Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for the purpose of Senate amendment 91, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment 91 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak in opposition to it. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, can you imagine the free market person that Senator Cruz is wanting the government to set prices? This is dirty Big Oil versus clean-burning ethanol. (Applause.) And for the benefit of people on the other side of the aisle, I had conversations with Mr. Regan this week. He said that your President-- our President--was for ethanol. He also said, and I know, campaigning in Iowa, Biden campaigned for ethanol. So this is an opportunity. And this business that this isn't going to cost anything--EPA itself said that there is no compliance cost. And EPA in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals made very clear that these waivers for small refineries were violating the law. (Applause.)

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you. The actions of my Democratic colleagues this week make it clear that they do not have any intention of working with Republicans on a bipartisan COVID package. There is no other explanation for the budget resolution that was introduced this week. We are not considering this budget resolution for the usual purpose of establishing overall spending and revenue levels for the fiscal year. That has already been done. The sole purpose, then, of this budget is to establish reconciliation instructions whereby the majority can pass a partisan COVID package on a party-line vote, quite contrary to the inaugural address of President Biden where he said he was going to be reaching out to Republicans. I know there has been some discussion with Republicans but not a serious effort to compromise. Embarking down this inherently partisan path of going the budgetary reconciliation route now poisons the well for any fruitful bipartisan negotiation. And you can't say it too many times that it is completely at odds with President Biden's call for unity and bipartisanship during the campaign and told to the people of the United States in the inaugural address. It doesn't have to be this way. My Republican colleagues and I stand ready to engage in bipartisan discussions to reach an agreement to provide targeted COVID relief. A consensus package could be done very quickly, just as happened with the bipartisan CARES package back in March of last year. The relief package Congress passed in December came together very quickly once both sides agreed to set aside partisan poison pills. Republicans did that for things we wanted, and Democrats did that for things they wanted. Now, hardly 6 weeks later, here we are back on a partisan approach to helping the needy people because of the pandemic and helping the healthcare crisis because of the pandemic. In the past year or so, we have done a lot. We have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to pass around $4 trillion in COVID-focused relief, and we did that all--you can't say it too many times--with strong bipartisan support. Why not now? There is no reason we can't come together for the American people and do it once more and probably have to do it again after something would be passed the early part of this year. Instead of wasting our time with a weeklong partisan exercise, we could be working together today to forge a bipartisan compromise. If this was the course that the majority were to take, I think there is much that we could agree to with near universal support and do it in short order. Everyone recognizes we need to get control of the virus as a first priority. That is necessary to save lives and get back to anything close to resembling a normally functioning economy. Rapid deployment of the vaccine is our best hope for our getting there to get the economy functioning. I doubt a single Member of this Senate body would object to additional funds for vaccine distribution if it will get more people vaccinated sooner. I am also confident that many on my side could agree to additional relief for individuals and small businesses that have been hardest hit by the pandemic. I am sure of that because we have done it twice in the past. We can have a discussion on unemployment assistance, rental assistance, funds for reopening schools, and additional grants to small businesses to help them keep the lights on. I can say that very positively because we have done it twice in the past. But any relief, from our point of view, ought to be targeted and focused on the task at hand. At $1.9 trillion, the President's proposal is far from being targeted and far from being focused. It includes permanent, liberal, structural economic reforms. This is using a crisis to enact long-term Democratic policy priorities rather than addressing the immediate needs of the day. It also includes a bailout of fiscally irresponsible States at the expense of States that have managed their budgets very wisely, like my home State of Iowa. This is fundamentally unfair to the taxpayers in responsibly governed States. The President putting forward his proposal should have marked the beginning of the discussion, not the end. If my Democratic colleagues would abandon this partisan exercise, bipartisan discussions could start in earnest. In fact, 10 Republicans made an attempt to do that