Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Across Iowa this weekend, farmers will be in their fields as they continue the 2020 harvest season. Iowa farmers have now harvested all but about 10 percent of our soybeans and 30 percent of our corn. Because I am in Washington, DC, this weekend with the confirmation of Judge Barrett, I won't be able to give my social media followers my weekly update on the 2020 hashtag ``CornWatch'' or hashtag ``SoybeanWatch'' series from the Grassley farm. The purpose of this weekly series is to give people who have never stepped foot on a farm an idea of the complexities that go into planning, growing, and harvesting a bountiful crop. Between COVID-19 supply chain disruptions, drought, and a derecho, the 86,000 Iowa farm families have faced one of the most challenging years in recent memory. Farmers are only 2 percent of the population, but they provide food, fuel, and fiber for the other 98 percent. I want to send my best wishes to farmers and their families as we are nearing the final stretch of the harvest season. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the confirmation of Judge Barrett to become Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I will be voting in favor of her nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do just the same. As was made clear to millions of Americans who watched her hearing, Judge Barrett has the temperament, the modesty, and the humility that we should all expect in a judge. She approaches cases without bias or personal agenda. She made that very clear to almost every question asked to her by every member of the Judiciary Committee. Most importantly, Judge Barrett understands the proper role of members of the Judiciary and our constitutional system of separated powers. That is, a judge should interpret--not make--the law. Making law is, under the Constitution, the responsibility of the Congress, not the Supreme Court. She also made that very clear in almost every question that she was asked by members of the Judiciary Committee. Judge Barrett has an impressive command and, of course, the respect for the law and the Constitution. Clearly, from her testimony, she respects precedent, and she practices judicial restraint. In her words: ``A judge who approaches a case as an opportunity for an exercise of will has . . . betrayed her judicial duty.'' She went on to explain to the committee her legal method, how she considers statutes and the Constitution and how she interprets and applies the statutes and the Constitution. Her judicial method is rigorous and exacting but fair. She testified that she would listen to both sides in every case. She said: ``We want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.'' When pressed on how she might rule in a particular case, Judge Barrett promptly applied what we all know as the Ginsburg rule, and she did it just like every other recent nominee to the Supreme Court for the last 30 years when Ginsburg first told the Judiciary Committee that there would be no hints, no previews, or forecasts, and Judge Barrett demonstrated her independence by often repeating the Justice Ginsburg rule. I specifically asked Judge Barrett if she had made any promises or guarantees to anyone about how she might rule on a case. She responded this way to my question: The answer is no. . . . No one ever talked about any case with me. . . . I can't make any pre-commitments to this body either. It would be inconsistent with judicial independence. To quote further: I'm not willing to make a deal--not with the committee, not with the president, not with anyone. I am independent. That quote or similar words were spoken by Judge Barrett to almost every suspicious Judiciary member about whom she might have made some deal ahead of time to get on the Supreme Court. Contrary to critics' claims about her being biased, Judge Barrett is evenhanded and has ruled for both plaintiffs and defendants in all kinds of cases. She believes in justice for all, in accordance with the law and the Constitution, just like we would expect everybody to say who is a lifetime appointee to the Judiciary, but we don't see all of them following that practice. She went on to tell the committee: ``I am fully committed to equal justice under the law for all persons.'' When asked if she will follow the law wherever it leads, she said: ``Yes.'' Then she said: ``I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.'' Yet that wasn't good enough for our Democratic colleagues and their leftist allies. However, throughout the hearings, the Democrats and many in the media deliberately misrepresented Judge Barrett's views on the Affordable Care Act. They claimed her critique of Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning in the 2012 ACA case will dictate how she will vote in some upcoming cases. They obviously didn't listen to her when she had no preconceived notions about any case and had made no promises to anybody. The Democrats even pushed the story line that Judge Barrett signaled to President Trump that she would support invalidating the ACA if she were confirmed to the Supreme Court. That is nonsense. Judge Barrett made it clear that she didn't have an agenda. She testified: ``I