Chuck Grassley

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, we have been told by the majority party that soon we will be having a vote on an 800-page bill to change 50 State voting laws to 1 Federal law. This bill is called the For the People Act. It was compiled after the 2018 elections to call into question the legitimacy of democratic elections for partisan political purposes. If it had been a serious attempt at legislating, there would have been some outreach to some Republicans because it takes 60 votes, a bipartisan vote, to get anything through the U.S. Senate. In that process, there would have been consultation also with local elected officials--the election officials who conduct the State elections--to make sure it was workable. There would have been hearings in the Congress. There would have been revisions from the bill originally introduced. The fact that back in 2018, when it was introduced, is the fact that it was intended as political propaganda, and that betrays the absurdity of the title, the ``For the People Act.'' Also, despite Senator Schumer's using Senate rule XIV in the last Congress to bypass the committee and put the bill directly on the Senate calendar, Senator Schumer never used his right to force a vote on moving to the bill. At that time, the Democratic narrative was that Republicans were not doing enough to secure the election so the results might end up being in doubt. Now, what we know from happening in the last election, that argument is out the window now. Since the Democrats got the results they wanted, they endlessly quote the Trump administration's top cyber security official declaring the 2020 election the most secure ever in history. I assumed last Congress that Senator Schumer would wait until right before the 2020 election to force a vote so he could accuse Republicans of blocking an election bill for their campaign narrative questioning election security. Instead, they repeatedly, dishonestly, blamed the Republican leader for blocking the bill, ignoring the fact that the Democratic leader had reserved the possibility of forcing a vote. The For the People Act is a messaging bill. The bill has now been reintroduced and recast as a response to a few State election security laws. A handful of relatively modern reforms at the State level have been shamelessly and falsely characterized as voter suppression, even considering the fact that in the last election, the winner got the highest number of votes of any winner for President in the history of the United States, and the loser got the highest number of votes of any candidate for President of the United States throughout our history. As I have mentioned before, the claim by some Trump supporters that a certain brand of voting machine switched votes, I pointed out that that was lifted entirely from the Democrats' 2004 playbook. And President Trump's questioning of his loss in Georgia was simply following in the footsteps of the losing candidate for Governor of Georgia 2 years before. The Georgia Democrat lost by over 50,000 votes in 2018 and has never even bothered to try to prove voting irregularities on that scale. Foreign adversaries like Russia and China cast doubts on the soundness of our democratic system, both to weaken us from within and to justify their own repressive regimes. American politics should not do these repressive regimes propaganda jobs for them, but too often we tend to be doing that. This bill is being called democracy reform. I support our American democratic system. All Americans should be proud of it. We can and should have confidence in our elections. Our democracy does not need a fundamental rewrite because our democracy works. Let's stop casting doubt on American elections, stop casting aspersions on the commonsense election security measures supported by Americans of all backgrounds. Let's work together to boost the confidence of all Americans in our elections. This bill would register illegal aliens. It would do away with State voter ID laws. It would have taxpayer-funded elections. I remember what our colleague Senator Cruz said. In the first quarter of this year, he raised--it must have been in the neighborhood of about $5 million from contributors of under $200. So if you get that kind of money, under this bill, from people under $200, for every dollar you get, you get $6 from the taxpayers. So Senator Cruz, I am told, would get about $34 million of taxpayer funds to use for political purposes. We don't need to replace 50 State voting laws as this 800-page bill would. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Gillibrand, as 1 of the 65 other cosponsors of this legislation, I think you are to be commended for every day coming to the floor, to be as consistent in being for this legislation as you have been since 2013. And every one of us thank you for your persistence. You need to be congratulated. And all the people who have been harmed by sexual assaults over the last decades owe you a great deal of gratitude for that. So I am here to join Senator Gillibrand in asking for a vote on this crucial legislation. And, obviously, today we aren't going to get it, but eventually it is going to happen. You can't say no to 66 Senators that want this legislation. The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act has that many bipartisan cosponsors, and it is past time for this bill to become law. This legislation was first introduced by Senator Gillibrand and me and other Senators 8 years ago and has gained more and more support each year. Senators who previously were skeptical have come around and realized that the Department of Defense can't handle the pervasive problems of sexual assault on their own. The Armed Services Committee and the Department of Defense have had more than enough time to consider this idea. They have told us that they have it under control and tried other approaches. Those approaches have not worked. Women and men in the military continue to face high rates of sexual assault and retaliation. It is clear this bill is needed. By moving the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command, perpetrators of sexual assault and other serious crimes will be held accountable. Survivors will have more confidence in the process. Retaliation will be less likely. We have been waiting almost a decade. There is no need any longer to wait. I urge my colleagues to allow this bill to move forward today. And, obviously, it isn't going to move forward today, but Senator Gillibrand will be back here tomorrow, asking the same thing. And I applaud you for doing that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is no secret that this Senator has been a leader in promoting renewable energy sources. Iowa has done even more to lead the Nation in biofuels production. This leads to a cleaner environment and really increases America's energy independence. Last week, Reuters reported the Biden administration is considering ways to allow U.S. oil refiners to not meet their biofuel blending requirements. This same administration has proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for electric vehicles but failed to include any support for biofuels infrastructure, which play a vital role in our Nation's transportation sector as well as our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Need I remind my colleagues, President Biden promised in his campaign to ``promote and advance renewable energy, ethanol, and other biofuels to help rural America and our nation's farmers.'' President Biden is not keeping that promise. Unfortunately, despite the administration's emphasis on the environment and climate, their recent actions contradict that and undermine their entire credibility. The biofuel industry has proven that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions from motor fuel by almost half. Almost every vehicle on the road can run on at least E10 ethanol. Many retailers are now selling more E15 ethanol and other higher blends like E85, if you have a vehicle that can use E85. Whether it is 10 percent, 15 percent, or 85 percent, it is cleaner than 100 percent petroleum. According to the Energy Information Administration, by 2050, 81 percent of new vehicle sales will still be gas-powered or flex fuel. In my introductory telephone conversation with EPA Administrator Regan, when he was nominated, he told me that biofuels are a major tool in the Biden administration's plan to combat climate change. I stressed to him at that time the importance of the biofuels industry to both agriculture and energy, and Iowa happens to be the No. 1 producer of ethanol. No matter what the EPA or Big Oil says about the impact of its waivers to oil companies making billions in profits, farmers and biofuel producers know and feel the negative impact. Any attempt to exempt oil refiners from their biofuels obligation is a blatant bailout. The law is simple: Blend biofuels or buy credits from those who do. By adding more biofuels to our energy mix, we can reduce emissions from dirty oil while keeping transportation costs low for working families. Unfortunately, despite the administration's emphasis on environment, it seems like biofuels don't appear to be much of a priority and well short of what nominee at that time, now-EPA Director Regan said that it would be. Now it looks like labor unions have been co-opted by Big Oil, and we are doing their bidding in the White House. President Biden is now faced with a decision. He can lower greenhouse gases with biofuels or he can side with Big Oil to destroy biofuel demand by illegally tampering with the renewable fuel standard, just as we had problems with previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic--referring to what the Obama and Trump administrations did with the small refineries exemption. Whether it is labor unions or Big Oil, I won't tire in standing up for homegrown clean biofuels. I did that whether we had Democratic or Republican administrations. I will continue to advocate for Iowans and the biofuels because it strengthens U.S. energy independence, makes for a cleaner environment, and creates jobs in rural America. I encourage President Biden, EPA Administrator Regan, and my colleagues from across the aisle to keep it clean. Does President Biden want to be known as ``Big Oil'' Biden? I don't think he does. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, for the past 41 years, I have toured our State to hear from Iowa workers, our community leaders, and our farmers at my annual 99 county meetings. So far this year, I have been in 71. As a farmer myself, I enjoy speaking with those involved in agriculture all across the State who tell me that they are third-, fourth-, fifth-generation farmers. These folks use the same soil and barns as their grandfathers before them. Everyone I speak with intends to leave their land to their children and leave it better than they found it. That goes way back to it being entrusted to their care. We all have that responsibility. Between the use of cover crops, buffer strips, no-till farming, and minimal-till farming, more conservation practices than ever before are being used on Iowa's 35 million acres of farmland. While Iowa farmers are continuing to feed our country and the world, they are also doing so with fewer inputs and better soil and water outcomes. Iowa farmers should be congratulated; however, it seems like there is always a target on the backs of Iowa farmers and I could say for maybe all American farmers. I want to get to that target, and that has something to do with this map that I have here of the State of Iowa. Last week, it was reported that the Biden administration is moving forward to add redtape to their operations by rewriting President Trump's navigable waters protection rule. In my first telephone conversation with then-EPA nominee Administrator Regan and now the confirmed Administrator--by the way, confirmed by a unanimous vote of this Senate--I warned Administrator Regan against moving back to the Obama-era waters of the U.S. rule, which we call WOTUS for short. That is a regulation they shouldn't move back to because of the burden it placed on rural areas, including Iowa farmers. In fact, under the old waters rule, 97 percent of Iowa's land would have been subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. In