Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in this town, political arguments often change places very quickly. Actually, observers could get whiplash when that happens. Now, just think about just a few months back. Before this election, we had elected Democrats scaring voters with irresponsible conspiracy theories that President Trump was going to somehow use his office to interfere with State elections or that he was in cahoots with the Postal Service not to deliver ballots. Remember back after the 2016 election, the irresponsibly worded talking point was that Russia ``hacked our elections,'' leading to polls 2 years later showing that 67 percent of Democrats believed falsely that ``Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected.'' Now let's turn to the 2020 election just completed. Those same people are now earnestly warning of the dangers of Americans questioning certified election results. Think just for a minute. Those who supported hashtag ``resist'' after Trump's election are now lecturing others about the need for faith in elections. It is kind of disturbing to me--the hutzpah of some of the people around here, what they said in 2016 and after versus what they are saying now. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there has been a lot of finger wagging across the aisle by both Senate and House Democrats about accepting election results. Most of that has been related to whether or not Trump would concede the results of the election to Biden. But, obviously, there is somewhat of a double standard because these same Democrats are mum about a looming challenge to the certified results of the election of Iowa's Second Congressional District. Representative-Elect Miller-Meeks won by six votes, and that was after careful recounts conducted and certified on a bipartisan basis according to Iowa law. On election night, the Democratic candidate lost. A few days later, two counties were recounted, and the Democratic candidate still lost. Then the Democratic candidate asked for a recount of all 24 counties, and after that recount, the Democratic candidate lost. A day later, the secretary of state of Iowa certified the election, just like the secretaries of state of our 50 States certified their elections in the Presidential election. Now the Democratic opponent chose not to make a case under Iowa law to a judicial panel headed by the chief justice of Iowa, presumably because there was no legal case. Now what happens? The next step is that candidate, under a 1969 Federal law, can ask the House of Representatives to set aside Iowa's election law and overturn Iowa's certified election results through a purely political process, which could presumably have a Democratic majority of 222 in the U.S. House overturn the votes of 400,000 Iowans. Now, getting back to what seems to be a double standard, if Democratic leaders do not nip this in the bud now, they have no room to point fingers at any other Member of Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in late June, I came to the floor to speak about the need to fix the multiemployer pension system and how that system is failing its employees and retirees. I spoke about the need to secure retirement benefits for the millions of Americans who will start to see plans fail and benefits cut in the coming years if Congress doesn't fix this problem. For the past 2 weeks, Chairman Alexander and I were negotiating with our Democratic colleagues to do just that--fix the system so future retirees and retirees now would not lose out on what they were promised. Those negotiations were very constructive, and I believe that both sides worked in good faith. While both sides agreed to make significant changes, in the end, we weren't able to find a compromise that satisfied our respective principles and objectives for resolving this situation. Here is the hang up--time. Now at the end of the session, with the end-of-the-year agenda and adjournment of the Congress, we just ran out of time. So in the midst of yearend appropriations and COVID relief negotiations, there simply wasn't enough time to reconcile our differences on how to fix this failing system. My hope had been to use the last 8 months to negotiate a solution in a thoughtful and measured manner, instead of like now, in the heat of a complex yearend bill. But sadly, those 8 months didn't produce results. From the beginning, we have agreed that Federal funds will be needed to solve the crisis in the short term--yes, money from the Treasury for pension plans that are in trouble now. But we have been equally resolute that reforms are essential to ensure the system can be self- sustaining in the long term. So we were trying to find a short-term solution that would involve the injection of Federal dollars, but we wanted a long-term solution that would make sure that private pension plans were self-sustaining and not relying upon the Federal Treasury. Otherwise, taxpayers will be perpetually subsidizing a private sector system of employee benefit promises. Last November, Chairman Alexander and I presented our comprehensive approach to rescue and reform the multiemployer pension system, which we have been working on and improving ever since. The product was improved with an amazing amount of input from workers, retirees, unions, employers, actuaries, academics, plan officials, and even members of the general public. Something as big as this needed to involve all of those people being at the table. Today, Chairman Alexander and I will introduce a revised version of that plan, the Chris Allen Multiemployer Pension Recapitalization and Reform Act. This legislation served as the basis for our recent negotiations and is the product of years of work with Chairman Alexander to produce a serious, responsible plan that can provide relief to failing plans and to protect retirees' benefits. It is also designed to ensure the