have no hostility to the ACA.'' Legal scholars critique court decisions all the time even when they don't disagree with the outcome. For instance, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, before her nomination, criticized the Court's reasoning in Roe v. Wade, but no one claimed that Ginsburg didn't support the outcome of Roe v. Wade. Judge Barrett's critique of Roberts' reasoning was shared by many legal commentators across the political spectrum, including by ones on the other side of the aisle. Even President Obama rejected the notion that the Affordable Care Act was a tax instead of a penalty. The question of its being a tax or a penalty and the constitutionality or the unconstitutionality of the ACA was what they were critiquing based on Roberts' decision to uphold the constitutionality of the ACA, for it could be constitutional under the taxing powers of the Congress. Even Roberts didn't pay any attention to that fact. We even had Democrats saying that the penalty for the individual mandate was a penalty and that it wasn't a tax. Moreover, Judge Barrett's critique of Justice Roberts' reasoning dealt with an interpretation or a provision that is no longer in effect because we did away with the individual mandate. The question before the Supreme Court this fall, then, will be entirely separate, and it is pointless to speculate. Yet the Democrats wasted much time on that type of speculation--question after question, Democrat after Democrat, on that side--when they were questioning her. Senate Democrats want to portray Judge Barrett as a threat to healthcare. They want to distract from the fact that they recently filibustered a COVID relief bill that would have protected preexisting conditions. This all is just a Democratic election year scare tactic, and they are using it almost totally as a reason to vote against Judge Barrett. It happens, though, that the voters aren't buying it, that the public is not buying it. A recent Politico poll shows a majority of Americans wants the Senate to confirm Judge Barrett, and a recent Huffington Post poll says: ``Voters favor the confirmation of the Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett by a 9-point margin.'' She will be confirmed. That is what we are going to do on Sunday into Monday. Maybe our Democratic colleagues will finally show up for work, do their job, and give Judge Barrett an up-or-down vote on the merits because I think the public knows now, if it were listening in to the Judiciary Committee as it was voting her out, that the Democrats boycotted the committee's deliberation. Let's not forget that, just 4 years ago, the same Senate Democrats declared that the Court needed nine to function properly. Judge Barrett is that ninth. Only 4 years later, they don't seem to think so. Judge Barrett is a jurist of honor, of integrity, and of great principle. The Judiciary Committee received a number of letters in support of her nomination. They all praised her intellect, her judgment, her collegiality, and her kindness. We all saw that kindness as she testified over a 3-day period of time. Judge Barrett won't be a politician on the Bench. She will make decisions as they should be decided--in an impartial manner and in accordance with the law and the Constitution. I am pleased to vote in favor of Judge Barrett's confirmation to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and I urge my colleagues to support her as well.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have been a leader in promoting renewable energy sources, like being called the father of the wind energy tax credit. This has led to a cleaner environment and has increased America's energy independence. It is concerning to see legislation from progressive Members of Congress that would eliminate internal combustion engine vehicles like the vast majority of us drives and depends on. In other words, we will all have to buy electric cars. This is supposed to help the environment, but, remember, most electrical generation is from fossil fuels. There are more practical solutions available. Currently, renewable fuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent, but they would be totally eliminated under this extreme bill. By adding more ethanol and biodiesel to our energy mix, we can reduce emissions while still keeping transportation costs low for working families. I ask my colleagues across the aisle to abandon this radical scheme. If they want a cleaner environment, then they should look to renewable fuels produced in our Nation's heartland. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, what we have seen over the last week are attempts to get COVID relief up and Democrats won't let us bring it up, even though there is widespread agreement on the need for more COVID relief for families, for small businesses, for farms, for schools and colleges, and for additional funding for testing and vaccines. These are all noncontroversial items being held up by Democrat leaders' all-or-nothing negotiating position. One controversial item they insist on is bailing out irresponsible State governments. Iowa's years of sound governance and fiscal responsibility, including a rainy day fund that is full, has paid off in times like this. A study for the Council of State Governments ranked every State's ability to weather the economic impact of the pandemic. It found my State of Iowa to be fiscally sound--the most resilient State in the country. In addition to the Council of State Governments, the CATO Institute ranked our Governor's fiscal policy second out of all 50 States. Other States haven't made the same tough decisions and weren't ready before the pandemic. Now Democrats want Iowans' Federal tax money to bail out irresponsible State governments and somehow this is worth holding up relief for struggling families. Come on 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute as in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in about 2 weeks, the American people will go to the polls to determine the direction of our Nation. There are many important issues voters will consider as they decide which way they will cast their votes. Their decisions will ultimately determine who will be President and the makeup of Congress. One issue that is always front and center in any election is the economy and the economic policies of the respective candidates. This election is no different. There are many differences in the economic policies that would be pursued by a Republican-led administration versus the path my Democratic colleagues would take if they were to be in charge. One particular, stark difference is that of tax policy that both sides can be expected to pursue. Over the past 4 years, President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have enacted historic tax cuts, particularly for middle-class Americans. That has been part of a long, overdue revamp of our Tax Code. This has included reducing tax rates across the board, significantly increasing the standard deduction, and doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. As a result of these changes, a typical family of four earning $70,000 has seen its tax bill reduced by $2,000. While my Democratic colleagues have done their best to distort this reality about middle-income tax cuts, IRS tax return data of 2018 confirmed that middle-income Americans saw significant tax reductions. In fact, taxpayers in the middle of the income distribution saw their tax bills reduced by an average of more than 13 percent. My Democratic colleagues and former Vice President Biden have made no bones about their plans for tax reform. Their tax reform would be in tax increases. If they prevail in the upcoming elections, they will seek to reduce and undo the 2017 tax law and impose trillions of dollars in tax hikes on individuals and businesses. The former Vice President has sought to deflect accusations that he would raise taxes on low- and middle-income taxpayers by promising plans to increase taxes only on businesses and individuals who have annual incomes of over $400,000. There are many reasons to be skeptical of this promise of the Vice President's, and I want to discuss this skepticism. First, a similar assurance was made by the Obama-Biden administration in its first term. Many will recall the Obama-Biden administration promised not to raise taxes on married couples earning less than $250,000 or $200,000 for single filers. That promise was tossed out the window when a host of new taxes that fell directly or indirectly on middle-income Americans was enacted to pay for ObamaCare. That included the individual mandate penalty tax, 80 percent of which was paid by taxpayers earning less than $50,000 a year. This is exactly why the Republicans repealed that individual mandate as part of the 2017 tax law--because it was very regressive. A second reason low- and middle-income Americans should take little comfort in the former Vice President's promise to tax only the rich and businesses is that such taxes too often get passed along. There is a well-documented principle in any tax policy that simply because the law imposes a tax directly on an individual or business doesn't mean the ultimate burden of that tax won't fall on others indirectly. Every analysis of Mr. Biden's tax plan by independent third parties, from the very liberal Tax Policy Center to Penn Wharton, to the American Enterprise Institute--so liberal, moderate, and conservative-- shows taxpayers earning less than $400,000 will shoulder at least a portion of Mr. Biden's proposed tax increase. This comes from the fact that the tax increases largely reflect the economic consensus that a significant portion of the corporate income tax falls on workers in the form of reduced wages and benefits. In other words, workers pay even if you increase the corporate tax rate. Our nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that 25 percent of the corporate tax increases are, in fact, borne by workers. Mr. Biden, of course, has promised to increase the corporate income tax from 21 percent to 28 percent. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, this business tax hike will mean that over 90 percent of households with incomes between $45,600 and $121,000 will see increases in their total tax burdens. With the bulk of Mr. Biden's tax agenda being targeted at hiking taxes on capital, the consequences will then be felt throughout the economy in the form of lower wages, fewer jobs, and slower economic growth. According to a study out of the Hoover Institution this week, the Biden plan holds the promise of reducing the per capita gross domestic product by more than 8 percent when compared to the current law with the 2017 Trump tax law being made permanent. This raises an additional important issue. Taxpayers should take with a whole grain of salt Mr. Biden's promise of not raising their taxes because the vast majority of Americans will see a tax increase beginning in 2026 unless the 2017 tax cuts are made permanent. A top priority for President Trump and congressional Republicans has been to make permanent the middle-class tax cuts that were enacted in 2017 but which will otherwise sunset in 2025. President Trump has called for making the tax cuts permanent as part of each of his budget submissions to Congress. Now we have the Democrats refusing to work with the Republicans to make the middle-income tax cuts of 2017 permanent law so that taxes won't go up automatically in 2026. Keep in mind that the middle-class tax cuts enacted in tax reform are not just about lower tax rates for middle-income workers and families; they are also about small business owners and family farmers. For the millions of small family-owned businesses and family farmers, the tax reform of 2017 has provided a 20-percent deduction for qualified business income under section No. 199A. The whole purpose was for it to be for individual filers in order to reduce the inequity between a lower corporate tax rate and what individuals would pay if they were in business so as to compensate for the capital that they would have to have invested for their small businesses. According to the recently released 2018 IRS data, in Iowa alone, in my State alone, nearly 215,000 small businesses and farms across our State benefited from this 20 percent deduction in section No. 199A. The Republicans are committed to making this provision permanent, for it is a very important tool for those small businesses and farms to be able to grow, invest, and provide critically needed jobs in our communities. However, Mr. Biden's tax plan doesn't include any proposal to make permanent or to even extend the middle-class tax cuts that have been enacted under President Trump. Indeed, every independent third-party review of his tax proposal assumes his intent is to allow the tax increases to go into effect. And with good reason--because on the campaign trail, Mr. Biden has stated: ``On day one, I will move to eliminate the Trump tax cuts.'' It can't be both that he will only raise taxes on those with incomes over $400,000 and repeal the Trump tax cuts in their entirety. So who can blame taxpayers for being skeptical when Mr. Biden says that he won't raise their taxes? Every indication is that he will raise taxes on people below a $400,000-a-year income. Under a Biden administration, middle-income individuals can expect a Biden plan that rolls back the Trump tax cuts. This means he will increase their tax rates, increase the amount of their income subject to tax, and reduce tax benefits for families. Similarly, small business owners and family farmers can also expect him to tax a larger share of their business income. While Mr. Biden has tried to position himself as a centrist on this tax issue, his tax and economic agenda is not all that different from his far-left opponents in the Democratic primaries. His sales pitch may be different, but his agenda will have the same detrimental effect. As the Wall Street Journal's editorial board summed it up, the problem with the Biden policies is ``they will have a long- term corrosive impact by raising the cost of capital, [by] reducing the incentive to work and invest, and [lastly] reducing productivity across the economy. Americans will pay the price in a lower standard of living than they otherwise would [have]--and that they deserve.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Iowa, my State, has a rich legacy in leading the Nation and the world in agriculture production and innovation. Iowa is first in corn production, first in eggs, ethanol, and pork, and second in soybeans. Family farms are the main institution for producing all this. So those family farms are how many Iowans leave their mark on our world, by passing their legacy to their children. In the Senate, Senator Ernst and I have the great privilege of representing these family farmers. Senator Ernst and I have worked with the Trump administration to make biofuels a priority. We have secured E15 year-round--15 billion gallons of ethanol are blended annually as the law requires--new ethanol infrastructure through the USDA, and secured an extension of the biodiesel tax credit. We have secured and expanded trade agreements with our largest trading partners, which add value to Iowan commodities. We also helped to put an end to the ridiculous Obama-era waters of the United States rule that would have regulated 97 percent of Iowa's farmland as navigable waterway. Just as the harvest comes to an end, usually in November, our work will not stop in November. Senator Ernst and I will continue to focus on Iowa farm families and ensuring their success for years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, fellow