Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 902 and ask that it be reported by number.

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this bill includes an $86 billion no- strings bailout of multiemployer pension plans. It does not belong in the current package. It has nothing to do with COVID. The bailout is not coupled with any reforms. Consequently, there won't be any long- term sustainability. It is just a blank check with no measures to hold plans accountable. Senator Alexander and I spent the last Congress working on a responsible proposal to rescue and reform failing multiemployer pension plans. Without reforms included, the precedent will be that taxpayers, not the PPGC, will be the ultimate guarantors of private employer pensions. In that case, the burden on the taxpayers will not be for the $86 billion. It will be endless as to how much the taxpayers are going to have to pay. Please vote in favor of my motion to commit to consider the reforms necessary to protect the taxpayers and ensure the long-term sustainability of the multiemployer pension system.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, you folks on the other side of the aisle, the House Agriculture Committee voted out the bill that Senator Warnock successfully defended. That same House Agriculture Committee voted out a bipartisan bill that had the support of Congressman Feenstra of Iowa and Congresswoman Axne of Iowa. It got out of committee, and then you know what? The Rules Committee took it out of this bill that came over here. So I am asking for the reconsideration of that. This amendment does this: It makes farmers in Iowa that were hit by the derecho wind--and that is a wind that you don't predict like you do a tornado, and it just crops up, 150 miles long and 30 miles wide. It destroyed 855,000 acres of corn, laid it flat. And if it was meteoric, you still couldn't harvest it. So most of it was plowed under.

Mr. GRASSLEY. My time is up already? I would like to have it considered, please.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I request a rollcall vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the multiemployer pension system has been in need of a major overhaul for years. More than 300 plans are critically underfunded. Moreover, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC, multiemployer insurance fund, which is a backstop for these plans, is projected to become insolvent in the next 5 years. If this occurs, 1.5 million retirees, due to no fault of their own, could see their hard-earned retirement benefits slashed to pennies on the dollar. This is unacceptable, and it is one of the reasons that, when I took over as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2019, I made it a priority to fix the failing multiemployer pension system. To me, this has always meant helping secure the retirement benefits of millions of retirees and ensuring that this retirement system is sustainable over the long term. Working with former Senator and HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander, I immediately got to work on a draft proposal, which was released for public input and stakeholder feedback in November of 2019. We received numerous comments from workers, retirees, unions, employers, actuaries, academics, plan officials, and members of the general public that helped me refine my approach and create a balanced plan. Yesterday, I reintroduced this version of my plan, which is titled the ``Chris Allen Multiemployer Pension Recapitalization and Reform Act.'' This legislation recognizes that, given the severity of the underfunding issue, some Federal dollars will be necessary to shore up severely troubled plans in the short term. But, this limited assistance must be coupled with structural reforms intended to address the root causes of our current situation. This includes reforms to multiemployer funding rules to ensure plans are adequately capitalized to make good on promises made to plan participants. Furthermore, it would increase PBGC oversight of troubled plans and enhance transparency for plan participants. Critically, it also overhauls the financing of the PBGC multiemployer insurance fund so that it can resume its role as the insurer of last resort for these plans without additional taxpayer funding. The fundamental tenet of my plan is that all stakeholders have a role in fixing the multiemployer pension system. The American taxpayer shouldn't be expected to simply write a blank check. Stakeholders need to have skin in the game if the system is to be sustainable moving forward. I understand that this is an extremely complex situation. There is no perfect solution. From the start, I have let it be known I want to work with my Democratic colleagues to find a bipartisan compromise. In June of last year, I came to the floor to plead with my Democratic colleagues to come to the table in hopes we could work toward a bipartisan agreement prior to the end of last Congress. Unfortunately, for months I heard nothing. Then, with only a few weeks left in the 116th Congress, my Democratic colleagues took me up on my offer and negotiations began in earnest. Several weeks of bipartisan negotiations ensued, but there simply was not enough time to iron out all our differences to ensure we had sufficient Member support before the end of the year. However, I found our discussions constructive. They were focused correctly on securing the retirement benefits of participants in the failing plans in the near term, while also ensuring the long- term sustainability of the multiemployer pension system without a Federal takeover. I hoped our negotiations would provide a foundation for continuing to work toward a bipartisan solution this Congress. Instead I am disappointed to see that the majority has include an unprecedented $86 billion no-strings bailout of troubled multiemployer pension plans in the reconciliation bill currently before the Senate. As I have discussed, I recognize that Federal funds will be needed to solve the pension crisis in the short term, but it is equally as important that essential reforms are enacted to ensure the system can be self-sustaining in the long term. Otherwise, taxpayers will be perpetually subsidizing a private sector system of employee-benefit promises. That is exactly what will occur if my Democratic colleagues insist on going forward with the reform-free bailout included in this package. As is, this proposal has been stripped of even the most rudimentary of reforms or accountability measures. In fact, one provision even bars the PBGC from issuing regulations to provide for such measures. As a result, the proposal is likely to breed what economists call ``moral hazard'' as plan managers and sponsors realize that there are no consequences to underfunding and overpromising. In the end, the American taxpayer will be left footing the bill for a private sector retirement system. I hope my Democratic colleagues will reconsider moving forward with their no-holds-bared bailout. Fundamentally, it does not belong in the current package. The issues plaguing the multiemployer system long predate the pandemic and are not COVID related. But if it is to be included, at a minimum, essential reforms along the lines of what I have proposed must be included. They are essential to protect the American taxpayer and to ensure the long-term sustainability of the multiemployer system. Toward this end, I intend to offer a motion to commit the reconciliation bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report it back with critical reforms to ensure multiemployer plans are adequately funded and the PBGC's insurance fund is adequately financed. Without such reforms, the current proposal would set the precedent that the American taxpayer, not the PBGC, is the ultimate guarantor of private-employer pension promises. If this is the case, the burden on the American taxpayer will not be the $86 billion in this package or even hundreds of billions of dollars. It will be limitless.