by spending 2 hours with President Biden at the Oval Office. They reached out, obviously, and President Biden listened and discussed in good faith, but it doesn't seem like anything can come of it. This may mean that you have to compromise on some priorities. That is a simple part of life here in the U.S. Senate if you want to get anything done. The excuse that there isn't enough time or the need for relief is so urgent that bipartisanship must go out the window is just that--nothing but a simple excuse. By following the current path, this entire week is being wasted on partisan theater, with no tangible benefit for the American people. At the end of this week, the Senate will be no closer to drafting actual relief legislation. We should instead be working together to iron out our differences, to get bipartisan relief to the American people, and that can be done sooner than using the reconciliation process that turns out to be a partisan approach that is needless to do based on the fact that twice in the last 11 months, we have passed bipartisan virus relief packages to help fight the pandemic, to help people who are hurt by the economic consequences of that pandemic, and also to give confidence to the American people. Let's move in a bipartisan way. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to bring up the point that there must be equal attention to the dangers of extremism, whether it is extremism of the right or extremism of the left. We have all been horrified by the senseless criminal acts that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 of this year. A violent mob was able to overrun Capitol Police and quickly gain access to the area where a joint session of Congress was being held. Five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died as a result of this attack. I hope that together, Republicans and Democrats, we can get to the bottom of what occurred on that day and ensure that it never happens again In the spirit of collaboration, I must direct everyone's attention to something that has occurred to me, and that is the need to condemn all political violence regardless of ideology. Like many Americans, I have been deeply troubled by the rioting, looting, anti-police attacks, and deaths that have occurred this summer. While many very legitimately protested the death of George Floyd in a peaceful manner, consistent with their rights under the First Amendment, thousands of others did not do it in a peaceful manner and probably did it for a lot of other reasons than just George Floyd's death. One of the most upsetting aspects of the violence of this summer has been how it has targeted innocent law enforcement officers. Over 700 officers were injured between May 27 and June 8, 2020. This number is likely underreported as nearly 300 of those injuries occurred only in New York City. Acting Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli testified at a hearing in front of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution that there had been 277 Federal officer injuries at the Federal courthouse in Portland, adding further to that total previously given to you. Officers were assaulted nightly there for months--slashed, hard objects thrown at them, struck with objects like hammers and baseball bats, even blinded by lasers. In another offensive, 60 Secret Service officers were injured during a sustained attack on the White House, which caused then-President Trump to be taken to a secure bunker. The church across the street from the White House was lit on fire as part of that continued assault. Over 300 people were charged federally for their roles in these weeks and months of violence. Eighty of those charges related to the use of arson and explosives. Others involved assaults on officers and the destruction of government property. However, the nationwide riots, which broke out in nearly every major city in the country, were predominantly State offenses. At least 14,000 people were arrested in 49 cities. At least 25 people died in violence related to the riots. Property Claim Services--a company that tracks insurance claims relating to riots and civil disorders--estimates that the insurance losses from the summer's civil unrest ``far outstrip'' all previous records to possibly exceed $2 billion. It has been a relatively frequent sight at the summer's violent events to see individuals acting in coordination in all black bloc, holding the ``A'' symbol of antifa. An admitted antifa adherent in Portland murdered a conservative protester. Antifa supporters have been charged federally for promoting riots and using Molotov cocktails. While that violence has slackened now since President Biden's electoral victory was declared, it has far from abated. Antifa rioters attacked the Oregon Democratic Party's headquarters on inauguration day itself. The far left of this country continues to believe violence will get more attention for their causes even after a Democratic victory win for the White House. Much of the violence of the summer was specifically investigated by the FBI as domestic terrorism. FBI Director Chris Wray provides statistics on domestic terrorism in his annual threats testimony. He has previously testified that 900 to 1,000 domestic terrorism investigations exist at any given time. There are also about 1,000-- what they call--homegrown violent extremism investigations. These are cases in which an entirely U.S.