other words, all of the blue part of Iowa--with the exceptions of these areas that are white that adds up to the blue area--97 percent of this land mass of Iowa would be subject to Federal jurisdiction. Adding more Federal redtape to a farmer's day-to-day decisions on the farm is government overreach, plain and simple. But besides Iowa's 86,000 farmers, a change in the Trump navigable waters protection rule will also result in significant redtape and significant expense for, among others, homebuilders, golf course managers, and construction companies as they make very routine decisions about how best to use the land and run their businesses. Now, imagine that, not only have new home prices risen due to inflation and soaring lumber prices--and, by the way, lumber prices have added $36,000 to the price of a house just in the last year. Now, instead of that happening because lumber prices have gone up, now home prices, because of this proposed change in the regulation, will increase due to additional permitting that wasn't previously needed. To clear up common confusion, the Trump-era rule that is now the law of the land did not give polluters free rein to discharge pollutions with no regard to the health of our Nation's waterways. Regulating the discharge of pollution into waterways is important and is done through other parts of the Clean Water Act. The Trump rule made sure that where routine land use decisions were being made with little or no environmental impact, then those decisions would not be regulated by the Federal Government. EPA's release about its intention to overturn the navigable waters protection rule, which is the Trump rule, mentions that 333 projects would have required permits by the Obama waters rule that did not need government paperwork under the navigable waters protection rule of the Trump administration, and, of course, that is exactly the point--exactly the point of what was wrong with the WOTUS rule. If you are simply moving dirt to level off a low point in a field, should that need a Federal permit? If a golf course is fixing a bunker or flattening a green, should that need a Federal permit? The obvious commonsense answer to both of these questions and a lot of other questions that can be put out there for speculative purposes is, What good does this redtape do for anyone? I want to underline that point. My Republican colleagues and I want clean water and healthy soil for our families and our communities. This is important. But what I don't want is a Federal Government power grab that adds so much redtape to routine land use decisions that it slows our economy to a halt. If the Biden administration decides to go down this road of reverting to the old Obama-era WOTUS, they will be seriously misguided. Why should you put the farmers of Iowa, as well as the other people, with many even having to get a permit to do normal farming practices--it just doesn't make sense. For an administration that is so focused on updating our Nation's infrastructure, why does it make sense to propose a rule that only adds costs and delays construction with no identifiable benefit? I urge President Biden and EPA Administrator Regan to listen to the farmers and land owners across the country. Wave the WOTUS rule goodbye. Put away the redtape that is going to come around as a result of what you are planning to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as my colleague from Iowa just said, something mysterious happened just before the holiday weekend when the budget was released. So just before Memorial Day, the administration released its long-awaited fiscal year 2022 budget proposal. Having reviewed the proposal, it is obvious why they chose this timing to do it--because they hoped most Americans would be too distracted by their backyard barbecues and tributes to fallen heroes to even notice how outlandish this budget proposal is. Thank God, Presidents only propose, Congress disposes because we have the power of the purse. I have bad news for my Democratic colleagues about the release of this; that the American public won't have the wool pulled over their eyes as easily as this administration thinks so by putting this out late Friday before the holiday weekend. Americans will see this budget for what it is, a very unserious political document containing a laundry list of liberal wish list policies unmoored from economic or fiscal reality. It would be funny if not for the very serious issues we currently face in our country, and this budget makes them worse. In response to the pandemic, Congress understandably took bold actions to help individuals keep the roof over their head and to help small businesses keep their lights on. As a result, our national debt exploded because of the pandemic. It now exceeds the entire output of our economy, and this budget is going to make that situation even worse. As we enter the postpandemic world, we need to address the very real issues about rising debt and deficits posing for our country over the long term. Otherwise, to quote the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, ``a growing debt burden could increase the risk of a fiscal crisis and higher inflation as well as undermine confidence in the U.S. dollar.'' The President's budget completely ignores potential fiscal and economic challenges that we all know are on the horizon. Taking the concept of ``never letting a crisis go to waste'' to a whole new level, the Biden budget would put our country in a permanent crisis mode in terms of spending and debt levels. In 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the government spending peaked at 24.4 percent of GDP. Now, spending proposed under President Biden's budget would average even higher at 24.5 percent over the next decade. So what we had peaked in the 2009 year of the financial crisis is going to be just common for the whole next decade, and that is bad. Moreover, the President's budget would set a new record for the debt as a share of the economy. According to the President's own rosy assumptions, debt as a percentage of GDP would reach 112 percent next year, shattering the World War II record of 106 percent of GDP. And by 2031, debt as a share of our economy would hit 117 percent of GDP. So how extraordinary a step this budget takes. At a time when inflation has been rearing its head, proposing sustained spending and debt at these levels is playing with fire, like pouring gasoline on a fire. Even long-term Democrat economists and Obama administration alums, Larry Summer and Jason Furman, have begun to sound the inflation alarm. The President would be well-advised to start taking notice when leading economists like these two point to the dangers of inflation. As problematic as the spending side of the budget is--and so far that is the only part I have covered--we now go to the tax side, and the tax side is equally dangerous. The President proposes enacting the largest tax increase in history. Incredibly, even with the $3.6 trillion in new taxes he proposes, his budget still doesn't come close to putting our national debt on a sustainable path given the new spending. This shows his tax cuts aren't about fiscal responsibility. Instead, they are about punishing success and redistributing wealth. Ultimately, this will prove disastrous for the economy and, of course, it is going to affect all Americans. Job-killing tax hikes will slow economic growth. These tax hikes will reduce business investment, and these tax hikes will result in lower wages and fewer jobs over the long run. As a result, then, the middle class is likely to suffer the most. Higher taxes, excessive spending, and escalating debt are not a recipe for our economy to ``Build Back Better,'' those famous words of this President's economic program--``Build Back Better.'' Instead, they are just a recipe for government to ``Build Bureaucracy Better'' and at the expense of hard-working Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in January of 2020, when reports began to circulate about the coronavirus, I instructed my oversight and investigations staff to get a classified briefing from the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of National Security. Around that same time, I publicly said that there were signs that the virus could develop into a worldwide threat. I also noted at that time my concern that China may not be accurately reflecting the scale or scope of the problem and that China was failing to share information with global health organizations. Unfortunately, my concerns proved to be true. From the beginning, my goal has been to ensure a robust Federal response to the threat and to better understand the origins of the virus. Today, as we emerge from the pandemic, the focus has rightly shifted to understanding how the virus originated. We lost over 500,000 of our fellow Americans, and this body has spent trillions of dollars to support the U.S. economy during the pandemic. We the people have an absolute right to know everything that the U.S. Government knows about the origins of the coronavirus. On March 8, 2021, I wrote to the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Health and Human Services requesting all intelligence, among other requests, relating to what the government knows about the origin of the coronavirus. I received some intelligence product, and that product causes very serious concern and further supports my belief that the ongoing review of its origin can't leave any stone unturned. The effort must be a whole-of-government approach. In response to my letter, the National Institutes of Health, an Agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, stated that it hasn't funded gain-of-function research on the coronavirus. Recent reports have cast doubts on that position. Dr. Fauci's unit provided $3.4 million in taxpayer grants to a research organization called EcoHealth Alliance. That group then issued subgrants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It has been reported that from this $3.4 million, somewhere between $600,000 and $826,000 was sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That money, by the way, is U.S. taxpayer money. It was spent on researching bat coronaviruses. As the Wall Street Journal noted last week, it is likely that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was doing gain-of-function research. If true, that research could have strengthened the virus to the version that caused the global pandemic. Dr. Fauci has said that Chinese scientists are trustworthy, that ``we generally always trust the grantee to do what they say,'' and that ``I can't guarantee that a grantee hasn't lied to us because you never know.'' He also said, ``I can't guarantee everything that is going on in the Wuhan lab, we can't do that.'' What complete nonsense and a mess that it is. Well, Dr. Fauci, why can't you know what is going on inside the Wuhan plant if you are going to send taxpayers' money to do it? For crying out loud, be aggressive and be accountable. We know the Chinese Government can't be trusted. We know the Chinese Government is involved in risky and deadly viral research. We know that sending money to any entity affiliated with the Chinese Government is a risky proposition, which is why any sign of any taxpayer money sent to the Chinese Government should be subject to the most rigorous and comprehensive oversight. If Dr. Fauci and his team know that taxpayer money is going to the Chinese Government, what steps did he and they take to oversee how that money was used? Well, that question is exactly what I asked in my March 8, 2021, letter to the Department of Health and Human Services. HHS failed to answer what, if any, oversight was done. In my followup letter to the Department of Health and Human Services on May 26 of this year, I stated the following: Your letter failed to describe the steps the Department of Health and Human Services took to oversee the research done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in light of it being funded by the taxpayer. The taxpayers expect the Federal Government to, at a minimum, know what their money is buying. Congress expects the Federal Government to perform aggressive oversight, especially when the funded research involves highly infectious and deadly viruses. Furthermore, if no oversight were performed, then that would call into question the government's confidence that no gain-of-function research was supported by taxpayers' dollars, because that is what I was told by the HHS. The people have a right to know what the government knows about the origins of the coronavirus. The people have a right to know if Dr. Fauci and other government officials were derelict in their duty to conduct oversight of the money that they knew would end up with the Communist Chinese Government. Dr. Fauci is constantly going on television to talk about anything that he wants to talk about. He should start talking about what, if any, oversight he did with respect to the taxpayers' money that he knew was going to the Communist Chinese Government. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, when I was first elected to Congress in the 1970s, I ran as ``Grassley, the inflation fighter.'' Inflation was about 12 or 13 percent at that time. When I ran for the Senate, it was 12 or 13 percent again, and it hasn't been a major problem since then. Those who remember that time of high inflation know that it is a time period when inflation was a real problem. It kneecaps middle-class prosperity and causes severe hardships for those already struggling. Inflation is nothing short of a regressive tax, as it hurts Americans more the less money that they have. It is a stealth tax. With the income tax, you can see how much the government is taking out of your paycheck. With a sales tax, you can see on your receipt what the government took for its cut. With inflation, the value of the dollar in your pocket is reduced without even leaving your billfold. When Americans suddenly notice that it costs more to buy the same groceries, it can be hard to know whom to blame. Did the store just decide to raise prices or is inflation caused by mysterious economic forces beyond anyone's control? In reality, the Federal Government can directly cause inflation by printing too much money to feed its spending habits. Politicians like to promise freebies that someone else will pay for--maybe ``the rich'' will pay. Who is ``the rich,'' you might ask. ``Don't worry; it is not you,'' the big spenders assure us. Well, don't be so sure. President Biden suggested that if rich people pay their fair share of taxes, we can afford to spend another $4 to $6 trillion. Now, in reality, if the government confiscated all the wealth of all the U.S. billionaires, it wouldn't cover that bill. Just asking them to pay a little bit more, as the President suggests, will barely make a dent. So who is going to pay the bill? Don't be fooled. Each American is going to pay that bill. Hard-working Americans will be shouldering the costs of Biden's spending plans in the form of lower wages or higher prices at the gas pump or the checkout lines at Hy-Vee in Cedar Falls, IA. Remember, prior to the pandemic, tax reform and a more predictable regulatory environment contributed to the best economy America had seen in decades. Yes, prior to the pandemic, as a result of the policies of regulatory reform and of the tax bill of 2017, we did end up with the best economy America had seen in 50 years. Unemployment reached a 50- year low. Family incomes and workers' wages experienced robust gains. In fact, wage growth was strongest for low-wage workers. As a result, income inequality actually declined. My colleagues across the aisle like to repeat the falsehood that tax reform was just ``tax cuts for the rich''--not true. We eliminated loopholes that allowed some favored corporations to avoid millions in taxes. By having more corporations paying their fair share, we were able to lower the overall corporate rate to be more in line with other countries, like Sweden or Denmark. Tax reform meant more investments in America, creating good-paying jobs for hard-working Americans. The prepandemic thriving economy is poised now to come roaring back if the government just gets out of the way. Raising tax rates while adding new giveaways for Democrats' favored corporations that sign onto the Green New Deal will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. While President Biden talks a good game about everyone paying their fair share, he is proposing an unprecedented spending binge. This will only fuel inflation. The burden will fall hard on the middle class and be devastating to low-income Americans. There are already signs that inflation is starting to kick in. Have you ordered a hamburger at a restaurant lately? I heard from an Iowan in Sioux City that at one furniture store, a particular recliner that sold for $199 last year now sells for $249. A leather reclining sofa that sold for $1,899 last year, today costs $2,599. Price increases of 25 percent to 37 percent for furniture are impacting the lifestyle of Iowa families and doing it right now. Many homebuilding supplies have doubled or even tripled in price. This is partly due to the shortage of lumber. I have called on the administration to take action to address this, but the price increases are not limited just to wood products. President Biden's economic advisers assure us that this inflation Iowans are seeing with their own eyes is just temporary and really nothing to worry about, but it is real and it is happening. Economists from across the political spectrum are starting to raise alarms. Larry Summers--whom you know as the former president of Harvard, former outstanding economic professor at Harvard, President Obama's chief economist, and also Secretary of Treasury under President Clinton--warned that the $2 trillion Biden stimulus that was rammed through Congress on a partisan basis was way too big. Larry Summers is quoted as saying: I think this is the least responsible macroeconomic policy we've had in the last 40 years. More recently, in a Time Magazine interview conducted after the release of the President's budget, he expressed concerns this way: ``that we are injecting more demand into the economy than the potential supply . . . and that will generate overheating.'' When a longtime Democratic economist of the stature of Larry Summers sounds the inflation alarm, the President would be well advised to listen to that alarm. The President's spending plans would dump fuel on an inflation fire that the Fed has ignored in favor of easy money policies geared toward propping up Wall Street. In the end, the poor and the middle class will pay. Income inequality will rise. For all of their lip service about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, the Democrats' big spending policies may stimulate stock prices for the wealthiest Americans, while everyone else pays more for less. I suggested in a speech about excess unemployment benefits that politicians should emulate doctors, and you know what doctors are taught: ``First, do no harm.'' That applies to big spending plans when there are signs of inflation. Once inflation starts to run away, it is difficult to stamp out. Remember the decade of the seventies. The Fed would have no choice but to aggressively hike interest rates, which could trigger a recession. In coming out of a pandemic that has caused so many hardships for American families, the last thing they need is more economic hardship caused by either inflation or a recession. That should give Congress pause. First, do no harm.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I compliment Senator Thune with his remarks and agree with everything that he said and particularly to emphasize his call for a hearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee, something we have been trying to get done for a long period of time, and I hope that will soon happen. Remembering John Warner Mr. President, secondly, I would like to follow up on the comments that the two Senators for Virginia made about Senator Warner. Senator Warner came to the Senate 2 years before I did, and I remember him almost constantly talking about the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government: our national security and protecting the American people. And he was always, whether he was Secretary of the Navy or whether he was a Senator from Virginia--he was always speaking strongly about keeping and making sure that our military was strong to meet its constitutional responsibilities. I also remember that he was a person that quite frequently would speak up in Republican caucuses when he had a disagreement with the leadership of the day or the position of the caucus for the day or maybe he would even be in the minority of the caucus speaking on something that he felt strongly about. And I also remember his speaking in terms of--after Reagan Airport was shut down because of 9/11 and the consequences that brought to the economy of Northern Virginia, how we worked so hard to get that airport opened up again. Anti-Semitic Hate Crimes Mr. President, the third and last reason for coming to the U.S. Senate floor at this time to speak is to, like all of my colleagues would do, condemn the troubling increase in hate crimes, whether it is on any minority group, but today I come to the floor because of the recent attacks on Jewish Americans. Anti-Semitism has been called the oldest hatred. Throughout the history of the Jewish people, they have been subjected to cruelty, discrimination, and violence. Even in modern times, even here in America, Jews are still not safe from this hatred, and that is a profoundly bad and sad situation. No Jewish American should ever experience bigotry based on their religion, nor should they be subjected to threats, harassment, or injury because there is a Jewish State of Israel. We can express disagreements about foreign policy and about conflict in the Middle East, but we should never allow those disagreements to become dehumanizing and abusive. Yet, in response to the terrible conflict in Gaza recently, Jewish Americans have been attacked in recent weeks. The Anti-Defamation League has said that the reporting of anti- Semitic incidents has gone up 63 percent since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas. In New York, two Jewish teenagers were surrounded by an angry mob just this last Saturday. The boys were told that they had to chant ``free Palestine'' or chant ``kill all Jews'' before they were beaten and choked. On Thursday, a man wearing a yarmulke was beaten by a gang of men who chanted words like ``Hamas is going to kill all of you.'' In Los Angeles, anti-Israel protesters attacked Jewish patrons at a restaurant. The attackers reportedly said ``death to Jews'' and ``free Palestine.'' An orthodox Jewish man was chased by cars flying Palestinian flags in another incident in Los Angeles. I hope that we all condemn this horrible wave of violence against Jewish Americans, but Members of Congress can do more to take down the temperature. We should never vilify Israel or Israelis. This only fosters other hateful attacks, encouraging others to do dehumanizing things. We can talk about geopolitical problems without demonizing a people. That is pretty common sense. I remember how far anti-Semitic violence can go. In October of 2018, Robert Bowers attacked the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA, killing 11. He did so after complaining that our first President with Jewish members in the first family--President Trump, that is--was surrounded by a Jewish ``infestation.'' Those were his words. It was the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in U.S. history. While battling the recent spike in Asian-American and Pacific Islander hate crimes, we need to remember to combat all hate crimes. I look forward to opportunities in hearings or in legislation to see if we are doing everything that we can to protect our Jewish brethren and all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the time has come for this bill to pass. After 8 years of Senator Gillibrand's work in this area, it proves that she is a Senator who doesn't give up, and it proves that she is a Senator who can bring bipartisanship to a city that needs more bipartisanship. So I, like her, call on my colleagues to pass this bill, the Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act, by unanimous consent. I first joined Senator Gillibrand in advocating for this legislation in 2013, after truly horrifying reports out of the Pentagon about the rate of sexual assault and other criminal offenses