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, this week, my Democratic colleagues are poised to push through the Senate here an untargeted and unfocused $1.9 trillion tax and spending package, and it is all being done under the guise of COVID relief. Some of it is very essential for COVID relief but a small part of it. This whole act is very unfortunate because it didn't have to be this way. In the past year, Republicans and Democrats were able to work together to pass more than $4 trillion in COVID relief, and it was all done with strong bipartisan support. From the start of this year, my Republican colleagues and I have stood ready to engage in good-faith, bipartisan negotiations to provide further targeted relief. However, despite all the talk of unity and bipartisanship by President Biden, the new Senate majority hasn't even attempted to reach across the aisle. Bipartisanship worked 5 times over the last 12 months, starting about 1 year ago right now. The majority, demonstrating their unwillingness to compromise, has resorted to using special budget procedures so that they may pass a partisan bill strictly along party lines. The result is going to be an unwieldy, nearly $2 trillion package that isn't shaped according to current economic realities but strictly by a partisan liberal agenda. In February, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, projected that even without any further stimulus, gross domestic product will return to its prepandemic levels by mid-2021, and, for the year, the economy will grow at 4.6 percent. If those two points aren't strong enough, it was recently reported that retail sales jumped 5.6 percent during January, and the National Retail Federation is projecting retail sales for the year to grow at the fastest rate in two decades. If those four points aren't enough, at the same time, personal income is reported to have risen by 10 percent, and the personal savings rate has surged from a historically high 13.4 percent to over 20 percent. The American economy will soon be roaring without a $2 trillion further stimulus. It is no longer March of 2020 when the economy was in free fall and businesses and places of employment were shut down. And how were they shut down? By those of us right here in the Congress of the United States, the Federal Government doing it by government edict. While many individuals and certain sectors of our economy continue to struggle and, of course, deserve a helping hand, others have largely recovered and are no longer in need of assistance. At this time, instead of $2 trillion, two-thirds of it not needed, why not help those hurting and not pour gasoline on the inflationary fires? A COVID relief package should reflect this reality in both size and scope. Even longtime Democratic economists, such as Obama's former Director of the National Economic Council, have raised concerns about enacting nearly a $2 trillion stimulus package at this point when we are already in recovery. As former Secretary of Treasury Summers--I also referred to him as Director of the National Economic Council--this is what he says: ``The proposed Biden stimulus is three times as large as'' the gap between actual and potential output as estimated by the CBO. Enacting a stimulus unmoored from economic reality poses real risks to our economy, including inflation and slower economic growth moving forward. In fact, a Penn Wharton Budget Model analysis of the President's proposal projects the proposed stimulus would result in a decrease in both GDP and wages in 2022 and over the next 2 decades. While inflation has been subdued in recent years, we shouldn't let that lull in inflation lull us into a false sense of confidence that we can spend with impunity with no consequences. We are in unchartered waters with debt held by the public exceeding the size of our economy and trillion-dollar annual deficits. Moreover, as economist John Greenwood and Steve Hanke, professor of economics at Johns Hopkins, recently warned: The money supply will grow by nearly 12 percent this year. That's twice as fast as its average growth rate from 2000-19. It's a rate that spells trouble--inflation trouble. And that is without another round of stimulus that we are going to be debating in the next few days here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and probably passing before the end of the week. Concerns of inflation have been dismissed by the White House and by the Federal Reserve. This sounds too familiar to those of us who witnessed the stagflation of the 1970s. We were told by President Nixon and his advisers that they could spend their way to lower unemployment and economic growth without inflation. They were wrong. The Nixon administration's mistakes ushered in a decade of disastrous inflation. I have said for decades, if Nixon did something, we ought to learn from it, not repeat it. It was with this background of stagflation that I first ran for Congress on a platform of fighting inflation. Inflation is a regressive stealth tax on every single American. It is particularly unfair to those who have very little money to begin with, and those who have lived beneath their incomes to save for the future only to see their hard work wiped out as the value of the dollars that they put away plunges. Hopefully, Nixon inflation is only history never to return. But none of us can guarantee that inflation won't return. Not only is the size of this stimulus package detached from reality; so is the scope. A common adage for stimulus and economic relief measures is that they should be timely, they should be temporary, and they should be targeted. By this standard, the Democrats' stimulus is well wide of the mark. More than one-third, or about $700 billion, of the funding in the bill wouldn't even be spent until 2022 or beyond, according to the CBO. How does anybody know that we need a stimulus in 2022 and beyond? By what standard does the Biden administration say that we are going to need that? And doesn't that have something to do with the failure of this bill to accomplish what it wants to accomplish, or even the need for it, if some of this money won't be spent until the outer years? I don't know about you, but I don't see how spending hundreds of billions of dollars years from now is either timely or targeted. As these economists talk about a stimulus, if it is going to be any good, it needs to be timely and targeted. What does all this have to do with fighting the pandemic right now, with the people hurting right now? Are these same people going to be hurting in these out years when some of this money is going to be spent? If that is the case, this brand-new administration is already admitting that their policies of the future are a failure and a failure today. Nearly a quarter of the package, or $422 billion, is dedicated to direct payments to households with incomes up to $200,000, all regardless of whether they have lost a job or experienced any loss of income. Such untargeted payments make little sense when just this past week it was reported that personal income was up 10 percent and personal savings rates soared to over 20 percent. We clearly shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to pad the bank accounts of those with six- figure incomes when we ought to be targeting this toward those who are unemployed and those who are low income. Then we have another $350 billion of this package that is going to be allocated to bail out fiscally irresponsible States at the expense of States that have managed their State budgets wisely, like my home State of Iowa. This spending is hard to justify given recent reports indicating most States saw little to no drop in revenue between 2019 and 2020. And many States that were previously projecting shortfalls are now projecting budget surpluses. The package also includes hundreds of billions of dollars in liberal wish-list priorities that have very little to do with the current pandemic. This includes enhancements to refundable tax credits, an expansion of ObamaCare subsidies, and an $86 billion taxpayer bailout of poorly managed pension plans. On poorly managed pension plans, that is something that I have been trying to reform over the last 2 years, and reform is necessary, as much as helping them with taxpayer dollars. But there are absolutely no reforms in this stimulus of those multiemployer pension plans. It is simply an $86 billion bailout. In the case of COVID, there are some things that no amount of money can address. Until the widespread immunity is achieved, many people will not feel comfortable eating out, going to a movie, taking in a concert, or traveling on a vacation. Spending trillions of dollars will not change the attitude of those people who are going to still be very cautious. So here is what I would spend the money on--and a lot less money than $1.9 trillion. Yes, let's prioritize funding for vaccine distribution, assistance for the unemployed, and aid for small businesses in the struggling sectors. And, by all means, let's open our schools. Doing this doesn't require $2 trillion. Let's remove the pork in this bill. Let's set aside the long-term leftwing wish list and work together as we did before in those five bipartisan bills over the last 12 months. And they have passed both bodies overwhelmingly. Several of my Republican colleagues approached the White House a few weeks ago with a long list of what I just said--maybe a longer list of items proposed by President Biden that could get Republican support with minimal tweaks. A bipartisan package along those lines could well have passed a few days ago. It is still not too late. I hope we can make a bipartisan effort happen again I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I ask unanimous consent that myself, Senator