-based person without direct contact with a foreign terrorist organization is motivated by the global jihadist movement, and, of course, there are thousands more international terrorism investigations. Former U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox testified in a subcommittee hearing that over 300 domestic terrorism cases were opened due to the violence just this past summer. This is a significant increase in the ordinary amount of domestic terrorism in the United States. That this violence occurred--and the facts and the figures that surround it-- should not be news to anyone. However, I must admit that I have been extremely surprised by the responses of Democratic Members to this violence. For weeks and months, the most consistent response seemed to be to deny the violence was occurring at all. I saw Jerrold Nadler on TV--the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee--deny that antifa itself was real. In a nationally televised debate with then-President Trump, then- Candidate Joe Biden wrongly stated that antifa was only an ``idea.'' This is even after FBI Director Wray had already testified to Congress that antifa was absolutely a ``real thing'' and that the FBI had cases and investigations against those calling themselves ``antifa.'' It seems that some Democrats are living in a different world than those who have seen businesses boarded up, if not burned out, images of violence in the streets, and terrifying attacks on police officers. When the violence was admitted by those same people, it seemed to have been condone rather than condemned. Now, Vice President Harris previously said: They're not going to stop, and everyone, beware. [ . . . ] And they should not, and we should not. You have seen that quote many times on various TV channels. Our new Vice President did not disclaim the rioting and unrest and direct her followers only to lawful action. Congresswoman Pressley stated: ``There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives.'' Speaker Pelosi famously said this on the widespread property damage. As you saw, when asked about it, she was quoted as saying: ``People will do what they do.'' That is a direct quote from her, and you have seen that many times on television. Now, that indifference that seems to be expressed in those and in a lot of other quotations we could give to the violence that our constituents were enduring was dramatically shattered when a violent riot came to this building itself. After that event, many Members of Congress asked why a more militarized force had not protected them from a group of then-President Trump supporters who had turned violent. Police officers were again considered heroes and protectors unlike last summer when they were attacked. The presence of National Guard members was all of a sudden welcomed rather than decried unlike last summer, in cities like Portland and Seattle, when mayors condemned, maybe, the President or the Federal Government, generally, for interfering and trying to bring peace to those cities. Many of the people of this country would like to have such resources available to them to ensure their safety, like every weekend in Chicago when there are dozens of people hurt by shootings and a lot of people killed in that same weekend. Since the day of the attack on the Capitol, I have heard much of a renewed focus among my Democratic colleagues on combating domestic terrorism and political violence, and there is nothing wrong with combating domestic terrorism and political violence. That is why my first words today were that there needs to be equal attention to the danger of terrorism, whether it is of the left or of the right. As I indicated in my words just stated, this is very much welcomed--any attention we can give to domestic terrorism and political violence--and I hope that we will be able to work together to keep Americans safe. However, any work that we do in this area must be focused on preventing violence no matter what ideology is given to justify that violence. In fact, in a recent Department of Homeland Security bulletin, that bulletin noted the breadth of potential threats we may be facing after the Capitol riot, including domestic violent extremists ``motivated by a range of issues, including anger over COVID-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force'' as well as ``racial and ethnic tension'' and homegrown violent extremists ``inspired by foreign terrorist groups.'' The response that I have seen to the Capitol riot here in Congress has not given me hope that we are in agreement about combating this broad range of threats in the spirit of giving equal attention to the dangers of domestic terrorism or any kind of violation of law, whether it comes from the right or the left. I have seen that many Democratic Members of Congress seem to be discussing the need to combat White supremacism with reference to the Capitol riot. I am not going to find fault with anybody who talks about any race of any kind thinking they are supreme to anybody else because we are all individuals that God loves, and if we were to return that love, we wouldn't have a lot of problems in this country. We must absolutely combat White supremacism, wherever it occurs, and we have a responsibility to understand the true factors that led to the attack on this