going unpunished and a recommendation from a Commission on how to improve the system. Whether it is in the military or whether it is outside the military, a crime is a crime, and it ought to be punished. It shouldn't be overlooked, as so often is what happens in the military. We have been pushing for this bill ever since, despite promises from the Department of Defense that they had everything under control. We heard, time and time again, about new initiatives to stop sexual assaults and harassment. Yet things are worse today than when we started out. They haven't worked. In the most recent review, almost 21,000 soldiers were victims of sexual assault. Only 4 percent of the cases went to trial, and 62 percent of those who reported sexual assault experienced retaliation--retaliation just because you shouldn't be hurt just because you are in the military and people can get away with it. In two-thirds of these cases, the retaliation comes from inside the chain of command. The Department of Defense has had more than enough time to try their way to fix this problem, and it is clear a new approach is needed. It is the same approach that Senator Gillibrand has been trying to get done in this body for the last 8 years, and we have always been put off because of these promises that were never carried out. By moving the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command, perpetrators of sexual assault and other serious crimes will be held accountable and should be held accountable. Survivors will have more confidence in the process. Retaliation will be less likely. This year, there is fresh support for the effort. The new Secretary of Defense, Secretary Austin, has indicated that addressing this issue is a priority. A Department of Defense panel of experts that was convened recommended taking the decisions out of the chain of command. The President has signaled his support, and the bill in the Senate has over 60 bipartisan cosponsors, including my fellow Senator from Iowa Joni Ernst. We have been waiting almost a decade. There is no need to wait any longer. I urge my colleagues to show unanimous support for protecting our men and women in military and allow this bill to pass. After 8 years and a demonstrated need in the recent 2 or 3 years for bipartisanship, it is right here in this bill. It deserves to be handled as a standalone piece of legislation. I am glad that this bill earned the support of Senator Ernst, and she was key in getting the cloture-proof majority that we have for this bill I would now yield to Senator Ernst.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, each year, the month of May is recognized as National Foster Care Month. I thank my colleagues for once again unanimously passing a resolution recognizing and bringing awareness to the experiences of youth and families in the foster care system. This month, organizations in Iowa and around the entire country have been working to support youth in foster care and the foster parents who open their homes to the kids in need. And they deserve this recognition. In 2019, the most recent year for which data is available, there were over 426,000 kids in foster care in the United States. In Iowa alone, there were almost 6,000. As stated in our resolution, Congress must continue to work toward real solutions for these young people because they face trauma, abuse, and neglect. Obviously, there are a lot of them who get loving care as well. In recent years, lots of changes have been made to the way that child welfare works. Congress passed the Family First Prevention Services Act in 2018. The goal of that act was to provide more services to families before removing children from the home, before that action had to be taken. And that is where you ought to start--preserve the family as much as you can, as long as the children are not being mistreated. This bill also seeks to help kids who age out of foster care have access to more support and successfully transition to adulthood and to independence. I was glad to support this legislation, and I hope that, as it is implemented, we see positive outcomes for these young people and their families. All children, no matter what their circumstances, deserve a permanent, loving home and consistent, caring adults in their life. When you visit with these young people, some of them tell us about being in two or three school systems in a year so obviously probably in two or three different homes in a year. And what you hear from them is ``I would like to have a mom and dad. I would like to have a home. I would like to go to the same school for the whole year.'' They want some consistency and some permanency. I guess that is what it all adds up to. Research has shown that the presence of just one caring adult who is available for advice, for support, and for guidance can make a meaningful difference for children in foster care. For some young people, this may be a foster parent who maintains a relationship with a child even after temporary placement is over. For other kids, this may mean an aunt or an uncle, a family member who is willing to shoulder the responsibilities of providing a loving home. Others may benefit from a court-appointed special advocate, what we know as CASA, or a guardian ad litem. These are volunteers assigned to be a child's advocate. For a system designed to protect children, often the child welfare system does not give much opportunity for a child's voice to be heard, and it is a very important voice to listen to. CASAs are often the only adults in the court proceedings who are exclusively advocating for what the youth in foster care wants. I am happy that this year, for the first time, May 18 was labeled National CASA/GAL Volunteers Day to honor the service of these volunteers. I salute all those who work tirelessly to support kids in foster care in Iowa and nationwide. When I founded the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth in 2009, the special focus was to hear directly from the young people themselves. Older youth in foster care and adults who experienced foster care as a child can speak to what worked for them and, of course, what didn't work. They should always have a seat at the table. Over and over again, I have heard the same thing from kids in foster care, so I am repeating what I said previously. They want a mom and a dad, they want a family, and they want a place to call home. For some kids, this goal can be met by their family's getting help with mental illness, substance abuse, or housing. For others, the dream of a family can be found through foster care and eventually adoption. For others, kinship care provides an opportunity for stability and permanency. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, no silver bullet that can help all kids the same way, but there is one common outcome that we can strive for. We should be wary of attempts to undo progress that has been made in speeding up adoptions and providing permanency for these children. The goal should always be to protect kids from neglect and abuse and, at the same time, improve their well-being. Moving ahead now, Congress must continue to work to find better solutions and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care. Once again, I thank my colleagues for passing this resolution recognizing May as Foster Care Month. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Foreign Agents Registration Act is a law that I have spoken about on this floor many times. At its core, the Foreign Agents Registration Act brings transparency and accountability to foreign influences in our politics. I want to make very clear, this act doesn't prohibit anybody from doing anything they want to do. It only requires those who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and their interests to register their affiliations and activities with the Justice Department. This fits in with a law that I tried to surely describe as bringing transparency, and when you bring transparency, you have accountability. While it requires lobbyists on K Street to disclose if they are lobbying on behalf of foreign governments and their interests, it lacks the teeth necessary to enforce the intent of the law and its other requirements. That is very much a weakness in a law that goes back to the 1930s, and it hasn't been updated in the last 55 years. Today, I seek to change, once again, that environment I just told you about by introducing the Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act. If enacted, this legislation would grant the Justice Department new investigative powers. The bill would increase criminal and civil penalties for violations. It does this in order to deter abuse of the law; in other words, people not registering when they should register. The bill appropriately limits who in the Justice Department can use this authority, and it provides essential due process protections. In fact, it is based on identical authorities in the False Claims Act, which for years has helped root out waste, fraud, and abuse. The bill tasks the Government Accountability Office with studying whether and to what extent the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption to the Foreign Agents Registration Act is being abused. These reforms are the result of this Senator's oversight and policy work dating to 2015. These reforms are not in any way partisan, and last Congress this was very much a bipartisan bill. This Congress, it seems funny that not a single Democratic colleague would join me and my Republican colleagues in cosponsoring this legislation, even though the same people cosponsored it in the last Congress. I have to ask my Democratic colleagues: What is different now than at the tail end of the last Congress? In December of last year, I came to the floor for a live unanimous consent on this very same bill. At that time, I had the support of the chairs and senior Democratic Senators on both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee. What has changed between last December and right now, that these same Democrats who helped us aren't helping us on a bill that is the same? Are the compromises that we hashed out no longer relevant now that the Democrats control the U.S. Senate and, of course, the Presidency? Maybe I should put it a little more bluntly. Do my Democratic colleagues no longer care, now that the Trump administration isn't in power? During the Trump administration, I heard my Democratic colleagues speak loudly about the risks of foreign influence on the Trump administration. We all heard it: Trump, Russia. We heard it all day, every day. Well, I can ask embarrassing things on the other side. What about Biden and China? We all know about the links between the Biden family and Chinese foreign nationals connected to the communist regime, and those links are real and proven, unlike the links that supposedly existed between Trump and Russia that a whole 2 years of study proved were not true. If the Democrats want to be intellectually honest on the issue of foreign influence, they are going to have to face the music on both sides of the political spectrum. I have conducted oversight of the Foreign Agents Registration Act without regard to power, party, or privilege. That means I have done it both when we had Democratic Presidents and when we had Republican Presidents. Also, I raised concerns about the work for Ukrainians by Paul Manafort and the Podesta Group, also involved with the Foreign Agents Registration Act--or maybe they should have been involved with it--and violated it. I even raised concerns when the firm behind the discredited Steele dossier failed to register for its lobbying work to repeal U.S. sanctions against Russia. I subpoenaed Paul Manafort to testify at the Judiciary Committee hearing on lax Foreign Agent Registration Act enforcement. I praised Mueller for dusting off the law that had been ignored for so long. I want to remind my colleagues that we make laws to be equally enforced, no matter which party is in power. The Foreign Agents Registration Act isn't a right or left issue. It is about foreign influence, about foreign control, and the preservation of our sovereignty. Without our sovereignty, we fail to even exist as a nation. The last Congress--getting back at my attempt to make a unanimous consent request--at that time, Senator