on U.S. waterways. American farmers need foreign markets to sell commodities and value-added agricultural products. Compared to the overall economy, U.S. agriculture is twice as reliant on overseas markets. Consumers in developing countries around the world choose different foods to eat as their incomes rise. As a result, then, there are emerging opportunities for exporting more meat, dairy products, and farm commodities. U.S. exporters need to be able to take advantage of those opportunities with only 96 percent of the world's consumers living outside the United States. Obviously, for the 4 percent of the people who live in the United States, if you want to market, you are going to spend a lot of time marketing to that 96 percent who live outside our country. As the largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, the United States delivers high-quality, reliable products to consumers around the globe. Now, here at home, these exports are essential to profitability in agriculture, and the economic activity they generate obviously ripples through the domestic economy. We need to make sure that our current inland waterway infrastructure is maintained in good condition. Congress has implemented policy changes that provide more funding for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and adjusted cost shares of the trust fund to more efficiently fund and complete the construction projects. I ask for robust funding to support the use of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for construction. This is necessary to ensure that the inland waterways modernization, replacement, and rehabilitation construction projects are funded at the level supportable by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program currently faces a large unmet need in its operations and maintenance account. I have been encouraged that in the last several years, Congress has provided additional funding to help address these backlogs. I request as much funding as possible be provided for these operation and maintenance activities. The investigations account is also crucial for the inland waterways system. There are currently 15 modernization projects that are waiting to begin construction. It is critically important to complete design of these projects so they can begin construction when the Inland Waterways Trust Fund dollars become available. Failure to have design completed will delay project delivery, ultimately leading to increased total cost of the projects, as well as adding additional time to schedule project completion. I ask that the investigations account be funded at a level to support these projects, given current budgetary constraints. On the Upper Mississippi River, multiple locks are well beyond their 50-year design life and cannot accommodate more tows, as we have to have the barges break up their tows to get them through smaller locks. So having to decouple the barges significantly slows down traffic on the river and increases costs and emissions harmful, then, to the environment. I worked with my Upper Mississippi River colleagues here in the Senate and a large, broad stakeholder coalition to get initial authorization for this lock and dam modernization, the Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Program, signed into law. We have also continued to work on receiving preconstruction engineering design and funding that is provided for in the Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Program. It is important for that program to receive new start funding so construction on these improvements can start taking place. Lock and Dam 25, which is a key feature of the navigation and ecosystem program, has received a significant portion of the $72.5 million appropriated for the navigation and ecosystem program thus far and is ready to move to construction. That program is a key priority for me and my colleagues, the State of Iowa, the region, and everybody up and down the Mississippi River, and, eventually, the world benefits from that increased efficiency. We need all modes of transportation to help deliver our inputs, our goods, and commodities both domestically and internationally. I want to see robust navigation on the Mississippi River and other inland waterways flourish. I look forward to continuing to work with my congressional colleagues and the administration on these important issues as appropriations and infrastructure legislation is prepared and discussed. I have one other short comment I would like to make on another subject. It will take me about 2 or 3 minutes.

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, I am here with Senators Cornyn and Leahy to ask unanimous consent. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 831 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I guess I am not surprised that we would have an objection like this because a program that has been corrupt and that we have been trying to reform for 8 years--every time we reach an agreement, there is big-moneyed interests in this town and around the country that keep it from happening. So today's objection, unfortunately, represents another victory for those same moneyed, powerful, corrupt interests that have so often worked to kill reforms to a program that they love to abuse for nothing more than their own financial benefit. It also means that Congress will not be able to pass legislation to reauthorize the program in advance of its expiration on June 30. A narrow subset of big-moneyed and corrupt interests has now shown that they would rather kill the program altogether than have to accept integrity programs designed to clamp down on their bad behavior. I thank all those groups who have been working with us for 8 years to get this program reformed. A lot of those people use that program. They were willing to make it an honest program. All of this action today of this objection is unfortunate but not surprising. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Kenneth Allen Polite to be an Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, PN423. Last week, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Executive Business Meeting, I noted my intent to object to Mr. Polite's confirmation not on the basis of his credentials--I happen to find him well qualified for the position--but on the basis of the Justice Department's failure to respond to congressional oversight requests. To date, the Justice Department has failed to provide a full and complete response to any of my oversight requests. As one of many examples, on February 3, 2021, and March 9, 2021, Senator Johnson and I requested information from the Justice Department relating to Nicholas McQuaid. Mr. McQuaid is Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, the position Mr. Polite will hold upon confirmation. In those letters, we raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in light of the fact that Mr. McQuaid was employed at Latham & Watkins until January 20, 2021, and worked with Christopher Clark, whom Hunter Biden reportedly hired to work on his Federal criminal case. This arrangement presents a potential conflict of interest. A core function of congressional oversight is to ensure that governmental Departments and Agencies are free of conflicts of interest. That is especially so with the Justice Department and FBI. If conflicts infect them, those investigations and prosecutions--the very purpose of the Department's existence--could be undermined. As a part of my oversight, I have requested a recusal memo for Mr. McQuaid. I have also requested to know, as a threshold issue, whether one even exists. Attorney General Garland has failed to answer and provide the requested records. I have noted to the Department that in 2016 I received from the Department Andrew McCabe's recusal memo to illustrate precedent exists for such a production to Congress. Still, the Justice Department refuses to provide the same for Mr. McQuaid. There is nothing more eroding of public faith than an unresponsive executive branch that believes it only answers to the President and not the U.S. Congress and, perhaps most importantly, ``we the people.'' This administration's continued ongoing and blatant lack of cooperation has forced my hand. Thus, unfortunately, I must object to any consideration of this nomination. My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Polite in any way. The executive branch must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I think we just heard the Senator from New York speak very strongly about the need for this legislation. She said 12 times she has come to the Senate floor to ask for UC on this bill. So we all ought to know--not only on this bill but a lot of things the Senator from New York is involved in--she is not going to give up. Eight years on this bill proves that, her persistence. We need to get this done. I would think that a bill that has 66 cosponsors and the demonstrated need for it is such that the people opposing this would be embarrassed, particularly with the 66 cosponsors. I thank Senator Gillibrand for her persistence. I am glad to be with her on this subject. I haven't worked as hard as she has, but I believe everything she has said, and this bill should pass. In the last 15 years, there has been virtually no progress in reducing the level of sexual assault in the military. Far too many service men and women have experienced sexual assault, and we don't even know the full extent of the problem because people are afraid to report these because of the retribution that happens as a result of the report. Of those who do report, 64 percent experience retaliation. But this goes beyond sexual assault. This legislation professionalizes the military justice system and would improve trust and transparency in the ability of the military to handle all serious crimes. The policy of moving the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command has been recommended by military justice experts. This bill has been considered by the Armed Services Committee for 8 years in a row, and that is why the time has come now to make sure that this bill does not get buried once again in that committee or, as she suggested, very narrowly--the committee has had more than enough time to review the legislation and propose alternatives. We have even heard from the Department of Defense that they can solve this problem, and yet it keeps getting worse. This bill with so many cosponsors deserves the support and shouldn't have to wait any longer to get passed. It is time for the legislation to finally move forward, and I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to get this done the easiest way possible, and that would be by UC. I yield the floor.