building. I hope to learn more from law enforcement over the coming weeks and months about what the involvement of White supremacists or any other extremist was in this attack. However, I am concerned that the use of the term may have a different purpose: to try to portray any supporters of former President Trump, who garnered over 74 million votes in the most recent election, as White supremacists. Congresswoman Cori Bush stated on the House floor that former President Trump was a ``white supremacist president who incited a white supremacist insurrection.'' I hope everyone can agree that such rhetorical and inaccurate characterizations are dangerous. More concerning seems to be the idea that violence committed by the far left or for left-leaning ideologies is in some way tolerable because of the left's assessment that the purpose of all that violence is somehow noble. However, right-leaning thought, whether accompanied by violence or not, is considered terroristic. Former CIA Director John Brennan, whose credibility has been questioned, praised incoming President Biden's inaugural reference to defeating ``white supremacy'' and likened libertarians to ``religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists.'' It is hard to see how libertarian political philosophy, a mainstream conservative political ideology which is scarcely in any way associated with violence, is related to the other terms that Mr. Brennan lists, unless, of course, Mr. Brennan is simply referring to religious Americans as religious extremists, or those who believe in the rule of law rather than antifa rioting as ``authoritarians'' and ``fascists,'' or those who believe in having a functioning immigration system as somehow they seem to be bigots or racists or nativists. In short, these are all terms that are applied regularly and unfairly to conservative Americans using peaceful means to argue for their ideas of religious freedom, law and order, and secure borders, and probably a lot of other things that they argue for. Congresswoman Jackie Speier was even more direct in a tweet, suggesting that all Republicans be labeled terrorists. As a body, we may begin looking into domestic terrorism more generally. I look forward to so doing. I am sure all Members will share my commitment that the focus of our inquiry should be on all of the politically motivated violence we have seen in this country and not somehow just a subset of that politically motivated violence. The men and women of this Nation who have been affected by antifa and other leftwing extremists are entitled to much more than a cursory acknowledgment of that fact. Likewise, I hope no part of our effort will focus on demonizing the peaceful expression of ideas with which Democratic Members disagree. I will be sharing the ideas that I have on this subject and these concerns that I have stated today directly with my friend, the incoming Senate Judiciary chairman, Senator Durbin. He will get a letter from me, and I look forward to working with Senator Durbin on the path forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Senate is considering the nomination of Mr. Mayorkas to serve as Secretary of Homeland Security. I come to the floor at this point, before we vote on that motion today, to raise questions about whether or not he should be in that position as Secretary of Homeland Security and the fact that I will be voting negative. I am familiar with Mr. Mayorkas from my past oversight of the EB-5 investment visa program. From 2009 until 2013, Mr. Mayorkas served as Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which administers that EB-5 visa program. During that time, more than 15 whistleblowers approached my office to raise questions about Mr. Mayorkas and his management of the EB-5 program. The whistleblowers allege that Mr. Mayorkas was intervening in routine and technical matters that were not typically handled by the Director of that Division. They also alleged that he was doing so at the request of well-connected Democratic politicians and other politically connected stakeholders. As my colleagues are aware, I have long criticized the fraud and abuse that are rampant in the EB-5 program, and I have continually reintroduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Leahy to reform the program. So it shouldn't be a surprise to any of my colleagues that when I hear from 15 different whistleblowers anything about the EB-5 program, I would further investigate it. I have also conducted consistent oversight of the EB-5 program across Presidential administrations, whether they were Democrat or Republican. So when whistleblowers approach my office with these serious allegations, as I said before, I am determined to get to the bottom of these matters. One of the cases in which whistleblowers said Mr. Mayorkas had intervened involved a company with ties to former Secretary Clinton's brother, Anthony Rodham. Mr. Rodham's company wasn't happy with the speed with which its applications were being conducted by the Customs and Immigration Service, so company representatives made repeated inquiries to the Department of Homeland Security and Mr. Mayorkas. And they did this in an effort to get Mr. Mayorkas to speed things up. My investigation found that between 2010 and 2013, Mr. Mayorkas had nearly a dozen contacts with that company, including direct communications with