Menendez did what he had the authority to do and the right to do. He objected at that particular time, stating that it bothered him because the Foreign Agents Registration Act reform should move through regular order because that committee, under Republican leadership at that time, did not take up the bill. The chairman then gave his approval to it but obviously didn't get Menendez's approval to it. So Senator Menendez did what he thought a ranking member of the committee ought to do to protect his side of the aisle, and he objected. He wanted it to go through regular reform. So I am waiting for regular reform to happen. I look forward to working with Senator Menendez and the Foreign Relations Committee to move this bill any way they want to move it, through regular order or, like we did last time, by having the chairman and ranking member just approve moving it. In fact, some of your Members were previous cosponsors of this bill. So I am saying to Senator Menendez that members of his committee cosponsored this bill last time, and I don't understand why they aren't joining me in cosponsoring it this time. I would love to have them do that. The issues with foreign influence on our political system aren't going to go away. In fact, I think we can say they are primed to get even worse. In the meantime, while partisan politics play out, the Foreign Agents Registration Act stands without necessary reform. I strongly urge my Democratic colleagues to work with me and my Republican cosponsors to achieve a much needed, meaningful reform to a very important law that doesn't deprive anybody from making their living any way they want to. If they want to lobby and influence our government for a foreign country, we accept that. They can work in that if they want to, but we ought to know about it. That is what the Foreign Agents Registration Act is all about, to get this information out so it can be made public because, with transparency, there is accountability

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to give short remarks on three different subjects. Probably, for people wanting to speak, it will take me about 10 or 12 minutes. Thanks to Operation Warp Speed, effective vaccines are available on demand to anyone who wants to take the shot. That means individuals and businesses are beginning to return to a degree of normalcy we have all been waiting for. However, as I have made my annual tour through Iowa's 99 counties, I have heard from business after business that they are desperate for workers, but job applicants are scarce. Those that do apply often don't show up for interviews. Nationally, the economy added over 700,000 fewer jobs than were expected last month. This is very concerning, as a vibrant labor market is vital--vital--to a strong economy. I get that some individuals, even after being vaccinated, may be leery of returning to the market after a year of staying home to be safe, but the vaccines have been shown to virtually eliminate the chance of serious illness. Hopefully, the recent CDC guidelines that reinforce this by easing mask guidelines will reassure individuals that it is safe to return to work. However, Iowa employers repeatedly informed me that the biggest impediment to finding workers is the over-the-top unemployment benefits extended as part of President Biden's so-called COVID relief bill. I had 13 county meetings throughout Iowa during our last Senate recess, and in all but one of them, this came up as a very important issue. The simple fact is this: Under that partisan COVID package, many individuals can earn more if they don't work than if they do work. That is wrong in principle and has proven disastrous in practice, and, as a matter of fact, in American society, a job is very essential and center to the quality of life. As my Republican colleagues and I have warned for months, incentives matter. If you can earn more not working than working, it makes perfect sense not to work. I don't blame workers for taking that deal. I blame government policy that puts the individual workers in this predicament. Even prominent liberal economists have acknowledged a problem with continuing to provide increased unemployment benefits. For instance, President Obama's former chief economic adviser, Jason Furman, admitted that if he were in a low unemployment State, he would be--these are his quotes--``thinking seriously about whether paying people more to not work than to work was a good thing to continue doing.'' This is the case in Iowa, which has an unemployment rate of 3.7 percent. That is low even in normal times, but it should be even lower as Iowa has more job openings than unemployed people. I stand firmly behind Governor Reynolds, who recently announced Iowa would end its participation in the counterproductive enhanced benefit program, and that ending will be effective June 12. President Biden talks about the government creating jobs by spending trillions of borrowed dollars, all while spending more borrowed money to pay people not to work. Now, that fails the commonsense test. In Iowa, the private sector is already creating more jobs than we can fill. The economy is poised to take off if the government just gets out of the way. Politicians should live by the same principle as doctors: ``First, do no harm.'' We shouldn't continue pandemic-era policies longer than they are necessary. That will only slow our economic recovery. Just as the CDC updated its guidance based upon the new reality about masks and about the vaccine, it is time for Congress to conform its policies to the conditions on the ground. Pipeline Infrastructure Mr. President, on another subject, yesterday I participated on a call with Canadian counterparts that serve in Canada's Parliament. Just for a little background on these meetings, until the pandemic or until people got so busy they couldn't travel back and forth between the two countries, over a period of more than a half a century, there have been meetings of Canadian Parliamentarians and Members of the American Congress on an annual basis. One time, the U.S. Congressmen would go to some place in Canada; the next year, the Canadian Parliamentarians would come down here. In the recent 5 to 10 years, this has been done more like yesterday by Zoom or by a few people from Canada coming down here more often than we went up there. But over the period of my years in the U.S. Senate, I presume I have participated in at least 15 of those meetings where we travel back and forth, and I found them very helpful in talking about problems between the two countries. The problem is, it is almost laughable that we have very many problems between Canada and the United States. So we would end up talking about two or three issues, but they were problems that had to be worked out. So we had this meeting yesterday by Zoom, as I just said. We discussed issues of concern that impact both legislative bodies in our respective countries. Canada and the United States share the same values and are closely tied to each other culturally and economically. Canada is our closest ally. We need to effectively work with Canada and Canadians on issues that impact both countries. On his first day in office, President Biden made a hasty decision to shut down the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline--a decision that cost the United States and Canada over 10,000 jobs. This decision by President Biden sent a clear signal to other democratic countries across the globe. That message is, it doesn't matter if it will cost your State jobs and raise gas prices or irritate an ally; you would be better to listen to ideologues in your party who say something like this: Pipelines that transport oil are bad. But while the Keystone XL Pipeline is better known, the Canadians who were meeting yesterday were worried about the current pipeline in use that goes by the name of Enbridge Line 5. The pipeline, which has been in use since 1953, delivers the bulk of Canadian crude exports to the United States and also supplies fuel to Ontario and Quebec. In June of 2019, the State of Michigan filed a lawsuit to compel the decommissioning of the segment of Line 5 that runs under Lake Michigan. The basis of the suit is that the pipeline is a public nuisance that could become a source of pollution if it leaks. This month, the Canadian Government filed a request to stop the State of Michigan from shutting down the pipeline. Shutting down the pipeline would have an immediate effect on crude oil supplies for refineries and, as a result, increase the price of gas for Americans. We saw it over the past 7 or 8 days, how the Colonial Pipeline's shutdown has increased the price of gas--if you could buy gas. So we ought to be thinking about these problems. For the sake of North American energy independence and for American jobs and to mend relations with our closest allies, I am asking the Governor of Michigan to reconsider this lawsuit. For that matter, President Biden ought to step in and the entire Democratic Party ought to reconsider their stance on the use of pipelines. Take a cue from the former Governor of Michigan, now Energy Secretary Granholm, who said pipelines are ``the best way to move oil.'' Inspector General's Act of 1978 Mr. President, my last comment, which will be very short, deals with the subject of the Inspector General's Act of 1978. When we passed that act, we required a President who wants to remove an IG to provide Congress specific reasons why that IG was removed. When Congress revised the IG act 30 years later, we amended that notification requirement and made it even stronger. We require Presidents to tell us their reasons and do it in no less than 30 days in advance of the removal. Neither of these provisions did anything to prevent the President from performing his constitutional responsibility to hire and fire people within the executive branch of government. Unfortunately, Presidents from both political parties--let me emphasize ``from both political parties''--seem to have a hard time following this simple notice requirement. When President Obama fired IG Walpin of the Corporation for National and Community Service early in his term, he sent a vaguely worded letter saying only that he had ``lost confidence'' in Mr. Walpin. When President Trump fired IGs Linick and Atkinson last year, he sent letters to Congress saying exactly the same thing. As I explained to both Presidents when they sent those letters, merely telling Congress that you have ``lost confidence'' in an IG isn't enough explanation. The loss of confidence occurs only after something happens. When announcing their decision to remove an IG from office, Presidents need to tell us what that ``something'' is. They need to explain why they have lost confidence. Failing to do so misses the point of the notice requirement entirely. The notice requirement isn't about a President's confidence in the IG; it is about the public's confidence in the inspector general system across the board. IGs are put in office to serve as government watchdogs. If IGs are carrying out their duties as intended, they are likely going to make more enemies than friends. They may uncover things that make the sitting President and his political appointees very uncomfortable. So what? No President is going to like every investigation that an IG undertakes or every report that an IG prepares. But IGs should not be fired just for doing their jobs or to prevent them from releasing findings that may be embarrassing to an administration, Republican or Democratic. Requiring the President to explain in advance why he or she is removing an IG gives Congress time to evaluate those reasons. It helps assure Congress and the public that the termination isn't based on politics but on real problems with the IG's ability to carry out their job. Of course, there has been no shortage of bad IGs who are deserving of removal. In fact, I probably had something to do with removing five or six of them in the years I have been in the U.S. Senate. Maybe some of those who ought to be removed are still in office. Recently, I called on the President, President Biden, to remove the Federal Housing Finance Agency IG due to an independent report by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency that verified longstanding claims to my office that she abused her authority. Whistleblowers originally came to my office in 2015 with concerning reports that the IG was personally and publicly demeaning her employees. She referred to them with demeaning names such as ``weasel.'' The IG also allowed her deputy to threaten employees who blew the whistle to my office. That was over 5 years ago, and--can you believe it?--the abuse is still happening today. Based on my investigations and the CIGIE's findings, I firmly believe the IG needs to go, but I don't get to make that decision. Only the President can make that decision. He gets to decide when to exercise his constitutional authority. He has a right to do so and will ultimately be accountable to the people for a decision that he makes. All he has to do, all that is required for him to do under this law, is to give Congress proper notice. That is how things should work. That is how things were designed to work, but unfortunately, that is not what has been happening. It is clear to me that we have to be even clearer that when we say we want reasons, we actually mean it. When making the decision to remove an IG, Presidents must send substantive, specific reasons to Congress in advance explaining the actions they are taking and why they are taking those actions. That is why I introduced S. 587, the Securing Inspector General Independence Act. In addition to making the notice requirement even more clear, my bill would limit who can be an IG in an acting capacity and require CIGIE to provide guidance for annual whistleblower training for all IG employees. My cosponsors and I have an interest in keeping our IG system strong and neutral, and that is what this bill does. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it and ask that the Homeland Security Committee give it full consideration. I yield the floor