Braun, and Senator Hirono be able to complete our remarks before the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to compliment that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission operates a highly successful whistleblower program. As one of the Senators who led the effort to establish that whistleblower program back in 2010, I am proud of what this program has accomplished. Since the Commission issued its first whistleblower award in 2014, whistleblowers have helped the Agency root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the commodities trading industry and has recovered nearly $950 million. That is a very good reason to compliment the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That is a lot of restitution for harmed investors. It is also a lot of money going to the U.S. Treasury and to the American taxpayers. Now, if Congress doesn't act quickly, all of that progress could come to a swift and sudden halt. Several months ago, the Commission contacted my office to tell me that its whistleblower program is facing the prospect of a sudden cash shortage--one that could require it to furlough staff and even close down its operations. The reason for this potential shortage isn't that the whistleblower program has wasted or mismanaged funds or that it hasn't been doing its job. It is just the exact opposite. Whistleblowers have been approaching the Commission to report actionable claims of wrongdoing in far greater numbers than before, and its whistleblower program has grown at a much faster rate than Congress expected when we created it in 2010. Last year, the Commission issued a single whistleblower award for approximately $9 million. In the past, it has given out awards for as much as $30 million. Remember, this is money given out to find out about fraud so people can be punished, bringing money into the Federal Treasury. As a result of these successes, in the near future the Commission faces the possibility of having to pay out several large whistleblower awards in close succession. Now, if that happens, the whistleblower program could run short of having the cash on hand that it needs to pay these awards and other office operating expenses. Again, this is not an issue of bad management. It just means that the program works better than we thought when we enacted it in 2010. By law, the Commission is only allowed to keep a certain amount of cash on hand to pay out awards, and that amount is capped under existing law at $100 million. Because Congress expected the program to remain relatively small, which it has not, it set the cap for the Consumer Protection Fund lower than the cap it has set for larger whistleblower programs, such as the one at the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Consumer Protection Fund is also used to pay the operating expenses of the Whistleblower Office--in other words, the employees that follow up on these fraudulent claims. Increasing the cap will ensure that the Commission can keep enough of the proceeds from the fines it collects on hand to pay whistleblower awards and also to ensure that the program itself doesn't run out of money. In 2019, I introduced the Whistleblower Programs Improvement Act, which increased the cap on the fund and made several additional improvements to the program, including provisions that would allow the Commission greater flexibility to share information with law enforcement. I did this because I realized that as the awards became bigger and more frequent, it was only a matter of time before the Commission would run into trouble. A year later, my prediction came true, and the Commission itself notified me of their impending money problems--those same money problems I am talking about. I introduced a bipartisan bill, along with Senators Hassan, Ernst, and Baldwin, in December, just a few months ago, to quickly address this problem. I worked with then-Chairman Roberts and then-Ranking Member Stabenow to include language that would have made the most critical updates for the program in last year's omnibus. These updates would have ensured that the Whistleblower Office could keep enough funds on hand to pay upcoming whistleblower awards and continue to fund the operation and to pay for staff. What often happens around here is that this effort, unfortunately, also hit a roadblock, and the language wasn't included by the House of Representatives. Now, 2 months have passed since then and a matter that was already urgent in December has become even more critical right now. The Commission told my office they have now completely stopped work on four cases, and these four cases potentially would have large awards. And if they get these large awards, it could bankrupt the fund. It is now a conflict of interest for staff who are still paid to even work on those cases because they know if they were to approve the large awards, it could mean putting themselves out of a job. That is totally unacceptable. Whistleblowers shouldn't have to wait just because Congress has been dragging its feet on this issue. That is why I reintroduced my bill and ask my colleagues to support this legislation to fix the cap and to protect this very successful whistleblower program. This is a stand-alone bill, a very short and simple bill. It increases the cap on the Customer Protection Fund from $100 million to $150 million and requires that funds needed for the operating expenses of the Whistleblower Office be held in a separate account to ensure that the Whistleblower Office will have the resources it needs to continue employment of staff while the amount in the Customer Protection Fund builds to a higher level. Allowing this successful Whistleblower Office to close simply because it is doing its job--a job well done--is unacceptable to me, and I hope it is unacceptable to the other 99 Members of this Congress. We ought to be able to get this bill passed quickly so that we can keep this successful whistleblower program going to protect the customers. It ought to be unacceptable, then, to every Member of this Congress. It is important that we act now to ensure that this doesn't happen. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Appropriations Committee is reportedly preparing to announce the return of earmarks. That is a process that, around here, we know. People back home might not know, so let me explain that the process of earmarks inserts individual projects designated for specific interests into a bill, most often an appropriations bill. When I say ``individual projects,'' it means Senators doing it for probably their district or their State. Earmarks are a practice that has become a symbol to the American people of the waste and out-of-control spending in Washington. I am strongly against the return of earmarks. The earmark moratorium was implemented as a direct result of the events leading up to the election of 2010, and there was clearly a mandate coming from that 2010 election to do away with earmarks. So people sometimes think, through the elections or through contacting Congress, they don't have an impact. In this case, it had a very dramatic impact that has lasted at least until now, and hopefully it will last longer. The American people spoke because they were worried at that time about the country's growing Federal deficit and ballooning public debt--something we aren't as concerned about now as we were then and we ought to be concerned about more so now because the debt has more than doubled during that period of time. At that time, back in 2010, the debt was estimated to be 62 percent of gross domestic product. In 2009, President Obama and congressional Democrats passed a $787 billion stimulus bill that was filled with wasteful spending, special projects, and unauthorized programs that completely violated the rules of the road for responsible governance. In September 2010--so at the time of the election I am talking about--in a Rasmussen poll, 61 percent of U.S. voters said cutting government spending and deficits would do more to create jobs than President Obama's proposed $50 billion infrastructure program. It was pretty evident, then, from people's opinion at that time, that the election of 2010 sent a clear message that the American people wanted Congress to stop wasteful spending. So it didn't take long for President Obama to get the message. He had a weekly address on November 13, 2010, calling upon Congress to stop earmarks. He said: ``Given the deficits that have mounted over the past decade, we can't afford to make these investments''--in things like infrastructure, education, research, and development--``unless we are willing to cut what we don't need.'' Now, I am going to give you a further Obama quote, and it is a fairly long one, but it is coming from a Democratic President. I agree with those Republican and Democratic members of Congress who've recently said that in these challenging days, we can't afford what are called earmarks. Those are items inserted into spending bills by members of Congress without adequate review. Now, some of these earmarks support worthy projects in our local communities. But many others do not. We cannot afford Bridges to Nowhere like the one that was planned a few years back in Alaska. Earmarks like these represent a relatively small portion of overall federal spending. But when it comes to signaling our commitment to fiscal responsibility, addressing them would have an important impact. We have a chance to not only shine a light on a bad Washington habit that wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, but take a step towards restoring public trust. We have a chance to advance the interests not of Republicans or Democrats, but of the American people; to put our country on a path of fiscal discipline and responsibility that will lead to a brighter economic future for all. And that's a future I hope that we can reach across party lines to build together. Remember, President Obama said in 2010 that earmarks are bad. Unlike 2020--today we are in even more dismal fiscal shape with even larger Federal deficits and a ballooning Federal debt. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal debt held by the public stood at 100 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2020 and is projected to reach 102 percent of GDP at the end of 2021. In other words, even though we have the largest economy in the world, we owe more than the entire U.S. economy is producing in a year. If we stay on this course, CBO projects that by 2031, debt will equal 107 percent of GDP, the highest in the Nation's history. America cannot afford to go back to including earmarks in some ill- conceived effort to grease the wheels to pass legislation only because it includes the pet projects of Members of Congress. While a small part of the budget--and I would have to admit, earmarks are a small part of the budget--earmarks can cause Members of Congress to focus on projects for their districts or States instead of holding government accountable and being fiscally responsible. Congress should follow regular order by authorizing funding for programs with very specific criteria. Legislation, including funding bills, should be passed on its merits, not on whether an earmark is included. Dr. Tom Coburn, former Senator from Oklahoma, said: Earmarks are the gateway drug to . . . spending addiction. There is an insatiable appetite for projects, and this leads to large bills weighed down with spending our country can ill afford, whether we are talking about appropriations or authorization bills. A Congressional Research Service--CRS, as we know it--study showed that from 1994 to 2011, there was a 282-percent jump in earmarks in appropriations bills. In the fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill, there were 4,155, and--can you believe this?--by 2011, that number for earmarks had risen to 15,887. Also according to the CRS, the total value of earmarked funds increased from about $35 billion for 6,000 earmarks in 2000 to over $72 billion for nearly 16,000 earmarks in 2006. Earmarks get out of control when there is no effective check on total spending, while at the same time, earmarks lead to overspending. Committee chairmen kindly say to the Members who have earmarks in bills or who want earmarks in bills: Are you going to vote for this appropriations bill if we put your earmark in? That sort of thing should never be a determination whether or not a Member votes for an appropriations bill. So you shouldn't feel pressured to support a vicious cycle of increased spending on bad legislation just because it includes earmarks, especially in this time of the pandemic. Congress should be focused on targeted spending to continue to help the American people who are suffering to recover, not finding ways to load up a bill with sweeteners that may be problematic on their own. According to a 2016 Economist/YouGov poll, 63 percent of Americans approve the ban on earmarks; only 12 percent disapproved. This quote by Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz to this publication, Just the News, makes a strong argument for not lifting the earmark ban. He said: Earmarks are the most corrupt, costly, and inequitable practice in the history of Congress. They led to members, staff, and lobbyists being incarcerated. You know, there are people who went to jail because of how some of this stuff was handled. In the form of legalized bribery, Members of Congress vote for tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in appropriations bills in return for a few million dollars in earmarks for their State or congressional district. Earmarks go to those in power, as shown during the 111th Congress when the 81 members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, who constituted 15 percent of Congress, got 51 percent of the earmarks and 61 percent of the money. Restoring earmarks will lead to the same result. I have heard the argument that earmarks are needed to pass bills in a bipartisan manner. I have consistently been ranked among the most bipartisan Senators by the Georgetown University Lugar Center. Check it out for yourself. I know from experience that true bipartisanship doesn't come from voting for legislation that I might otherwise have concerns about because an earmark or a pet project is included in the bill. True bipartisanship comes from reaching out across the aisle to reach consensus, even when there are disagreements on other issues, to really get things done for the American people. President Biden, in his inaugural speech, called for ``Bringing Americans together. Uniting our people. And uniting our nation.'' He also recognized that Americans have serious disagreements. Everyone knows that our country is deeply divided politically. I know from his time in the Senate that President Biden understands that people of good will can have honest disagreements about policy, so he knows that unity does not mean dropping deeply held beliefs and accepting his policy agenda. He said: Every disagreement doesn't have to be a cause for total war. Disagreements must not lead to disunion. Real unity requires true bipartisanship and working together to discover what binds us together as Americans, even when we strongly disagree politically. Earmarks are not a way to bring this unity, and, in fact, would make this unity more difficult by attempting to paper over fundamental disagreements with window dressing while bypassing the real work of compromise. Now, in a similar vein, some people argue that earmarks are needed to help pass bills in a timely manner. In 2006, at the height of earmark spending in appropriations bills, only two appropriations bills passed on time. In the 10 years prior to the earmark ban, Congress never enacted more than four standalone appropriations bills on time. This holds true for reauthorization bills as well. Most, then, as you know the practice is, we just simply extend them for 1 fiscal year at a time. In the case of the past several highway reauthorization bills, which were notorious for earmarks before the earmark moratorium, all needed multiple extensions before they were signed into law. I have also heard the argument that article I of the Constitution says that Congress holds the power of the purse and that Congress has ceded its own power without earmarks. I agree that Congress now cedes its own power but not by not having earmarks. Rather, Congress cedes its power by failing to follow the budget process and stick to a budget. Now, the greatest sin: Congress can be fairly accused of lazy legislation by drafting vague provisions granting authority to Agency heads to work out the details, and most of those details are worked out through massive regulation writing. Congress can reclaim its legislative authority by including specific guidelines for implementing programs in both authorization and appropriations bills. Congress should regularly review Federal programs to ensure that funding criteria reflect the needs of the Americans and engage in robust oversight of Departments and Agencies to ensure congressional intent is met. Rigorous oversight and well-drafted legislation that clearly sets out congressional intent for how a program should be administered is the constitutional job of Congress. A good example of Congress not keeping the power of the purse and delegating significant authority to unelected bureaucrats at the programmatic level is the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called ObamaCare, which was rammed through Congress on a party-line vote. The text was around 2,700 pages long, but the regulatory implementation of ObamaCare required well over 20,000 pages. That is a bad way to implement public policy, particularly considering that the law redirected one-fifth of the U.S. economy. On top of the law are tens of thousands of pages of Federal rules and regulations administered by a score of Federal Departments, Agencies, and Boards. This isn't how our Founding Fathers envisioned Congress protecting the American people, and it is a bad way to do business. As a matter of fairness, earmark project funding should be merit- based and competitive or allocated by formula. Earmarks undermine State decision making over funds that are allocated to States through formula-based grants. Political decisions should not preempt State and regional decision making. Earmarks should not be a shortcut for State and local governments engaging in long-term planning and budgeting for anticipated needs. And, furthermore, State and local governments and other organizations should not be spending time and money to hire lobbyists to chase after Federal dollars in hopes of getting an earmark. The money spent on lobbying and travel to pursue an earmark should be applied toward the local project itself. If a Federal Agency or program isn't working, then Members of Congress should fix it instead of seeking a carve-out. Highway authorizations bills are a perfectly good example of the problems with earmarks. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed the Transportation bill because of-- guess what--too many earmarks. That bill included only 152 earmarks. In 1998, the Transportation bill, called TEA-21, included 1,850 earmarks. The State of Florida challenged the earmarks included for the State, arguing that the allocated funding did not address the actual transportation needs of the State. The U.S. Department of Transportation overruled Florida's objections. In the 2005 bill--so I am going to another Transportation bill; it was called the SAFETEA-LU--included 6,371 earmarks. Let's go over that again. Let's go back. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a bill because there were only 152 earmarks. Ten years later, TEA-21 included 1,850 earmarks and then, 2005, 6,371 earmarks. However, under the earmark ban, the last Transportation bill distributed 92 percent of the funding to the States through formulas. And then, you know, that gives States and local governments control over the funding decision based on the needs of the 50 different States, based on safety, engineering, and other objective criteria, as opposed to politically directed earmarks that totally sweep aside those criteria. It was almost a political decision where that money ought to be put. It should also be pointed out that the majority of the earmark funds in the past came straight out of the allocated formula dollars for each State, which then further eroded merit and State and local decision making. In other words, Washington politicians were making decisions better made by the nonpartisan boards in State capitols and local communities. And when I say ``nonpartisan boards,'' I don't suppose it is that way in all 50 States, but I know in most Midwestern States it is that way. I know that a lot of good has come from projects that I have helped support in Iowa, when we had our earmarks, and I certainly did not want Iowa to miss out on funding just because of a Washington dysfunction that we called earmarks. However, I also know that many of these earmarks disrupted our State and regional planning efforts. I have no way of knowing what good might have been done had we not had earmarks banned earlier. I do know that I have faith that the Federal money that goes back to Iowa for Iowans and the Iowans deciding how it is to be spent is being spent thoughtfully and well and not with a lot of political consideration. Any good that might come from my being able to direct small amounts of Federal taxpayer dollars to some worthwhile pilot project would be dwarfed by the negative effects of restarting the mad scramble for earmarks. So I hope, my colleagues, the rumors I have been hearing about the Appropriations Committee wanting to reinstitute earmarks, I hope that those people would pay some attention to the history of it and particularly pay attention to what President Obama said in 2010 about earmarks and not go through another process, maybe starting out with just a few earmarks but getting up into more than several years, more than 10,000 earmarks in various appropriations bills, and then all of a sudden then have a mandate that came from the electorate, like it did in 2010, and both Republicans and Democrats come back to these halls where we have debate and make policy, saying no more earmarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, just barely a year ago, I was here making a similar statement. Impeachment is one of the most solemn matters to come before the Senate, but I worry that it's also becoming a common occurrence. Before getting into the merits of this impeachment, it is important to reiterate that January 6 was a sad and tragic day for America. I hope we can all agree about that. What happened here at the Capitol was completely inexcusable. It was not a demonstration of any of our protected, inalienable rights. It was a direct, violent attack on our seat of government. Those who plowed over police barricades, assaulted law enforcement, and desecrated our monument to representative democracy flouted the rule of law and disgraced our Nation. Six people, including two U.S. Capitol Police officers, now lie dead in the wake of this assault. The perpetrators must be brought to justice, and I am glad to see that many such cases are progressing around the country. While the ultimate responsibility for this attack rests upon the shoulders of those who unlawfully entered the Capitol, everyone involved must take responsibility for their destructive actions that day, including the former President. As the leader of the Nation, all Presidents bear some responsibility for the actions that they inspire-- good or bad. Undoubtedly, then-President Trump displayed poor leadership in his words and actions. I do not defend those actions and my vote should not be read as a defense of those actions. I am a member of a Court of Impeachment. My job is to vote on the case brought by the House managers. I took an oath to render judgment on the Article of Impeachment sent to the Senate by the House of Representatives. We are confined to considering only the Articles charged and the facts presented. First and foremost, I don't think this impeachment is proper under the Constitution. This is the first time the Senate has tried a former President. Whether or not it can do so is a difficult question. The Constitution doesn't say in black and white ``Yes, the Senate can try a former President'' or ``No, it can't.'' In contrast, many State constitutions at the time of the founding specified that their legislatures could, so it's notable that our Federal charter did not. In order to answer this question it's therefore necessary to look at the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. That's what I have done. In the end, I do not think we have the ability to try a former President. I start always with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power of impeachment. As I mentioned, impeachment was a feature in many State constitutions at the time, and it came from a power enjoyed by the English Parliament. Impeachment in England was a powerful tool whereby Parliament could hold individuals accountable for actions against the government without having to rely on the King to enforce it. It applied not just to sitting government officials but also to former government officials and even to private individuals. It was not simply a way to remove government officials but a general method of punishing the enemies of Parliament, including with fines, jail time, or even death. This is not the system established by our Constitution. Our Constitution restricts the power of impeachment in two important ways. First, it says that Congress can't just impeach anyone: only the President, the Vice President, and ``all civil Officers of the United States'' can be impeached. It then restricts the penalties for impeachment to removal from office and disqualification. A former President is not in any of those three categories. He is not the President. In fact, the Constitution also specifies that when the President is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside over the trial. Chief Justice Roberts has not presided over this trial, thus making it clear that it is not the trial of a President. He is obviously not the Vice President. He is not a civil officer of the United States. Because he does not fall into any of these categories, I don't think that this trial was appropriate. Moving beyond the text of the Constitution, the history of the Senate confirms this. The U.S. Senate has never convicted a former official in an impeachment. The Senate has tried three individuals who were former officers--William Blount a former Senator in 1798; William Belknap a former Secretary of War, in 1876; and Robert Archibald an incumbent Commerce Court judge, in 1912, tried as well for conduct while a district judge). Belknap is the only executive branch member tried after leaving office. None was convicted for his prior conduct, Archibald was convicted on counts relating to his incumbent judicial service on the Commerce Court. In all three cases, the jurisdictional question loomed large at the trial and was cited as an important argument justifying the acquittals. In other words, Senate practice is consistent: It has never convicted a former official in an impeachment. Between the text of the Constitution and the consistent practice of the Senate, I'm convinced that this is not an appropriate use of our power. While I realize there are arguments on the other side from learned scholars, to me, they do not overcome these problems of text and history. That's why I voted twice to deal with this impeachment on jurisdictional grounds. But my position didn't prevail, with the majority Democrats voting in lockstep to proceed, and we went to trial. As I've said, even though I think this is inappropriate, I kept an open mind during the process, and I listened to both sides as they presented their evidence. The House managers tried to prove that President Trump incited an insurrection. That is a difficult argument to make. There were many other Articles over which they could have impeached President Trump, but this is what the House of Representatives chose. They didn't meet their burden. Before getting to the merits of the charge, I need to point out that this impeachment trial has not aligned with principles of due process of law. Other impeachments have involved significant fact-finding in the House, where proper legal formalities are followed, witnesses are heard from and cross-examined, and hard evidence is reviewed. Here there were no hearings in the House. The evidence presented was mostly video montages and news reports. We even had the unusual spectacle of voting to call witnesses for the first time as the trial was ending only to immediately reverse course and call none. Given the seriousness of the situation, I think we should expect better when the House exercises its constitutional duty of impeachment. This issue involves complicated legal questions. In our legal system, though, it is very difficult for speech to rise to the level of incitement. ``Incitement'' is a legal term of art. Usually it takes place in the context of incitement to violence. Incitement, in our legal system, doesn't mean ``encouraging'' violence or ``advocating'' violence or even ``espousing'' violence. It means intentionally causing likely violence. Because the Article of Impeachment uses the word ``incitement,'' I need to evaluate President Trump's actions under the rubrics of the law of incitement, which were set out in the Supreme Court case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. In that case the Court held that incitement required speech that, first, encourages ``imminent lawless action'' and, second, ``is likely to incite or produce such action.'' In other words, in order to succeed, the House managers must have shown that President Trump's speech was intended to direct the crowd to assault the Capitol and that his language was also likely to have that effect. As I said before, what happened on January 6 was tragic. We can't let it happen again. But the House managers have not sufficiently demonstrated that President Trump's speech incited it. While I will have more to say about President Trump's conduct, the fact is that he said this: ``I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.'' That speech is not an incitement to immanent lawless action as established in the case law. I wish the crowd would have listened to him. Just because President Trump did not meet the definition of inciting insurrection does not mean that I think he behaved well. To be clear, I wanted President Trump to win in November. I gave over 30 speeches on his behalf in Iowa the week before the election. He, like any politician, is entitled to seek redress in the courts to resolve election disputes. President Trump did just that, and there's nothing wrong with it. I supported the exercise of this right in the hopes that allowing the election challenge process to play out would remove all doubt about the outcome. The reality is, he lost. He brought over 60 lawsuits and lost all but 1 of them. He was not able to challenge enough votes to overcome President Biden's significant margins in key States. I wish it would have stopped there. It didn't. President Trump continued to argue that the election had been stolen even though the courts didn't back up his claims. He belittled and harassed elected officials across the country to get his way. He encouraged his own, loyal Vice President, Mike Pence, to take extraordinary and unconstitutional actions during the electoral college count. My vote in this impeachment does nothing to excuse or justify those actions. There's no doubt in my mind that President Trump's language was extreme, aggressive, and irresponsible. Unfortunately, others share the blame in polluting our political discourse with inflammatory and divisive language. As President Trump's attorneys showed, whatever we heard from President Trump, we had been hearing from Democrats for years. National Democrats, up to and including President Biden and Vice President Harris, have become regular purveyors of speech dismissing and even condoning violence. It's not surprising that when they talk about taking the ``fight'' to ``the streets'' organizations like antifa actually take to the streets of our cities with shields and bats and fists, destroying lives and livelihoods. Yes, I think President Trump should have accepted President Biden's victory when it became clear he won. I think Secretary Clinton should have done the same thing in 2016. But as recently as 2019, she questioned the legitimacy of Trump's election, saying ``[Trump] knows he's an illegitimate president. I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used, from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories . . . there were just a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out like it did.'' If there's one lesson I hope we all learn from not only last year but the last few years, it's that we all need to tone down the rhetoric. Whether it's the destructive riots we saw last summer or the assault on the Capitol, too many people think that politics really is just war by another name. To far too many people, our democracy isn't free people coming together to make life better for our communities. It's a street fight. We don't need to agree on everything. In fact, part of what makes our democracy great is that we don't agree on everything. But we do need to resolve these differences with debate and with elections, not with violence. Whether the violence comes from the left or the right, it's wrong. The same goes for speech that claims to define enemies by political views or affiliations. We're all Americans, always trying to form a more perfect union. We have more in common than what divides us. It's high time those of us who have been elected to serve lead by example. We can take the high road. We can tone down the rhetoric. We can be respectful even when we disagree strongly. If we don't, we'll be betraying the trust that the American people have placed in us, and we'll endanger the democracy and the freedom that so many of us have worked to preserve. These are difficult issues I have considered over the past week, but in the end, I am confident in what I think is the correct position. We do not have the authority to try a private citizen like former President Trump. Even if we did, he should have been accorded the protections of due process of law in his trial. And even if we assume he has been, the House managers still did not prove that he committed incitement to insurrection, the specific crime of which he stands accused. This does not excuse President Trump's conduct on and around January 6 of this year, it satisfies my oath as a U.S. Senator in this Court of Impeachment. I therefore voted to acquit.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, last week I held 12 meetings in Iowa. Those meetings are for the purpose of having dialogue with my constituents, mostly answering their questions. As many of my colleagues know, I hold face-to-face meetings with Iowans in all 99 counties every year. It has been a privilege to get to every county in every corner of the State every single year for the past four decades. People have asked me why I do this. The simple answer is, in our system of self-government, I am one half of a representative government; my constituents are the other half. My county meetings are a good way for me to keep in touch and see for myself the challenges and successes going on in communities across my home State. In recent years, it has become an important way for me to counter disinformation, correct misinformation, and sidestep censorship that Americans digest daily in the mainstream and social media. Big tech and big data companies, much like State surveillance and Big Brother, share something in common: If left unchecked, Big Tech can undermine the privacy, civil liberties, and constitutional freedoms that every American should hold sacred and should never take for granted. Responsible digital citizenship is more important now than ever, particularly with the censuring that is going on. Consumers must be mindful about their digital footprint. Anything typed into a search engine is effectively a digital diary, saved in the cloud for some rainy day. Consumers must be mindful about what is posted, what is downloaded, what is shared, and what is liked on social media platforms. The road to responsible and accountable digital citizenship isn't solely the consumer's responsibility. Social media companies, as well as content and internet providers, are not exempt from ethical corporate stewardship, especially when the welfare of the next generation is at stake. Keep in mind that human trafficking is a pervasive crime that grooms and blackmails young people on Main Street but also in online communications. However, having said all those question marks about Big Tech, I think we all realize that Big Tech isn't all bad. Technology companies have revolutionized our way of life and how we connect with friends and family. During the pandemic--and we are still in that pandemic-- technology delivered invaluable connections for e-commerce, for digital learning, for teleworking, and for telehealth. However, that doesn't give big tech and big data companies license to undermine constitutional protections or disregard harmful impacts their products and services have on civic life and public trust in our American democracy. Titans of technology need to take responsibility for the products they build, sell, and profit from fellow Americans. Policymakers and regulators have a duty to shape and enforce the rules of the road. Big Tech and all of its stakeholders, from content makers, social media platforms, and internet service providers, all bear responsibility to understand how their business model puts freedom at risk. Red flags are popping up all over the digital frontier, from recurring data breaches to online censorship, misuse of user profiles, and the recent mess with an online brokerage app. In the last two Presidential elections, Big Tech has had a big influence on information that appeared or didn't appear in Americans' social media feeds. Big Tech can't hide behind its business model when its revenue streams cash in on an infrastructure that sows division and distrust among Americans. This ecosystem has been exploited to radicalize political extremism and mobilize civil unrest. Social media companies have reaped the benefits of their enterprise, so these companies bear some responsibility to help repair cracks in the architecture of our civic institutions and also to heal the wounds festering in American life. Our economic freedom allows social media companies to create a business model that grows their bottom line. Americans need to understand their personal data is harvested for profit. Advertisers buy the data to influence consumer and voter behavior. The bottom line for every American ought to be ensuring that constitutional