its attorneys. Mr. Mayorkas forwarded requests from the company along to his team, marking at least one of those forwarded messages as ``high priority.'' He became heavily involved in the process of revising a draft of a technical decision from his Division's Administrative Appeals Office that was initially unfavorable to the company. So, because of his involvement, in the end, th opinion was rewritten in a manner that was much more favorable to Mr. Rodham's company. In 2013, I wrote Mr. Mayorkas five letters about his management of the EB-5 program. In those letters, I asked him detailed questions in order to get his side of the story, and when he didn't answer my initial questions, I wrote him repeatedly to follow up. At this point, it has been more than 7 years, and I still have not received answers to more than 25 specific questions that I asked during that 2013 investigation. Following his nomination to serve as Department of Homeland Security Secretary, I wrote to Mr. Mayorkas again on January 15 to raise my concerns and to provide him yet another opportunity to answer my questions. He sent me a very short response on January 19 that--can you believe this?--still failed to answer most of the questions that I was trying to get answers for. It is very important for nominees confirmed by this body to be responsive to congressional oversight requests. Mr. Mayorkas consistently refused to respond to my questions, and that should concern all of us in the U.S. Senate because no Senator should be denied answers to his questions doing proper oversight of the executive branch. Furthermore, we now know that many of the whistleblower allegations made to my office were accurate. Many whistleblowers who approached my office raised similar concerns with John Roth, the Obama-appointed inspector general at the Department of Homeland Security at that time, who released his office's report detailing its investigation into these matters way back in 2015. In that 2015 report, Inspector General Roth found that ``employees' belief that Mr. Mayorkas favored certain politically powerful EB-5 stakeholders was reasonable.'' That is the end of quote of the inspector general's report. The IG also said that the number and variety of witnesses who came forward in his investigation was ``highly unusual.'' Allegations didn't come from one or two disgruntled employees, according to the inspector general; they came from current and retired career and noncareer members of the Senior Executive Service, as well as all levels of supervisors, immigration officers, attorneys, and employees involved in fraud detection and in national security. According to Inspector General Roth, the fact ``[t]hat so many individuals were willing to step forward and tell . . . what happened [was] evidence of deep resentment about Mr. Mayorkas's actions related to the EB-5 program.'' That is the end of quote from the IG report. The IG also found that Mr. Mayorkas's actions ``created an appearance of favoritism and special access'' in some EB-5 adjudication matters and that he ``created specific processes and revised existing policies in the EB-5 program to accommodate specific parties.'' In addition to the case involving Mr. Rodham's company, other cases reviewed by the inspector general involved well-connected Democrats, including former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In each of the cases reviewed by the inspector general where Mr. Mayorkas had intervened, the IG found that ``but for Mr. Mayorkas's intervention, the matter would have been decided differently.'' Witnesses were also fearful, and some only spoke to the IG after being assured of anonymity. One whistleblower told my office they were extremely uncomfortable in meetings with Mr. Mayorkas. Mr. Mayorkas's actions raised serious concerns in 2013 when he was nominated to serve as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security during President Obama's second term. It is why he couldn't be confirmed to that role until after then-Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option on nominations. Not a single Republican Senator was willing to support his confirmation then, and no Senator should support it at this time. Finally, I am concerned that Mr. Mayorkas did not seem to express any regret whatsoever for his previous actions during his recent confirmation hearing before the Homeland Security Committee. Instead, he appeared to take the view that interfering in EB-5 cases on behalf of well-connected politicians and stakeholders was somehow the same as casework help offered to Americans who experienced problems with the international adoption systems. It was a baffling comparison. Now, every one of us Senators knows that when a nominee for the Cabinet or Subcabinet comes before our committee, they are always asked questions by Senators--for sure, I do it: Will you respond to our oversight letters, phone calls, or appearing before our committee? And every one of them says yes, but not every one of them--how would you say it? Not every one of them keeps their word, I guess is what I should say. So I suggest to them, if you really want to be honest to take that oath to answer in an honest fashion, maybe when you have that question asked, ``Will you respond to requests from committee members in our oversight work?'' you ought to say ``maybe'' instead of saying ``yes.'' Anyway, I think it is very clear that I strongly oppose Mr. Mayorkas's confirmation, and I urge all of my colleagues to reject it as well. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Please raise your right hand. Your hand is on the Bible. Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, former President of the United States, now pending, that you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws, so help you God?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to recognize the retirement of MG Arthur Dean as CEO and executive chairman of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, known as CADCA. MG Arthur T. Dean, U.S. Army, Retired, came from humble beginnings in North Carolina to rise to the highest, most distinguished levels of military service, where he retired after 31 years at the grade of major general. He possesses numerous military awards, with the highest being two awards of the U.S. Army Distinguished Service Medal. I have had the honor to work with CADCA for many years and have long supported their efforts to prevent drug abuse. For instance, I supported and led efforts to create the Drug Free Communities Program in 1997. Major General Dean began his career as CEO and board chair at CADCA in 1998, so we have had the pleasure of working on anti-drug efforts for over 20 years. I applaud him in his well-deserved retirement. Over the past 23 years of service, I have had the pleasure to witness General Dean use his superior leadership, diplomatic skills, and passion to build CADCA into a world-class organization. Under his leadership, the Drug Free Communities Program has grown, and now over 2,000 communities benefit from these grants. General Dean is a leader with vision, compassion, and a steely determination to ensure that substance use prevention remains a national priority so the next generation of Americans can grow up safe, healthy and drug free. General Dean has been an outstanding leader of CADCA. His legacy will be one of progress and dedication towards reducing rates of youth substance use and misuse. I want to thank General Dean for his dedicated and exceptional service to our Nation, both as a military and civilian leader, and wish him well in his much-deserved retirement.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 2 minutes to speak, please, for two purposes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. One, I congratulate my friend, Patrick Leahy for once again assuming the position of President pro tempore after 6 years of absence, I believe, and also to express my working relationship with him in the 40 years that he and I have served together in the U.S. Senate. But also to the fourth estate, because we always read about rancor on television, radio, and print--they never speak about how Senators get along. We have seen a peaceful transfer of leadership position in the U.S. Senate, from a Senator from Kentucky to a Senator from New York. Now, for the first purpose of rising, because most of my colleagues don't know, when there is nobody on the Senate and I open the Senate up for prayer and for the Pledge of Allegiance, I usually give a 1-minute speech. And I would like to give my last 1-minute speech as President pro tempore. I am not saying that I won't take advantage of that opportunity when nobody else is around, as well. Four years ago, our Nation's Capital was full of people who had come to celebrate a new President's inauguration, and it was full of people who came to protest the winner of that election. This Biden inauguration was different in that respect. But this year, just like 4 years ago, there are Americans who question the election outcome and did not want the inauguration to proceed. Since election day, I have urged Americans to have faith in our constitutional system and let the Constitution work the way it has for 240 years--work its course. Today was the culmination of that process. Like 4 years ago, I know that many Americans are not happy with how it turned out. That is absolutely fine, just like 4 years ago was fine for those people that resisted. In our country, nobody is obliged to like or support a President, but, hopefully, people will really respect the Office of the Presidency, regardless who holds it. However, while the Presidency changed hands, I hope we can retire, hashtag ``resist.'' You wouldn't know it listening to partisan commentators from the right or left, but you do not have to make a choice between giving your President unqualified support or total opposition to the President. As a legislator, I would be doing a disservice to those I represent if I did either unqualified support for a Republican President or total opposition to a Democratic President. In my work on behalf of Iowans, I have to engage with the administration of the day if I want to be a responsible Senator. As I have with every President, I will seek to find common ground with President Biden wherever possible, but I will strongly oppose policies that I think are not good for Iowa and all Americans. That will be on input that I receive from my fellow Iowans. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on January 11, I had the honor of administering the oath of office to Iowa's speaker of the house, Patrick Grassley, who also happens to be my grandson. It was a privilege for me and my family to participate in the opening day of the Iowa Legislature's 89th General Assembly. Pat has represented the people of house district 50 since 2007. He is in his second year serving his caucus as speaker. In addition to celebrating Pat's professional accomplishments, we were also moved by the prayer that was written and shared by our great granddaughter Reagan, alongside her siblings Indee and Chance, as the legislature convened. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Reagan's prayer be printed in the Record following my remarks. She is 11 years old. Barbara and I are truly blessed to spend memorable days like this one together as a family.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, I started my annual tradition of holding Q&A's with Iowans in all 99 counties. This is my 41st consecutive year, and remember that only one meeting counts for the tally. But I hold many Q&A's in more populous counties. For example, I was in 10 counties last week: A snow plow manufacturer in Manchester, IA, that employs over 300 Iowans and the Marshalltown High School to hear what is on the minds of young people, because they never come to my town meetings. I heard about the pandemic, the Paycheck Protection Program, commodity prices, infrastructure, and high drug prices. I look forward to the next 89 county meetings to keep in touch with my constituents. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as the most senior Republican Senator in the Republican majority, I have had the privilege to serve as Senate President pro tempore in the 116th Congress. The last time a Senator from Iowa served in this constitutional office was 100 years ago. For the last 2 years, it has been my great honor each day to open the business of the Senate, welcome Chaplain Barry C. Black to lead us in opening prayer and recite the Pledge of Allegiance with my colleagues and staff. It was a distinct honor to enroll bills with my signature before they left Capitol Hill for the President's desk to be signed into law. Today, I pay tribute to a group of selfless professionals who was assigned to serve as my security detail. As this body knows, the President pro tempore serves in the Presidential line of succession and receives 24-hour protection. Now, as most Americans might imagine, it took some time to get accustomed to having a security detail following my every step, around the clock, 365 days a year. These dedicated professionals made the transition as seamless as possible. They served with integrity, discretion, and professionalism. Some of them might not have known the journey in store when they embarked 2 years ago on this assignment. By journey, I refer of course to my heavy travel schedule. For starters, I return nearly every weekend to Iowa and whenever the Senate is not in session. And lest anyone imagine there is a nonstop commercial flight between the Nation's Capital and my farm in Butler County, I will disabuse anyone of that fairy tale. Agents on my security detail became frequent fliers and intimately familiar with the map of Iowa. My work schedule includes my annual 99 county meetings across the State. Last year, I finished my 40th consecutive year holding meetings with Iowans in courthouses, schools, factory floors, hospitals, and service clubs. Typically, Iowa weather adds a bit of uncertainty to the schedule. Last year, the pandemic opened a whole new can of worms. I want to thank my security detail for doing an exceptional job these past 2 years. I can confirm none of the agents indulges in a treat from Dairy Queen as much as I do. My security detail also learned on day one of their assignment that I am an early bird. I like to wake up early and get my morning jog in before the sun crests the horizon. They learned every step of my route in northern Virginia and the country gravel roads in Butler County, IA. The agents showed an exemplary work ethic and respect for punctuality which, as my staff and many Iowans who attend my meetings know, is very important to me. I don't like to waste time or money, especially on the taxpayer dime. Today, I salute the following members of the U.S. Capitol Police Dignitary Protection Division: Supervisory Agent David Rib, Agent Eric Boggs, Agent Shane Powell, Agent John Brito, Agent Eric Love, Agent Zachary Madera, Agent Daniel Murphy, Agent Arnold Pierre, Agent Luis Pimentel, Agent Ryan Rayball, Agent Zachary Samson, Agent John Whittle, Agent Joseph Larue, Agent Justin Godfrey, Agent Michael Bell, Agent Caleb Horton, Agent Muhammed Khan, Agent Tobey Murray, Agent Robert Schultz, Agent Travis Scott, Agent Richard Dahl, Agent Brandon Exum, Agent Carlos Fonseca, Agent Louis Mannella, Agent Brooke Littlewood, Agent Nicholas Koffarnus, Agent Wayland Massengill, Agent Jesse Cole, Agent Todd Sindelar, Agent Cory Flere, Agent Gabriel Santos-Muniz, and Agent Nicholas Wirth. Barbara and I enjoyed teaching some of the agents about agriculture at the Iowa State Fair. Together, we rooted for UNI Panthers wrestling, basketball, and volleyball on many occasions. Many of them became fond of Iowa. They discovered the meaning of ``Iowa Nice.'' Iowa will welcome you back anytime for a visit. Barbara and I have enjoyed getting to know you and for giving the full measure of devotion to your job to keep me safe and sound. The Capitol riots on January 6 revealed how seriously you take your oaths of office and I