long-term solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's multiemployer insurance fund, based on the many comments and proposals we received to the original Grassley- Alexander plan released last November. We believe this legislation would ensure that the PBGC's multiemployer insurance fund remains solvent over the long term after the initial rescue of the currently failing plans. But, most importantly, this legislation would reform the system to prevent this from happening again. I would also like to note that the bill is named after Chris Allen, who was a dedicated member of my Finance Committee staff, who passed away nearly 1 year ago at too young of an age. Chris poured thousands of hours of work into developing, drafting, and perfecting the Grassley-Alexander plan. I am grateful for all the work that Chris did, and I am proud this legislation bears his name. I am also grateful to Andy Banducci, who helped us continue Chris's work while on detail to the committee from the PBGC for several months earlier this year. His expertise and commitment, especially during the pandemic, were essential to bringing this legislation to completion. Lastly, Mark Warren of the Finance Committee staff has led my team on this very important issue with the help of Jamie Cummins. This bill would not be possible without their efforts. So I thank Mark, Jamie, Andy, and Chris for their dedicated service. Let me close by stressing two points for my Democratic colleagues. I appreciate the Democrats' professional and good-faith effort to try to find an agreement to this important issue. Although we were not able to reconcile our differences before the clock ran out, we need to carry that work forward, and I remain ready to continue that discussion. I want to make clear that, while the last 2 years I have been chairman of the Finance Committee, I won't be chairman the next 2 years, and we will be working under the leadership of the next chairman, Senator Crapo, if Republicans continue to be in the majority. These issues are not simple, and as I said in June, delaying the solution is only going to make the whole effort more costly. We should continue to work together to find a solution for the 10 million workers and retirees in these multiemployer plans. America's retirees deserve it. Mr. President. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.ZPERSONAL COMPUTER\J\019060-A17DE6-023-*****-*****-Payroll No.: 09409 -Name: debjd c6 -Folios: 15/wS-15/w430S [pickup] -Date: 12/18/20 -Subformat:

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we are getting, perhaps, close to a new Presidency. So there is a lot of talk about how the Senate might handle new Cabinet people. Democrats are always lecturing Republican Senators about approving future Biden Cabinet nominees, even if we don't agree with them. Now, that is pretty darn rich. In other words, they are saying something like this: Don't follow our example from the past four years. Or another way to put that is: Don't treat Biden nominees to the Cabinet like we treated Trump nominees to the Cabinet. So they seem to want two sets of rules for Republican and Democratic Cabinet nominees, just like they want with judicial nominees. President Obama had six Cabinet Secretaries approved by the Senate on his Inauguration Day, without even needing a rollcall vote, so that President Obama could hit the ground running. President Trump had none by voice vote, and only two were approved by rollcall votes before the President took over. Trump Cabinet and sub- Cabinet nominees, even ones who had been easily confirmed in previous Republican administrations, faced obstruction and partisan ``nay'' votes. Many Democrat Senators who aspired to be President voted against virtually every single Trump nominee, no matter how well qualified. My position has always been that a President should have the ability to choose his own Cabinet people whom he gets along with and whom he gets along with on policy, provided, of course, that they are qualified and will follow the law. That is the way it should be. It is how I have approached nominees to date. But can Senate Republicans be sure that if we employ that standard, Democrats will play fair with the next Republican President? I don't want retaliation for its own sake, but the threat of holding Democratic Senators to their own standards has been our only means of deterrence of obstruction. I want to hear from Democrats why we should not now adopt their standards and vote down nominees based on politics. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank both for these clarifications of their intent. I look forward to working with them toward these ends.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, much ink has been spilled the past few years over the threat of foreign influence in our politics. It is a topic I have spoken about many times on this floor. This issue has become highly politicized, but it requires bipartisan agreement to address. It is increasingly clear that our adversaries will stop at nothing to influence political discourse in our country. We can all agree that there is a real need to improve our Nation's foreign influence laws. Fortunately, the Senate has a real opportunity today to finally do something about it. In 1938, Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act, referred to by the acronym ``FARA.'' It did this in 1938 to expose Nazi propaganda and identify foreign attempts to influence policymakers and the American public. The bill was last updated in 1966. And it now requires those who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and interests to register their affiliations and activities with the Justice Department. FARA reflects the fundamental principle that transparency brings accountability. Until recently, however, the law had been seldom used, and few on K Street paid much attention to the necessity of