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on May 7, we learned of a cyber attack on the Colonial Pipeline. This resulted in gas shortages and lines across the east coast. You see it on television every day. During a news conference, Energy Secretary Granholm said: ``Pipelines are the best way to transport fuel.'' This is certainly a fact. Pipelines are much safer than transporting oil by rail or truck. Iowa has over 40,000 miles of pipeline which go largely unnoticed but play a large role in providing our Nation's transportation fuel. It is not lost on millions of Americans that this statement from the Energy Secretary comes from the same administration that, on day one, January 20, shut down the Keystone Pipeline. On day one, January 20, this administration cut 10,000 jobs. Remember, they ran on a platform of creating jobs. This has already resulted in rising gas prices like we are seeing across the country. In fact, gas prices will soon be more expensive than at any time since the Obama administration. This cyber attack on Colonial showed America just how critical pipeline infrastructure is for transportation and how that affects national security. For an administration that is stressing infrastructure, maybe they should take a second look at the decision on January 20 to shut down the Keystone XL Pipeline. I shudder to think that if the Colonial Pipeline were attempting to get a permit today, this administration might not even allow the construction. The United States should be encouraging private infrastructure investment, not getting in the way of progress that investment would bring. As long as our country is still relying on oil to fill our gas tanks, we need to have the infrastructure and security in place so that what happened last week never happens again. When there is a shortage of oil, then biofuels can be an easy substitute that can be subbed in, but again, government redtape is getting in the way. The Environmental Protection Agency should quickly finalize a rule to broaden the availability of existing infrastructure for use with E15 ethanol and related labeling requirements. This would allow more gas stations to use their current tanks for E15. We need a balanced approach, and biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel can help achieve greenhouse gas reductions and strengthen our national security, keeping gas prices in check and helping agriculture of America at the same time. Presidential Power Mr. President, on another matter, I have heard from a large number of Iowans convinced that our Republic is effectively lost with the election of President Biden. This seems to be like the Flight 93 election theory in the 2016 election, where some conservatives felt that, if Clinton won, the country would be lost for good. So, like the Flight 93 passengers who rushed the cockpit in a last-ditch attempt to avert a catastrophic outcome that probably would have hit this Capitol Building, they argued that any alternative to Clinton was justified. The left, then, felt the same way after Trump won. When President Trump was elected, I received an outpouring of messages expressing a truly startling degree of fear and anguish. It is as if we had just elected an evil King or dictator. Understanding human nature, the Framers of our Constitution set up a system of separation of powers, knowing it was not safe to just trust the character of individual public officials. The President is supposed to, as the Constitution said, ``see that the laws be faithfully executed,'' not to be some all-powerful, elected King. The American Presidency shouldn't be and was never supposed to be so important or so powerful that Americans ought to feel that their entire future is at stake every 4 years. Yet many Americans do feel that way, and it isn't all just a misunderstanding. Presidential power has grown beyond its proper bounds intended by the Constitution. Why is that? That ``Why is it?'' lies right here with the Congress of the United States because, over time, Congress has delegated too much authority piece by piece, in countless bills, and failed to this very day to do much to take back that authority. During the Trump administration, I worked to reclaim some delegated powers over tariffs, emergency declarations, and regulations but lacked sufficient bipartisan support to get the job done. I have no illusions that a Democratic Congress will limit President Biden's powers, but perhaps we could agree to reclaim powers for Congress with some future effective date. So much focus on one person, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, and one election every 4 years, like we worried about 2016 or people are still worrying about 2020--that is not a healthy environment for a democracy. Restoring the proper balance between the Presidency and the Congress can help restore some balance to our fiscal discourse. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will not be voting to discharge the nominee Kristen Clarke to run the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, so I come to the floor to explain to my colleagues why I feel this way. While Ms. Clarke may be a very good attorney--in fact, I don't think there is any doubt that she is--she continues the trend of politicized nominees to the Justice Department under this President. While I disagree with her strongly on some of her views, especially when it comes to defunding the police, my issues with Ms. Clarke go beyond that. The Justice Department and especially the Civil Rights Division need to be committed to impartial and equal justice. In the wrong hands, the Civil Rights Division can be used to target and harass the President's political opponents. It can threaten law enforcement, school choice advocates, religious schools, red States, and pro-lifers. This isn't a hypothetical. Under Ms. Gupta, the Civil Rights Division defended an effort to take over Louisiana's school choice program. Now, can you imagine that? Luckily, a group of African-American mothers stopped them in the Fifth Circuit. Just think--African Americans stopped an obvious injustice by the Justice Department. The fact is that our civil rights laws are broad, and the mere threat of their enforcement can chill legitimate political opposition. Because of that, I think that the head of the Civil Rights Division needs to be above reproach when it comes to partisanship. Unfortunately, Ms. Clarke is a liberal partisan. She has opposed the enforcement of the law against Ike Brown, a Mississippi voter suppressor, either because of the color of his skin or because he was a Democrat. Neither answer is acceptable. She has disparaged religious freedom groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom. She has opposed important Supreme Court decisions protecting religious liberty, individual Supreme Court Justices, and even some of my colleagues. She has held Republican nominees to a standard she didn't want to apply to herself. Ms. Clarke has run away from her record. I asked her at the hearing whether Mumia Abu-Jamal, the country's most notorious cop killer, was a political prisoner, like someone said at a conference that she helped organize. She wouldn't answer, telling me she was unfamiliar with the case. Given her youthful activism, I find that very hard to believe. Last summer, she wrote an article in Newsweek advocating for defunding the police, but she insists the words on the page aren't what she meant. I am sorry, but if it is not what she meant, then she shouldn't have said it. I don't think she is the right person for this job at this time. A nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division should be nonpartisan, should be independent, and should be upfront about her beliefs. Unfortunately, I think Ms. Clarke misses all three marks. As I have said, I don't want to return to the Eric Holder days, so I will vote no. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr President, it is generally my policy to defer to a President and to allow them to choose their Cabinet, provided the nominees are qualified and will follow the law. Even though I may have disagreed with President Biden's nominees ideologically, I have voted for many of his nominees. This includes Ms. Andrea Palm for Deputy Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services. Unlike many Senators who voted against virtually all of President Trump's nominees, it is my philosophy that a President should be able to select those whom he wants to serve in his administration, provided that they are qualified and meet the most basic of tests. President Biden has nominated Ms. Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to be Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. I have met with the nominee and appreciate her commitment to our shared priorities, including lowering prescription drug costs in a bipartisan manner and maintaining essential medical services for rural Americans. I also remain committed to oversight of the executive branch, including CMS, to uphold our system of checks and balances. If Ms. Brooks-LaSure is confirmed, I look forward to working with her on these shared priorities and others as a senior member of the Committee on Finance. Ms. Brooks-LaSure has decades of health care experience, including at the Office of Management and Budget, on the House of Representative's Ways and Means Committee, at the Department of Health and Human Services, and in the private sector. Ms. Brooks-LaSure is qualified to serve as Administrator of CMS, and I personally do not have concerns about her nomination despite ideological differences. However, I opposed Ms. Brooks-LaSure's confirmation out of the Committee on Finance at the request of Senator John Cornyn of Texas. On April 22, 2021, the Finance Committee voted 14 to 14 on Ms. Brooks- LaSure's nomination, with all Republican committee members opposing moving the nomination forward. This effort was to give Senator Cornyn time to work with the Biden administration to address concerns about the CMS recent revoking of their section 1115 Medicaid waiver. I have opposed advancing other nominees of both parties in the past as part of my oversight responsibilities since it is one of the few tools we have in the Senate to extract answers from the executive branch. The Biden administration took an unprecedented action to revoke without consultation the State's Medicaid waiver. By supporting Senator Cornyn's effort, I was hopeful the Biden administration could adequately address Texas's concerns. To date, there has not been progress made; therefore, I again opposed advancing this nomination, not with an intent to permanently block her confirmation, but as an exercise of Congress's check on the executive branch in hopes that it will engage with Senator Cornyn in good faith to resolve this matter that is so important to his home State.