sincerely thank you for putting yourselves in harm's way on my behalf. We wish you and your families all the best in the years ahead. Speaking about the violent attacks that took place in the U.S. Capitol, on the 6th of January, I also extend my appreciation to the legion of Capitol Police officers who protect this sacred civic space. They put their lives on the line every day to put the safety of others before their own. They keep watch over 535 members of Congress, the thousands of staffers who serve the American people here in the legislative branch, and the millions of people and youth groups who come every year to visit the U.S. Capitol. The riots serve as a stark reminder never to take law enforcement for granted. We mourn the loss of two Capitol Police officers--Officer Brian D. Sicknick and Officer Howard Liebengood--who lost their lives this month. Barbara and I continue to pray for them and the loved ones they leave behind.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. GRASSLEY. In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to its further reading.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, history will look back at 2020 and find many lessons and even some silver linings to unpack. The loss of more than 300,000 American lives so far will be mourned for years to come. Operation Warp Speed, which President Trump launched, turned out to be a historic public-private partnership. It has delivered a lifesaving vaccine in record time, shattering scientific benchmarks along the way. For the last 9 months, Americans have pulled together in shared sacrifice to do their part. As the COVID-19 vaccine makes its way into the communities across our country as it is right now, I encourage my fellow Iowans to keep pulling together. When public health officials say it is your turn to get a vaccine, roll up your sleeve. I will be doing the same when my turn arrives. Getting immunized is the only way we will beat the virus and get back to the normal way of American life. History will show Americans turned the page on the pandemic when all of us roll up our sleeves. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden, to discuss a tax provision included in the omnibus appropriations bill currently before the Senate. The tax title in this bill contains important clarifications to, and expansions of, the Employee Retention Tax Credit established under section 2301 of the CARES Act. This credit has provided vital payroll support to struggling businesses in Iowa and across the country. The enhancements included in this bill are necessary to help more employers access the credit. Importantly, the bill clarifies that businesses that received Paycheck Protection Program loans, or PPP, are still eligible for the credit based on other wages and benefits paid. Does Member Wyden agree that our intent is to allow struggling small businesses to access the retention credit, even if they have received a PPP loan?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes. That is why we are allowing these businesses, both those with forgiven loans and those without, to claim credits for wages paid in previous quarters that this bill makes eligible for the credit on their fourth quarter 2020 payroll tax filings. This will prevent small businesses from having to amend their previously filed payroll tax returns, easing the paperwork burden for both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service. I know Ranking Member Wyden will join me in urging the IRS to do all they can to simplify and expedite the process for eligible businesses retroactively claiming the retention credit. The last thing these businesses need right now is additional, complex payroll tax filings. I thank the ranking member for engaging in this colloquy to discuss this important issue and the clarification included in the pending appropriations bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to, please, have 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today is Sunday, and I want to remember what Senator Byrd said on a lot of Sundays when the Senate was in session. He didn't say this because he didn't want to work on Sunday, but he wanted everybody to remember the significance of Sunday for some people, particularly Christians. He always said: ``Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.'' Now, I want to refer to another particular Sunday. Never in the Senate's history has the Senate convened Congress--meaning a new Congress--on a Sunday. The Constitution mandates that Congress convene at noon on January 3, unless the preceding Congress, by law, designates a different day. Of course, January 3 has fallen on a Sunday over the last 238 years, and each time, by unanimous consent, the Congress set a new convening day other than that Sunday. So now it appears, for the first time in history, that Senate Democrats don't want to agree to such unanimous consent and instead are insisting that the Senate start the 117th Congress on Sunday. I am not looking to get out of work. I have proven that I have respect for attendance in the Senate. But out of respect, the Senate usually does not have business on religious holidays observed by members of various faiths. So just like Senator Byrd, I also think the Lord's Day, particularly when it is paired with the weight of starting a new Congress, deserves reverence. I yield.