protections aren't archived--out of sight, out of mind--in the annals of history. I am not saying Big Tech is a bad actor, but I am calling on Big Tech to be a good actor. Take responsibility for the online ecosystem you created. Congress also must take a good, hard look at this famous section 230 we all talk about that has given these platforms great protection--more protection than they probably deserve--and whether, in regard to section 230, there is a need to reform immunity laws on the books. I think there is great reason to do that. We have seen what happens when conversations take place online versus in person. Take it from me. The tone of conversation was neighborly and civil when I talked with these Iowans last week in Forest City, IA, or Ogden, IA, to answer their questions. However civil that is, it is sure offset by the incivility on these platforms. Incivility outflanks kindness, I think, tenfold in the responses posted on my Twitter account. We need to work together to heal the unholy civil divide that has taken root online. It is bleeding into our way of life, pitting neighbor against neighbor, and harming the ability of elected leaders to build bipartisan consensus for the public good. I am here to put social media platforms, the mainstream media, Congress, and the American public on notice: The digital landscape needs a reboot. What we do with this space will influence how young people participate in civic and political life for generations to come. So, in closing, in the coming days, I am going to have more conversations with my colleagues on this through a series of speeches. I will be talking more about social and mainstream media, censorship, and freedom of speech, particularly on college campuses. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to reintroduce a bill that didn't get passed last Congress, a bill that deals with safety in our schools, a bill aimed at the disasters that come when schoolchildren are killed by shooters and to deal with this problem through a program that the Secret Service has had for decades and asking the Secret Service to see what they can do to apply the principles of that program to stop mass killings at our schools. Three years ago, on February 14, 2018, an unspeakable tragedy occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. In less than 4 minutes, 14 students and 3 staff members were killed, and, consequently, their families' and friends' lives were shattered forever by such a senseless act. Today, along with my colleagues Senators Rubio and Scott of Florida, Senators Cortez Masto, Collins, Manchin, and Hassan, I am proud to reintroduce legislation that will proactively mitigate threats of violence on school campuses by reauthorizing and expanding the U.S. Secret Service's program called the National Threat Assessment Center. The National Threat Assessment Center studies targeted violence and develops best practices and training to identify and manage threats before they result in violence like we saw at that school 3 years ago. The bill establishes a Safe School Initiative, a national program on school violence prevention, that will include expanded research on school violence. Most importantly, this legislation allows the Secret Service to directly equip communities and schools with training and best practices on recognizing and preventing school violence. This bill, which I hope will help us to recognize the signs of a potential attack way long before such an attack occurs, carries the namesake of those it couldn't save, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mascot, so this bill is called the EAGLES Act because that is the mascot of that school. Two years ago, the Secret Service conducted a review of school shootings and made a very pivotal finding: All attackers exhibited concerning behaviors prior to engaging in an act of violence. In other words, it should be easy to identify these people, and, if identified, intervention is possible. So had these signs been recognized at an early enough stage, these attacks could have been stopped. In the wake of the Parkland shooting in 2018, Congress took steps to protect schools and to prevent gun violence, including the passage of the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act, which provided funding to schools to strengthen their infrastructure to make it more difficult for shooters to enter schools. At that same time, we passed the Fix NICS Act, a law which penalizes Federal agencies that fail to comply with legal requirements to report dangerous individuals and violent criminals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System so that if they are so reported, then they won't be able to purchase a gun. However, by passing the EAGLES Act, we are entering a vital third step in addition to those other two bills to protect our schools. I would like to encourage all of my Senate colleagues to support this bipartisan and, I think, a very commonsense bill. I hope that we can focus on productive measures like these rather than unfocused efforts to undermine lawful gun ownership

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to reintroduce a bill that didn't get passed last Congress, a bill that deals with safety in our schools, a bill aimed at the disasters that come when schoolchildren are killed by shooters and to deal with this problem through a program that the Secret Service has had for decades and asking the Secret Service to see what they can do to apply the principles of that program to stop mass killings at our schools. Three years ago, on February 14, 2018, an unspeakable tragedy occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. In less than 4 minutes, 14 students and 3 staff members were killed, and, consequently, their families' and friends' lives were shattered forever by such a senseless act. Today, along with my colleagues Senators Rubio and Scott of Florida, Senators Cortez Masto, Collins, Manchin, and Hassan, I am proud to reintroduce legislation that will proactively mitigate threats of violence on school campuses by reauthorizing and expanding the U.S. Secret Service's program called the National Threat Assessment Center. The National Threat Assessment Center studies targeted violence and develops best practices and training to identify and manage threats before they result in violence like we saw at that school 3 years ago. The bill establishes a Safe School Initiative, a national program on school violence prevention, that will include expanded research on school violence. Most importantly, this legislation allows the Secret Service to directly equip communities and schools with training and best practices on recognizing and preventing school violence. This bill, which I hope will help us to recognize the signs of a potential attack way long before such an attack occurs, carries the namesake of those it couldn't save, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mascot, so this bill is called the EAGLES Act because that is the mascot of that school. Two years ago, the Secret Service conducted a review of school shootings and made a very pivotal finding: All attackers exhibited concerning behaviors prior to engaging in an act of violence. In other words, it should be easy to identify these people, and, if identified, intervention is possible. So had these signs been recognized at an early enough stage, these attacks could have been stopped. In the wake of the Parkland shooting in 2018, Congress took steps to protect schools and to prevent gun violence, including the passage of the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act, which provided funding to schools to strengthen their infrastructure to make it more difficult for shooters to enter schools. At that same time, we passed the Fix NICS Act, a law which penalizes Federal agencies that fail to comply with legal requirements to report dangerous individuals and violent criminals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System so that if they are so reported, then they won't be able to purchase a gun. However, by passing the EAGLES Act, we are entering a vital third step in addition to those other two bills to protect our schools. I would like to encourage all of my Senate colleagues to support this bipartisan and, I think, a very commonsense bill. I hope that we can focus on productive measures like these rather than unfocused efforts to undermine lawful gun ownership