registering under this act if they were lobbying for a foreign country. Of course, that was not due to a lack of foreign influence efforts. Given FARA's important transparency provisions, its lack of enforcement was shocking to me, and that is the problem that these several legislators sponsoring this legislation are trying to correct. I first raised concerns about lackluster FARA enforcement in April 2015 when a former Clinton White House staffer and a lawyer for a Georgian political party failed to register as foreign agents. I also raised concerns about work for Ukrainians by Paul Manafort and the Podesta Group. I raised concerns when the firm behind the discredited Steele dossier failed to register for its lobbying work to repeal U.S. sanctions against Russia. I even subpoenaed Manafort to testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing on lax FARA enforcement. I praised Mueller for dusting off the law that had been ignored for so long. I have conducted FARA oversight without regard to power, party, or privilege. Americans expect equal application of the law no matter which political party someone is affiliated with. I am an equal opportunity overseer. FARA ought to be better enforced and equally enforced. That is why my office worked thoroughly to expose holes in the existing FARA law and found ways to shore it up. My bipartisan Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act is the product of years of oversight and policy work. The bill requires the Justice Department, for the first time, to craft a comprehensive FARA enforcement strategy and to release advisory opinions to promote transparency. It gives FARA investigators new tools, including civil investigative demand authority, to help identify violations. The bill appropriately limits those in the Justice Department who can use this authority, and it provides essential due process protections. In fact, it is based on identical authorities in the False Claims Act, which I sponsored now 35 years ago, which for years has helped to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. The bill also enhances penalties for FARA violations to deter future abuses. It requires foreign agents to immediately disclose their clients. That way, policymakers know the true sources and can make the most informed decisions. Finally, it requires a review of the Lobbying Disclosure Act exemption to determine whether it has been abused to conceal foreign influence efforts. Legitimate interests engaging in legitimate conduct shouldn't bear an unnecessary burden. That is why our bill strikes a real and right balance. But we must also ensure that FARA's exemptions haven't created loopholes for foreign governments to hide their true intentions. I am pleased to have support from the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We have bipartisan support on the Foreign Relations Committee, including from Senators Shaheen, Rubio, Murphy, and Young, who have all worked to shine light on foreign influence, and we now have the signoff of the chairman of that committee, along with support from this administration. Groups like the Project on Government Oversight and another group that goes by the name of Issue One endorse the measure, saying it ``directly addresses structural weaknesses of FARA.'' This is a truly bipartisan bill with common ground where it is usually tough to find it. The Senate should send a clear signal today that it is serious about shining a light on foreign influence by passing this bill. Before I make a UC request, I would like to ask one of the leaders in this area, Senator Cornyn, to make comments. Then I will make the UC request

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have two sentences before I ask unanimous consent. I think by passing the bill, this will give the Senate an opportunity to send a clear signal that it is serious about shining a light on foreign influence. Opposing it, in fact, would only help our foreign adversaries continue to hide what they are really doing. As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 1762 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Of course I am disappointed, but I know that Senator Menendez is a serious legislator, and if what we have to do to do something in this area is work into the next Congress on this issue, I look forward to continuing to work for it. The reason I am kind of disappointed is the fact that we had two Democratic bills and two Republican bills. I introduced my first bill in 2017, and it took a lot of work to put together the bill that I asked unanimous consent on, to work out the differences with several different approaches, and I thought that we had taken everything into consideration, particularly bringing together people from the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee that had interest in this legislation as well. Maybe another reason I am disappointed out of that hard work that so many people put into this is the fact that on the part of particularly our Democratic colleagues, we have heard so much over the years, lecturing about foreign influence, and that is why I thought it would be easy to move forward today, and I am sorry it is not, but I look forward to January and starting over again and working with Senator Menendez to get this job done. Hopefully, it will not take 3 years more to get something done. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we all know that, without a doubt, 2020 has been a difficult year. But for me it was an important year to continue fighting for Iowans and listening to Iowans. This year I completed my 40th year of my 99 county meetings that included a Q&A in every one of those counties. This annual tradition keeps me in touch with the grassroots of Iowa and allows me to bring their ideas to the policymaking tables here in Washington, DC. With all the twists and turns this year took, my county meetings were more beneficial than ever. I just want to mention a couple of these twists and turns. The twist and turns involved the big devastating windstorm we called the ``derecho'' that went through central Iowa, destroying 800,000 acres of crops. Those twists and turns involved dealing with all the issues coming from COVID-19. One thing I know for sure, Iowans are very resilient people. So I look forward to continuing these county meetings and the Q&A's involved with them at the beginning of the new year. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute in morning business, please.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we are probably all guilty of not remembering the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, but particularly during this time of year, it is especially difficult for them to be away from friends and family. Right now, there are almost 1,500 Iowans deployed overseas with the Iowa National Guard, just as one example of a group we should be thinking about. And I think about this group because that 1,500 includes 1 member of my own staff. We rely on our brave men and women in uniform to protect our way of life, our democracy, and the liberties we cherish. The sacrifices they make are not taken for granted and won't be forgotten by future generations. All of our Nation's servicemembers and their families will be in my prayers and, I hope, the prayers of all of my colleagues during this holiday season. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as we approach the holiday season, many of us will be celebrating differently. COVID-19 may be limiting travel, family members we see in person, or other holiday traditions. Yet there is much to be grateful for. For me, I am thankful for my health, my family, my country, and my staff. I am also grateful to serve Iowans and work in the Senate to tackle legislation, conduct oversight, and work for the best interests of the people of Iowa. I am also thankful to reflect upon previous accomplishments. This time of year coincides with a milestone achievement, that being the anniversary of the passage of the FIRST STEP Act, and to remember that the criminal justice reform bill that we call the FIRST STEP Act is the most comprehensive overhaul of criminal justice legislation in a generation On December 18, 2018, the Senate passed the most significant criminal justice reform legislation in a generation, and 3 days later, President Trump signed the bill into law. The FIRST STEP Act is an example of what the Senate can accomplish when we reach across the aisle to address our Nation's most pressing problems. I am proud that the FIRST STEP Act has been the law of the land now for 2 years. The past 2 years have been uniquely challenging. In the first year of the law's tenure, I worked with Senate partners to oversee its implementation efforts. This included meeting with critical stakeholders in the Justice Department, reviewing the status of the law's implementation, and ensuring that the law's application reflected congressional intent. In that first year, we accomplished a lot together, in a bipartisan way. Because of the FIRST STEP Act, thousands of inmates received the benefits of the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act to resolve sentencing disparities that came about from legislation, I suppose, from almost 30 years ago between those convicted for crack and those convicted for cocaine. In this first year, the Justice Department also released its risk and needs assessment system--a tool used to individually review the recidivism risk of each Federal inmate and place the inmate in programming to prevent future criminal acts. The Bureau of Prisons also issued procedures for more efficient access and use of the home confinement program. Implementation efforts have faced significant challenges, however, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, the FIRST STEP Act provided tools that the administration has been able to use to help vulnerable inmates. During the pandemic, it has become apparent that inmates who are confined in Federal prisons are among the most vulnerable populations in the United States. As they are in Federal custody, it is quite obvious the Federal Government has a duty to ensure they are treated humanely. To that end, Senator Durbin and I urged the increased review of compassionate release and elderly home detention cases in light of the COVID-19 cases within our Federal prisons. We also asked the Justice Department inspector general to review the use of home confinement authority, the preventative safety measures connected with it, COVID-19 testing, screening, and isolation measures, and the availability of access by inmates to electronic communication. I am pleased to say that this administration responded to many of our requests, though more work needs to be done as we continue to grapple with the effects of COVID-19 in our Federal prisons. One of the most important issues we must address is a key provision of the FIRST STEP Act, that being the requirement for the Bureau of Prisons to make programming available to prisoners to help them to live productive lives once they leave prison, and that will make it less likely, then, they will return to lives of crime. The coronavirus has made it impossible for the Bureau of Prisons, at least at this time, to provide this programming as the law intends and requires because, as you know, inmates must be socially distanced from each other to prevent the virus's spread, which flies in the face of meeting in person to participate in recidivism reduction programming. Therefore, as we move forward, balancing effective programming access with the CDC-approved safety measures is critical. As I return to the leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary, whether that is as ranking member or chairman, depending upon the outcome of the Georgia races, I