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are now in the final week of tax- filing season. While filing season typically ends on April 15, this year, taxpayers have until May 17 to file or to request an extension. This is also the third filing season under the tax cuts and reforms that the Republicans enacted in 2017. For the vast majority of Americans, this means they are paying significantly less in income taxes than they were under prior law. Moreover, thanks to a nearly doubling of the standard deduction, most Americans are paying less without having the headache of itemizing their taxes. More importantly, prior to the pandemic, tax reform contributed to the best economy America had seen in decades. Unemployment reached a 50-year low and was at or below 4 percent for 24 consecutive months. Family incomes and workers' wages experienced robust gains. In fact, wage growth was the strongest for low-wage workers. As a result, we actually saw income inequality decline. Unfortunately, the current administration's ambitions to use the pandemic as an excuse to pass a Big Government, anti-growth agenda threatens our return to a thriving economy. First came its $2 trillion untargeted COVID relief bill that focused more on enacting a liberal wish list rather than on pandemic relief. A lot of my colleagues have referred to only 10 percent of that $1.9 trillion bill actually being related to problems caused by the pandemic. The dangers of passing this untargeted and largely unnecessary spending are already beginning to weigh on our economic recovery. Throughout the economy, prices are soaring, and job growth is tepid. April's jobs growth data fell short of expectations by more than 700,000 jobs. This is deeply concerning, and it ought to be to every one of the Members of the Senate. I have heard firsthand from business after business in my State of Iowa that they are desperate for workers but that job applicants are scarce. As my Republican colleagues and I have warned our Democratic colleagues for months, this is the natural result of the Democratic policies that pay people more not to work than to work. Yet, despite the obvious overreach of their liberal agenda, my Democratic colleagues are preparing to double down with an additional $4 trillion Big Government spending spree. Then, in turn, to finance their progressive dreams, they are proposing trillions of dollars of job-killing tax hikes. You just heard from my colleague from Ohio, Senator Portman, who went into that very deeply, how those tax policies are going to hurt our economy and the workers in our economy. Their proposals to roll back critical reforms to our corporate tax system would result in the United States once again having the highest corporate tax rate among our major trading partners and incentivizing companies to move headquarters abroad Small businesses are also in their crosshairs. Family businesses and farms could be decimated by proposals to hike capital gains taxes and subject paper-only gains in family business assets to taxation immediately upon the transfer of that farm or that business at death. My Democratic colleagues' tax proposal would make the United States a less attractive place to invest. It would erode American competitiveness and slow our Nation's postpandemic economic recovery. That means fewer jobs. It means lower wages for middle-class Americans. Postpandemic prosperity won't be achieved through higher taxes and Big Government spending programs or the government itself, which consumes and doesn't produce wealth. The real wealth of America is created by the working men and women of this country. If we are going to have this growth, it is going to be achieved through pro-growth policies and in the unshackling of our economy from stringent pandemic- era restrictions as we move toward a vaccinated world. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I would like to address the national plague of targeted violence. Whether it is in our schools, houses of worship, restaurants, businesses, or even on our city streets, these senseless killings are impacting all of us. I woke up Friday morning, April 16, to learn of another tragedy, this time in Indianapolis, where a 19-year-old walked into a private business and proceeded to kill eight innocent workers, including four members of the Sikh community. My heart breaks for another set of families and friends newly devastated and the unthinkable happening to them. While it is still early in the investigation and an exact motive remains unclear, all signs indicate that that young killer suffered from mental illness. The killer's own mother contacted authorities just last May for fear that he was going to commit what she called ``suicide by cop.'' The date of April 16 is unfortunately significant, as it is the solemn anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre. Thirty-two students and educators lost their lives at the hands of a 23-year-old who had a well-documented record of mental illness. Despite clear homicidal warning signs, school authorities and counselors failed to intervene and help the troubled young man. Earlier this April, tragedy struck when a 25-year-old man rammed his vehicle into a security barricade just steps from this Chamber. Fortunately for those inside, U.S. Capitol Police officers courageously intervened when the man brandished a large knife and lunged in their direction. As all of us know, this attacker tragically took the life of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans. Officer Evans was a hero, and we mourn his loss. While the Capitol attacker's exact motive is unknown, social media profiles indicate the man was a devout follower of a group that repeatedly holds racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ beliefs. It is too early to tell if these beliefs motivated this man to commit an act of terrorism, but what is clear is this man struggled with depression, hallucinations, and suicidal thoughts. If someone had properly identified these symptoms as warning signs, perhaps this tragedy could have been avoided. I could go on and highlight tragedies from just the past several years from all over the country. Post-incident investigations show that all of these violent actors often suffer from variations of mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, delusions, paranoia, bipolar disorder, suicidal and homicidal thoughts, and adherence to bizarre conspiracy theories. Many of those who are closest to these attackers were aware of their conditions, and some even expressed concern about their propensity for violence ahead of their times of killing. The EAGLES Act of 2021 is a bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation. This bill carries the namesake of the Parkland, FL, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mascot--the Eagles, that is--and it is a tribute to the 17 Eagles who tragically lost their lives 3 years ago at the hands of a former student struggling with severe behavioral problems and mental illness. This legislation helps proactively mitigate threats of violence by reauthorizing as well as expanding the U.S. Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center, which also goes by the acronym NTAC. NTAC's approach is squarely focused on research. After every instance of mass violence, their team of social science experts canvasses the circumstances and the attacker's behavior to determine the facts. NTAC's 2019 publication called ``Mass Attacks in Public Squares'' found that during the previous year, 93 percent of the attackers engaged in threatening or concerning communications prior to carrying out violent actions. Another 2019 NTAC study entitled ``Protecting America's Schools'' made an even more definitive finding related to violence in our educational system. This study concluded that all--in other words, every one--of the school attackers exhibited concerning behaviors prior to engaging in an act of violence. A family member, a teacher, a coach, a fellow employee, or a neighbor's ability to observe someone's behavior, home life circumstances, work life factors, and other political stressors, coupled with NTAC's threat assessment training, can prevent harmful outcomes from occurring. But in order for this to be effective, we need to increase NTAC's ability to continue their research and get much needed training to their communities. The result will be increased opportunities for early intervention and referrals to mental health services for those in need and also get names to the FBI database so that they can't buy a gun. Just recently, the EAGLES Act got a resounding endorsement from the National Association of Attorneys General. Forty attorneys general from all over the United States believe that NTAC's proactive approach is critical to violence prevention and its training programs are urgently needed. These attorneys general are responsible for ensuring safe communities and are urging our quick action to pass this legislation. We cannot afford to ignore or delay their explicit plea for assistance. So now, as a bottom line, I ask all of my Senate colleagues to consider the commonsense, practical solution provided in the EAGLES Act. The more research and threat assessment training that we can provide, the more violence we can prevent

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is National Police Week, and yesterday I spoke about the importance of police in our activities, our daily life. I come to the floor now to address my colleagues about a piece of legislation I am putting in. I recently reintroduced the Protecting America's First Responders Act, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by 11 of my colleagues. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the last Congress. In this new Congress, it is time that we once again turn our attention to the public service officers across our Nation who steadfastly serve and protect fellow Americans. These great men and women fulfill some of our most vital and irreplaceable needs. Their duties affect every part of our communities. We have seen that clearly--very clearly--over the past year as their services have been instrumental in keeping our communities safe during the pandemic. Our firefighters dedicate themselves to braving harrowing fires. Our police officers rush headlong into danger to protect the innocent. Emergency first responders dutifully come to the aid of the injured, no matter the threat. Despite these vast responsibilities, their purpose is very much the same: to serve and protect their communities. We know this call to service comes with great risk. We, in Congress, will forever be indebted to the Capitol Police officers who suffered substantial injuries and even gave their lives on these very grounds. There is no way for us to truly comprehend or repay the sacrifices made by these officers and their loved ones left behind. Yet, knowing this, our public safety officers willingly accept the responsibilities of injury and, if need be, lay down their lives to fulfill their duties and their oaths. We owe our firefighters, law enforcement, and all of our first responders a great deal, and we don't say thank you enough. They don't hesitate to take action when we need them to, and we must be equally steadfast in coming to their aid by ensuring that those officers, disabled or killed--killed in the line of duty--receive what they are due. They must receive what we, in Congress, first promised now four and a half decades ago through the law that is called the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. So the original PSOB Program was created in 1976. Yet, since that time, it has been plagued with unclear and out- of-date regulations, forcing families of our fallen heroes to continually suffer through technical interpretations and drawn-out claim processes. This cannot continue. This bill that 11 of us have introduced, the Protecting America's First Responders Act, ensures that disability claims are consistent with Congress's original intent for the PSOB Program. It received wide bipartisan support here in the U.S. Senate in the last Congress. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the House. Over the last year, I worked closely with Congressman Pascrell to alleviate opposition and work through amendments that can pass the House. I am confident that with these changes, it will reach the President's desk very quickly. The 117th Congress has a fresh opportunity to make this bill law, and there are many waiting for us to do exactly that. I introduce this bill with strong support from organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations. I urge my colleagues to, once again, vote for the Protecting America's First Responders Act, thereby fulfilling the original promise to honor those whose lives were forever altered by their service Russia Investigation Mr. President, on another subject, I come to the floor probably to explain to my colleagues something I have done on three or four different occasions, and nobody ever seems to get it right. So I am back here again trying to explain something so we don't have to deal with it again. So here we go again. While I was traveling throughout Iowa meeting with constituents, I kept my eyes on news reporting out of Washington, DC. I have seen a lot of bad reporting in my time. The events that occurred starting on April 30 are there at the top of bad reporting. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and NBC all had to retract their reporting about Russian disinformation warnings given to Rudy Giuliani. I am not here to talk about Rudy Giuliani. I am talking about how this report affects me and Senator Johnson because, unfortunately, in the Washington Post article, my and Senator Johnson's investigations into the Biden family's financial dealings was tethered, once again, to Russian disinformation attempts, and that tethering is what I have been here on the floor of the Senate, over the last maybe more than a year now, trying to explain that that just is a big hoax. The report was based on anonymous current and former U.S. officials. Apparently, the Washington Post still hasn't figured out how to read a Senate report. My staff also spent many hours talking with the Post the day before the story ran in order to help them understand. And I presume they called us; we didn't call them. I am going to quote from my staff's emailing them the following, which, in the end, the Post completely ignored in their article. So here is a long email: Sen. Grassley's report with Sen. Johnson relied on Obama- era U.S. government records and information from a Democrat- aligned U.S. lobby shop, which employed Telizhenko while representing the corrupt Ukrainian gas company Burisma. The email goes on: Sen. Grassley never received a defensive briefing related to his oversight of the Biden family's foreign business ventures. Discussions with the FBI and the Intelligence Community were initiated by requests from Democrats, as is detailed in Section Ten of the report. The FBI and members of the Intelligence Community indicated last year that there was no reason for the committee's investigation to be halted, even with knowledge of Telizhenko's limited involvement (see report page 59). This is what the email says to the Post. Continuing to read from my staff's email to them: The report and its underlying transcripts further reveal that Telizhenko had deep and longstanding relationships with Obama State Department officials, National Security Council staff and left-wing lobbyists. The transcripts also illustrate that material created by Derkach was introduced by Democrats, not Republicans, and it was quickly rejected by an expert witness as disinformation. And then in parenthesis, it says: ``([S]ee Minority Exhibit J and George Kent's response to Minority staff regarding that exhibit).'' Continuing to report from the email to the Post: Following a classified letter authored by Democratic leadership, portions of which were later leaked and reportedly referenced Derkach, Democrats again sought an FBI and Intelligence Community briefing, which was provided in August of 2020. At that briefing, the FBI stated that it's not attempting to-- And these are the words that the FBI used-- ``quash, curtail, or interfere'' in the investigation in any way. And then in parenthesis it says: ``([S]ee report, page 59).'' That's not the sort of direction provided at defensive briefings. This is what my staff's email says to the Post. Obviously, we didn't rely on any of this for the report's findings on Hunter Biden's and James Biden's extensive financial entanglements with questionable foreign nationals, including some connected to the communist Chinese government. Subsequent to the report, the public has also learned that Hunter Biden is under criminal investigation relating to his financial entanglements. Given Telizheko's longstanding ties to Blue Star Strategies and Obama administration officials, are you similarly asking them whether they played into some Russian-pushed narrative? I am going to go back because that question needs to be repeated. It is not repeated in the email I am reading to you. Given Telizheko's longstanding ties to Blue Star Strategies and Obama administration officials, are you-- Meaning the Post-- similarly asking them whether they played into some Russian- pushed narrative? Given that Democrats introduced Derkach material, are you similarly asking them whether they played into some Russian- pushed narrative? Now, that is the end of the quote, and I think those last two questions indicate--because, obviously, the newspaper article doesn't say that they asked these questions that I repeated one twice and then the other question. They aren't really interested in getting to the bottom of this. Now, after all this information and long phone conversations, the Washington Post opted for unnamed sources rather than on-the-record comments from my staff. So they had an opportunity to quote Grassley and explain all this stuff, and what do they do? They used an anonymous source. Maybe the Post should work on putting more investigation into so-called investigative reporting instead of focusing on false Russian disinformation narratives; for example, maybe spend some time investigating the Biden family's ties to Chinese nationals connected to the Communist regime's military and intelligence services. I have addressed these Russian disinformation issues at length in my committee report with Senator Johnson, as well as right here on the floor of the Senate three or four times over the course of many months, maybe stretching into more than a year. I am going to do this again even though I have better things to do. If you want every detail, read section 10 in our September 23, 2020, report. On July 13, 2020, then-Minority Leader Schumer, Senator Warner, Speaker Pelosi, and Representative Schiff sent a letter with a classified attachment to the FBI to express a purported belief that Congress was the subject of a foreign disinformation campaign. The classified attachment included unclassified elements that attempted and failed to tie our work to Andrii Derkach, a Russian agent. This document falsely accused us of potentially receiving material from Derkach. It was pure speculative nonsense that the liberal media ran with as what they would call or want you to believe was the truth. Do you know what it was? It was garbage. Those unclassified elements were leaked to the press to support a false campaign accusing us of using Russian disinformation. Then, during the course of our investigation, we ran a transcribed interview of George Kent. Before that interview, the Democrats acquired Derkach's materials. During that interview, they asked the witness about it. He stated: What you're asking me to interpret is a master chart of disinformation and malign influence. At that interview, the Democrats introduced known disinformation into the investigative record as an exhibit. Now, more precisely, the Democrats relied upon and disseminated known disinformation from a foreign source who the intelligence community warned was actively seeking to influence U.S. politics. But there is yet more. On July 16, then-Ranking Member Wyden and Senator Peters wrote a letter to me and Senator Johnson asking for a briefing from the intelligence community on matters relating to our investigation. On July 28, 2020, Senator Johnson and I reminded those two Senators that the FBI and relevant members of the intelligence community had already briefed the committee in March 2020 and assured us that there was no reason to discontinue the investigation we were involved in. In August 2020, subsequent to these Democrat-led letters, Senator Johnson and I had a briefing from the FBI on behalf of the intelligence community. However, in that briefing, the FBI discussed matters that were already known and completely irrelevant to the substance of our investigation. The FBI also made clear that it was not attempting to-- and these are the FBI's words--``quash, curtail, or interfere'' in the investigation in any way. Any talk about an FBI briefing warning us that our investigation into the Biden family's financial and business associations was connected to Russian disinformation is complete nonsense. No such briefing ever happened. Our investigation was based on Obama administration government records and records from a Democrat-aligned lobby shop, Blue Star Strategies. If those records amount to Russian disinformation, then that means the Obama administration dealt in disinformation every day, which brings me to the ultimate point I want to bring to attention today. The FBI assured me that the August 2020 briefing, which was a pointless briefing that shouldn't have happened, would remain confidential. That is what the FBI told us, that it would be confidential. However, I was concerned that the substance of this briefing or at least elements relating to it would leak, and I knew that once it did, the briefing would be misreported and used to paint our investigation in a false light. That is exactly what happened last week. Although the Washington Post failed, the Wall Street Journal got it right in its May 4 editorial titled ``The FBI's Dubious Briefing.'' I ask unanimous consent to have that editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The editorial began this way: Did the FBI set up two Members of Congress for political attack under the guise of a ``defensive briefing''? It's possible, and Senators Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley are rightly demanding answers. On May 3, Senator Johnson and I wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, asking to meet with them to discuss the August 20 briefing. We need answers, and we need answers now. Why did the FBI and the intelligence community brief us? Who made that decision? At the briefing, the FBI didn't even show us what intelligence product formed the basis for the briefing. I will tell you this, even without seeing any paperwork, we were already aware of everything they talked about that very day, and it was unconnected to the substance of our investigation. I asked the FBI whether they had any new intelligence to share because we hadn't heard anything new, and they didn't give us a single new item. So, as far as I am concerned, the briefing was totally unnecessary. Based on the timeline of events, it appears the briefing was done because the Democrats wanted it done, which means it was a political decision. The Wall Street Journal ended its piece by saying this: Whether the FBI was pressured, duped, or actively political, the bureau has again landed in the center of a partisan fight. Mr. Wray might [want to] ask how that keeps happening. That is exactly right. The FBI and the intelligence community have lots of explaining to do. We already know that under Comey, the FBI used intelligence briefings as surveillance operations against Trump and his team. Did the FBI and the intelligence community also misuse briefing processes against congressional Members? Only Director Wray and Director Haines can answer that question, and so far, they have failed to answer those questions. Their credibility and, more importantly, their professionalism are on the line. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.