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, tomorrow we are going to be taking up the nomination of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and now the nominee to be Secretary of Agriculture again. I fully support this nomination. He has received support from farm and commodity groups across the country, but, more important to this Senator, he received praise from family farmers in Iowa. However, a few critics of the former Iowa Governor have raised questions about his record on addressing racial inequities during his time as Secretary of Agriculture from 2009 until 2017. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. I have long worked toward ensuring Black farmers receive justice for the decades of discrimination that occurred through many different administrations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, both Republican and Democratic. People have often asked me why in the world a Senator from Iowa would get involved in this issue. While there aren't many Black farmers in Iowa, my State has a long history of fighting against oppression of African Americans dating to the Underground Railroad. There is no reason to stop that trend. In my first discussion with then-to-be Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack in 2009, I brought up my work in what is called the Pigford consent decree. A provision I led in the 2008 farm bill enabled more Black farmers to bring their claims forward and authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture $100 million for additional settlements. Mr. Vilsack at that time, talking to me privately, vowed then to work closely with me and other Senators on issues and then immediately got to work doing just that, helping Black farmers. Under the leadership of Secretary Vilsack, the U.S. Department of Agriculture discovered that the $100 million at that time appropriated wasn't enough to cover the settlements that Black farmers were entitled to under that consent decree, so in 2010, part of Secretary Vilsack's budget request included over $1 billion to ensure a robust settlement for all Black farmers who were discriminated against for the previous two or three decades. The Claims Resolution Act was signed by President Obama in December 2010 and implemented successfully by Secretary Vilsack. Besides the Pigford settlements, a top priority during Secretary Vilsack's previous tenure was ensuring a comprehensive plan to improve the USDA's record on civil rights, and that record on civil rights wasn't very good based upon what I have already said about the Pigford case but in a lot of other areas as well. Secretary Vilsack made it clear to all employees that discrimination of any form would not be tolerated at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. My support for justice for those who have faced discrimination remains constant, and I am looking forward to working with Secretary Vilsack and leaders in the Congress to ensure equal rights for every farmer and family in this country. I am glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight on Secretary Tom Vilsack's solid record in pursuing justice for victims of discrimination. Mr. Vilsack is the right person for this job. I know that Secretary Vilsack will continue to work for family farmers and spotlight those farmers' contributions to agriculture and what agriculture does for society as a whole. As an Iowan, that is part of Mr. Vilsack's very nature. I urge my colleagues to confirm Secretary Vilsack once again so that the Department of Agriculture has the necessary leadership in place to continue the important work, and that is, supporting those who feed and fuel the country and, indirectly, a lot of people around the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, in his inaugural address, President Biden said his ``whole soul'' was in the cause of ``Bringing America together. Uniting our people. And uniting our Nation''--very worthy things to speak and especially in an inaugural address. He also recognized that Americans have serious disagreements. Everyone knows that our country is deeply divided politically. I know from his time in the Senate that President Biden understands that people of good will can have honest disagreements about policy. So he knows that unity does not mean dropping deeply held beliefs and accepting his own policy agenda. As he said--and I have two quotes here--``Every disagreement doesn't have to be a cause of total war'' and ``Disagreement must not lead to disunion.'' Real unity requires rediscovering what binds us together as Americans even when we have strongly disagreed politically. As I have often said, our Nation is unique in human history in that it was founded not on the basis of common ethnic identity or loyalty to, let's say, a Monarch but on certain enduring principles. Those principles are best articulated in the simple but elegant words of the Declaration of Independence. And you all read these regularly, I am sure. We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. It is a common commitment to this ideal that has bound us together as Americans from the beginning. Our patriot forefathers concluded that these principles were worth fighting for and took up arms in an improbable quest to defeat the largest and best trained military at that particular time. This included many Black patriots who fought for American independence--a unifying fact that I believe deserves a monument on the National Mall, something that I have been working toward for years. I want to quote Margaret Thatcher. She once observed this. It is a fairly long quote, so bear with me. Americans and Europeans alike sometimes forget how unique is the United States of America. No other nation has been created so swiftly and successfully. No other nation has been built upon an idea--the idea of liberty. No other nation has so successfully combined people of different races and nations within a single culture. Both the founding fathers of the United States and successive waves of immigrants to your country were determined to create a new identity. Whether in flight from persecution or from poverty, the huddled masses have, with few exceptions, welcomed American values, the American way of life and American opportunities. And America herself has bound them to her with powerful bonds of patriotism and pride. The European nations are not and can never be like this. They are the product of history and not of philosophy. End of Thatcher's quote. This quote from a British leader is one of the best summaries that I have read about American exceptionalism. The term ``American exceptionalism'' is often misunderstood, perhaps due to a quirk of the English language. Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives three definitions of ``exceptional": one, ``forming an exception,'' as they give an example: ``RARE, an exceptional number of rainy days''; or, two, ``better than average: SUPERIOR, exceptional skill'' are the words they expand on ``average''; ``deviating from the norm, such as having above or below average intelligence'' or physical disability. Many people here and abroad assume that those who talk about American exceptionalism are just using the second definition and simply asserting that the United States is better than any other country, and that is a wrong interpretation American exceptionalism is an assertion of the plain fact that America's foundation is very different from that of most other nations. However, our foundation is increasingly under attack from both the right and the left. Both the 1619 Project and White nationalists assert that America's founding principles are alive and that the United States was founded along ethnic lines. Oddly enough, this was a position taken by John C. Calhoun in the U.S. Senate when he articulated an alternative to the founding principles intended to justify maintaining slavery in perpetuity. Fortunately, Abraham Lincoln, who revered the Declaration of Independence, prevailed. The notion that our founding principles are a lie isn't just bad history; it breaks the bonds that unite Americans of all backgrounds. The 1776 Commission was established specifically to ``enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776 and to strive to perform a more perfect Union.'' The introduction to ``The 1776 Report'' states that ``a rediscovery of our shared identity rooted in our founding principles is the path to a renewed American unity and a confident American future.'' I could not agree more. That is why I was disappointed to see President Biden terminate this commission the same day he took office after making his call for unity. The call to unity is exactly what the President asked for in his inaugural address. What specifically in that 1776 Commission document does President Biden disagree with? Yes, the report is critical of far-left efforts to denigrate our founding principles, but it is also an important corrective to the alt-right effort to import European-style ethno- nationalism, which is also deeply un-American in every sense. ``The 1776 Report'' calls for ``a restoration of American education, which can only be grounded on a history of those principles that is `accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling.' '' By contrast, California has proposed an ethnic study curriculum that is rooted in the fundamental divisive tenants of critical race theory, with its focus on separate groups of Americans into different degrees of oppressor and oppressed. Interestingly, despite the California curriculum's focus on victims of prejudice, discussion of anti-Semitism is omitted in favor of criticism of Israel. This curriculum also totally skips over the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Remember his dream? I quote that statement that he made: It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal.'' Now, that is a very unifying statement. I encourage all Americans to read ``The 1776 Report'' for yourself. See if you don't agree with the central message that shared attachment to our timeless founding principles is what binds us as a nation. It is no longer available on the main White House website, but it can still be found on the Trump administration's archived website. It is also available on the Hillsdale College website.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment creates a point of order against repeal of the SALT tax deduction as part of the COVID package. Any COVID relief package should be targeted at helping those in need, not the benefit of the top 1 percent. According to JCT, over half of the benefit from the repeal would go to those with incomes over $1 million, and $50,000 or lower wouldn't benefit at all. According to an analysis of the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent would receive an average tax cut of $144,000. No COVID relief package should include six-figure tax cuts to multimillionaires when millions of middle-class Americans are struggling to make ends meet. And for the benefit of my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is not progressive to give tax cuts to the top 1 percent of the people.