want everybody to know that I am going to continue to make the implementation of the FIRST STEP Act a priority and will ensure the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons faithfully execute the law. Lastly, as we embark on a new Congress and a new year, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to seek the middle ground on criminal justice reform. We have done it before, and we can do it again, and more needs to be done. The FIRST STEP Act has made a difference in the lives of thousands of prisoners, and it will continue to impact many in the Federal criminal justice system. It gives prisoners a better opportunity to leave their criminal pasts behind and become productive members of society. In fact, we learned that from States like Texas, Mississippi, and North and South Carolina, where they actually did a good job of preparing people to return to society, with productive lives, saving the taxpayers money if there is not recidivism. Some of those States have even shut down some prisons. Alerted to that, too often, Congress waits to learn something from our laboratories of our political system--the States. We learned a lot that brought about the FIRST STEP Act. There is more that we can learn, and we can build on the FIRST STEP Act. It is remarkable what we were able to achieve 2 short years ago. I am hopeful to carry that spirit into 2021 and beyond, whether I am chairman or ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery Expedited Hiring Authorities Act of 2020 Now, Madam President, I have one other short point I would like to make that deals directly with negotiations going on right now for a COVID-19 package that we are trying to put together. Some people call it a stimulus package or something that could be put in the omnibus appropriations bill. This goes back to the CARES Act that we passed in March when Congress authorized the creation of a Special Inspector General for Pandemic Recovery to oversee the billions of dollars in new Federal spending-- hence, to make sure that those Federal dollars were spent according to the law. In the past, when Congress created a special inspector general to fill a sudden need in new government oversight, this Congress quickly followed with additional legislation to provide the IG with expedited hiring authority to staff his new offices and also to begin timely oversight operations. Such timely oversight operations are particularly needed now because so much of this CARES money that was appropriated in March has gone out the door. So, in the tradition of past Congresses setting up other special IGs to fill a sudden need, I introduced S. 3751, a bipartisan piece of legislation modeled on past special IG expedited hiring authority language. My bill provides the IG a short 6-month window to quickly hire the staff he needs to build his organization and begin carrying out the oversight mandated by Congress under the CARES Act. However, as of today, my bill still hasn't passed, and IG Miller has been left to work with an office that is still highly understaffed. That is an outcome that should concern everyone here in the Senate if you are passionate about government oversight and making sure that money is spent responsibly. Whenever the government spends large sums of money, as we have in addressing this pandemic, there will always be bad actors somewhere out there, lying in wait, to test the system to see how much they can steal. We need a fully staffed and fully functional IG in place to meet those bad actors head-on to serve as an effective check on waste, fraud, and abuse. Despite broad support for my bill from both sides of the aisle, I have heard rumors that some of my colleagues across the aisle may be wary of granting expedited hiring authority to the IG simply because they don't agree with the personal politics of the individual confirmed for that position. This amounts to an attempt to nullify the IG's confirmation by limiting his ability to conduct oversight and, hopefully, to make sure that all of the money that we are spending under all of these pandemic appropriations we have made is spent according to the law; hopefully, that implies responsibly spending the money. Congress has already made the decision to establish this IG. Now we need to give the office the resources it needs to succeed. Personal and political disagreements are not reasons to deny the American people oversight of how billions of their tax dollars are being spent. Once the IG hires staff and has the ability to begin the substantive oversight work mandated by Congress, there will, as always, be an important place for congressional oversight to ensure the IG is doing his job. I intend to conduct the same level of oversight of this IG that I have for others. I expect my colleagues will do the same. That is why I urge my colleagues, regardless of any personal differences that they have, to support this bipartisan legislation granting expedited hiring authority for the Special IG for Pandemic Recovery and included in the forthcoming COVID legislation. Now, I have heard rumors within the last hour that there has already been a decision that they are not going to move ahead on this money for hiring to get this job. If that is true, I don't want anybody, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, to ever complain about something that comes to light, that the money wasn't spent the way it was intended to be spent or it was wasted here or wasted there. Don't complain to me. 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, for over a year, Senator Johnson and I investigated the Biden family's financial dealings. For over a year, the liberal media and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle falsely said that we were peddling Russian disinformation. They ginned up any story they could to falsely portray our investigation in an effort to delegitimize the report's findings. Even my colleague Senator Wyden, with whom I have worked on many bipartisan investigations, said the following: This disinformation also became the basis of the Johnson- Grassley investigation. The political nature of this investigation has been clear all along. Bottom line: The Johnson-Grassley investigation is baseless. It is laundering Russian propaganda for circulation in the United States. It seems the liberal media and Democrats have a very nervous tick. Any time a Republican gets close to the truth and is about to serve justice, the other side yells: ``Russian disinformation.'' Of course, as we see now, that is a load of garbage. As I have said on this floor several times before, our report was rooted in information from U.S. Government agencies and a left-aligned U.S. lobby shop that represented a corrupt Ukrainian gas company, and by now, the American people know that it is really the Democrats and liberal media that are connected to Russian disinformation. Just think of the Steele dossier. It was infected with Russian disinformation and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The liberal media and those on the other side of the aisle were scared of the facts. They were scared that the American people would see the Biden family's deep and extensive link to foreign governments, including the Communist Chinese Government. And once Senator Johnson and I released publically our findings, those same liberal outlets said the report repackaged old material and that there wasn't really anything new to it. They went into full Joe Biden protection mode, and they didn't even try to hide it. One Washington Post columnist said: ``Even after accepting disinformation from Russian agents, Johnson and Grassley couldn't come up with anything new or interesting on Hunter Biden.'' Well, we know today the Post should be ashamed that they said that. POLITICO ran a story with this headline: ``GOP Senators' anti-Biden report repackages old claims.'' And National Public Radio said about the New York Post Hunter Biden stories: ``We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions,'' end of the NPR quote. Now, look at what Twitter and Facebook did to Hunter Biden news. Simply said, they interfered in the election and gave the Biden campaign a multimillion-dollar in-kind donation, courtesy of their blatant and unforgiveable censorship. So, my fellow Americans, let us never forget what Twitter and Facebook did during the 2020 elections. Now, let's fast forward to this very day. Now it is confirmed that Hunter Biden is under criminal investigation, reportedly for his taxes and financial dealings--the very fact pattern that we described in the Johnson-Grassley report. It shouldn't take Hunter Biden to confirm that he is under criminal investigation before the mainstream press gets permission--from whom, I don't know--to report the news. It is a complete outrage the way the liberal media used its power to cover up facts relating to Hunter Biden and the Biden family and, yet, ran story after story with false information about the Russian investigation into Trump and the credibility of the Steele dossier. The recent news also shows that our report was not ``baseless''--that is the word that shows up all the time--and it didn't ``repackage old claims.'' That is another set of words that showed up quite regularly as people were trying to distract the Johnson and Grassley report. So quite the opposite--our report was well-founded, ahead of the curve, and right on the money, in more ways than one. Our report teed up the facts, but the mainstream press never stepped up to the plate. Some of the Nation's supposedly leading press outlets, with teams of investigative reporters, were scooped by the Congress--the Johnson- Grassley report. Now, of course, they are scrambling to chase the story that they for so long ignored. Now, it didn't have to be this way. We already did much of the heavy lifting before issuing our report. The report made public information that hadn't ever been known before. For example, it showed the following: Hunter Biden and his associates and family members were connected to Chinese nationals and Chinese companies linked with the Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army. This includes the CEFC China Energy Company Limited and that company's subsidiaries. Records show that a company linked to the Communist regime sent Hunter Biden's law firm millions of dollars. Other records show that Hunter Biden opened a line of credit with a Chinese national linked to the Communist regime and funded it with approximately $100,000. Then he, James Biden, and Sara Biden went on an extravagant global spending spree. Still other records show that Hunter Biden, via his law firm, also sent a million dollars to James Biden's consulting firm, the Lion Hall Group. These transfers began less than 1 week after CEFC sent $5 million to a company called Hudson West III, a company linked to CEFC and Chinese nationals associated with the Communist regime, which then sent money to Hunter Biden's law firm. When the bank contacted Sara Biden, who was associated with the firm's bank account, she refused to answer their questions and provide any additional documentation. According to the records that we have on file, the bank submitted the account for closure. Senator Johnson and I recently issued a supplemental to our report that showed Hunter Biden's close business associate Rob Walker received $6 million from a Chinese company linked to the Communist regime. There is yet another link in the chain from the Biden family and their associates to the Chinese Government. The report also showed that State Department officials believed that Hunter Biden's Burisma board membership created the perception of a conflict of interest and was ``very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine,'' end of quote from a State Department official. Secretary of State Kerry publicly denied knowing of Hunter Biden's role on the Burisma board. We acquired evidence that shows that Kerry did, in fact, know about that role. In December 2015, instead of following U.S. objectives of confronting oligarchs, Vice President Biden's staff advised him to avoid commenting on Burisma's oligarch and instead say: ``I am not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals.'' Joe Biden was running an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine, and he pulled his punches while his son was on the board of Burisma. Based on witness testimony, Burisma's owner allegedly paid a $7 million bribe to officials serving under Ukraine's prosecutor general to shut the case against him. When he allegedly paid that bribe, Hunter Biden was on the Burisma board. These examples are just a sampling from the report that Senator Johnson and I put out and just the tip of the iceberg with respect to the Biden family's troubled ties to governments adverse to U.S. interests. These associations, and the millions of dollars that passed between and among Hunter Biden, James Biden, and others, create criminal financial, counterintelligence, and extortion concerns. That is why I have written to the Justice Department about the risk that Hunter and James Biden essentially served as agents of the Communist government for purposes of their registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. After Hunter Biden publicly confirmed he was under criminal investigation, liberal news outlets reported on concerns that his financial associations could create criminal financial and counterintelligence problems--something you heard from the Johnson- Grassley report several weeks ago. That is what we said in September 2020, and we were roundly criticized for it. And just over the weekend, a new email was made public that reportedly says that Joe Biden and his brother were ``office mates'' with the very same Chinese nationals whom we wrote about in our report. Those same individuals were the ones with links to the Communist regime and that regime's military. Based on all the facts known to date, Joe Biden has a lot of explaining to do. I have run many oversight operations and investigations during the course of my career. I am interested in the facts, in the evidence, and in the truth. I learned a lesson a long time ago when I first started my oversight focus; that is, no matter how difficult the media or the other side of the aisle makes it to find the facts, never give up. Keep working hard. The American taxpayers deserve nothing less. That is the attitude and approach that I have had my entire career, and that is what I will take with me as I continue to look into the Biden family matters and as I move to a leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to thank the Library of Congress and to talk about something that honors our veterans. Iowa has a rich history of veterans serving on behalf of our country. Their service ensures that all Americans will live in peace and prosperity for generations to come. Over the past 2 years, I have delivered 31 personal accounts to be stored at the Library of Congress as part of their program called the Veterans History Project. I thank the Library of Congress for preserving the individual stories as reported in the veteran's own words. Today, I will submit six more interviews to this collection that we recorded at the Waverly Area Veterans Post last month. I am proud to be a part of the Veterans History Project, preserving the stories of Iowa veterans for future generations. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak about Iowans who are well noted for things wherever they live in Iowa, but I am particularly proud to speak about a person from Cedar Falls, IA, a town I know well because I have lived my entire 87 years on a farm 8 miles from Cedar Falls. This week, NASA announced that Raja Chari from Cedar Falls, IA, has been selected for a team of astronauts that will go to the Moon as part of the Artemis mission. The Artemis mission will land astronauts on the Moon in the year 2024, with the goal of establishing a long-term presence. Raja Chari will be a part of this effort that will ensure America's continued leadership and preeminence in space. I congratulate Raja on his accomplishments and wish him and all the astronauts who are part of this mission great success. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to remind people of how Senator Johnson and I have been attacked over the months of 2020 for some investigation we have been doing, and I want to speak to that now. For over a year, Senator Johnson and I investigated the Biden financial family dealings. We found that they engaged in potential criminal financial deals across the globe, including China, which created counterintelligence concerns. We showed our work, and we made our findings very public, but the liberal media and members of the other political party chose to dismiss our work. They even falsely claimed that our work was Russian disinformation. I think they did this in order to protect leaders of the other party. Those same liberal outlets that disparaged our investigation now report that Hunter Biden's financial deals in China raised counterintelligence concerns. Yesterday, the Biden transition team confirmed that Hunter Biden is under criminal investigation for his taxes and financial dealings. So you can understand why I think it is very outrageous that the Fourth Estate would choose to ignore facts when they are uncovered by Republicans. Senator Johnson and I don't do oversight work just for the fun of it. Oversight work is serious business. It shouldn't take subpoenas and confirmation from Hunter Biden himself to get the rest of the press to pay attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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