Iowan Dan Gable is one of the greatest athletes and coaches in American history. President Trump has selected Dan to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom--the highest civilian honor. I sent a letter to the White House after hearing about grassroots support in Iowa for this award. Dan Gable is a household name for every Iowa sports fan. As a wrestler at Iowa State University, Dan won two collegiate championships--a world championship and an Olympic Gold Medal. His overall high school and college records are 181 victories, 1 defeat. That one defeat came in the finals of the NCAA tournament of his senior year. In his coaching career at the University of Iowa, he led to 15 national team championships out of the 21 years that he coached. As a coach at the University of Iowa, Dan developed All Americans, national champions, Big Ten champions, and Olympians. Dan is the paragon of the American dream in his achieving success through community, courage, hard work, and determination. I congratulate Dan on this outstanding achievement I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last week, news broke about Hunter Biden's questionable financial dealings. That information, allegedly from Hunter Biden's laptop, appears to show that Vice President Biden may have been more aware of his son's financial dealings with foreign despots and criminals than he admitted to the American people. That information was quickly censored by big tech companies. Just today, DNI Director Ratcliffe said that Hunter Biden's laptop issue is not part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The Steele dossier is fake news, but I don't recall reporters and Big Tech censoring the false reporting about President Trump and the Steele dossier. Instead, the liberal media did just the opposite. They became superspreaders of false reporting across the world. What happened last week is election interference and anti- conservative bias, and Facebook and Twitter are guilty. Democrats and liberals in the press can't have veto authority over information just because it makes their nominee look bad. They can't have a double standard. Vice President Biden owes the American people answers. 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. Mr. President, America's founding principles, including that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights, are timeless and apply equally to all Americans. Commitment to these founding principles is what ties us together as Americans, so it is vital that all Americans feel connected to them. That is why I have been working for years to establish a memorial on the National Mall to those Black Revolutionary War patriots who fought for our founding ideals. I commend to all Americans the insights of the founder of the organization working to build this memorial, who argues that these patriots' service and sacrifice completed the Founders' vision. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, President Trump was rightly criticized for dodging a question about the peaceful transfer of power. Instead, Trump criticized mail-in ballots and rejected the premise that he will lose. No, that doesn't mean that he is planning some sort of coup, but it is important for any President to choose their words very carefully. The same is true for partisans on the other side whipping up fear that our democracy is in jeopardy or that the ballots will not be counted. Even worse is the rhetoric setting the stage to delegitimize any future Trump victory. We now hear full-blown conspiracy theories. Let me mention a few. A group of Biden supporters conducted a war game speculating that the President will not leave office without a Biden landslide, questioning what the military would do. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stepped in with a simple civics lesson. The U.S. military has no role in the elections, he said. Democrats have doubled down on this debunked theory that the Postal Service is plotting with Trump to disrupt the election mail. The Postal Service does not answer to the President of the United States. It has plenty of capacity to deliver election mail. Plus, the Federal Government doesn't run elections; the 50 States run those elections. A key goal of Russian ``active measures,'' dating back to the Cold War, has been to get Americans to doubt their government, its leaders, and democratic institutions. Let's not do Russia's dirty work for them. No American should be questioning our free and fair elections. Now to my State of Iowa. Our people who have requested absentee ballots will have ballots mailed to them starting on October 5. Remember to fill it out completely, including your driver's license or voter PIN number, and mail them to your county auditor well before election day but not later than the day before. Your ballot can be tracked on the secretary of state's website. Check out where your ballot is. I have great faith in Iowa's election officials and our postal workers. Iowans who vote in person or absentee can be assured that your vote will count--the same as any election. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have been working for decades to establish a memorial on the National Mall to those Black Revolutionary War patriots who fought for the founding of our country. We are close to achieving that goal, which is needed now more than ever. The rationale for the memorial was summarized in congressional testimony in 1985 by its founder, Maurice Barboza: The Patriots Memorial would serve an educational purpose in that it would remind Americans of the rich and meaningful contributions of Blacks to the birth of America. It would illuminate the past so that the present generation would better understand the Nation's history. In that sense, it would serve a retrospective purpose. The Patriots Memorial would serve a prospective purpose by helping future generations of Americans understand what it is that binds us . . . as a [nation]. He then quoted then-Representative Nancy L. Johnson, the memorial's chief proponent in the House of Representatives. I quote her and will end with this quote: An American cannot be identified by simple physical, ethnic, racial, or religious characteristics. Even our cultural heritage is best defined by its rich diversity. What ties us together as a nation is our commitment to individual freedom and maintaining the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to assure the perpetuation of our freedom. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Last week Senator Johnson and I released our report about our investigation into potential conflicts of interest with respect to Ukraine policy during the Obama administration. My Democratic colleagues have attacked this investigation with unsupported and inaccurate allegations that this investigation is rooted in a foreign-sourced influence campaign. They have asserted that our oversight activities relating to the Obama administration are advancing a Russian disinformation campaign and have implied that we are ``wielding that disinformation as a political cudgel.'' Nothing could be further from the truth, so I want to explain. My Democratic colleagues have publicly insinuated that I received the records from a Ukrainian national, Andriy Derkach, a Russian agent who has taken action to influence and interfere in the 2020 election. Now, get this: I have praised the Treasury Department for sanctioning Derkach. I have neither received nor solicited information from Derkach. This is probably the third time I have come to the floor of the Senate to say this. Yet you still keep getting these accusations from my friends on the other side of the aisle. Now, the Democrats know that we have not received this information. Yet they refuse to stop repeating their false insinuations, and those false insinuations have resulted in Russian-based media repeating the Democratic disinformation, which is Exhibit A why the Democrats should have never created that false narrative in the first place. In fact, during the course of this investigation, the minority--not the majority--of the committee introduced Derkach's disinformation into the committee record. Foreign election interference should have no quarter in this country, and we must do everything to stop that interference. If only the Democrats felt the same about the Steele dossier, which is the very definition of Russian disinformation and election interference. Our investigation is based upon Obama administration government records and records from a Democratic lobby shop, Blue Star Strategies. They aren't based on any information that we received from a fellow by the name of Derkach. So if my Democratic colleagues think that those records amount to Russian disinformation, then that says more about the previous Obama administration than it does about the Johnson-Grassley inquiry. Do you think my Democratic colleagues would have attacked an investigation involving Donald Trump, Jr.? Remember, I interviewed the President's son years ago as part of my Russia investigation. I didn't hear any complaints about my investigative work at that time. Funny how this has played out, right? My Democratic colleagues have jammed up document production from government agencies and engaged in questionable political media efforts. We would have been done with this investigation a long time ago if all that opposition hadn't occurred, but here we are, and now the American people can see our work and judge our work for themselves. I would like to remind my Democratic colleagues that the first step in this investigation was a letter that I wrote on August 14, 2019. That letter was about an Obama-era Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States transaction. That transaction gave control over an American company that made anti-vibration technologies with military applications to a Chinese Government-owned aviation company and a Chinese-based investment firm with established ties to the Communist Chinese Government. Reports indicated that a firm formed by Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry, later partnered with a Chinese-based firm to purchase the American company. Also at that time, Joe Biden was Vice President and John Kerry was Secretary of State. The State Department is an approval agency on the Committee on Foreign Investment. Clearly, this transaction presented conflicts of interest, and that is exactly why I wrote the letter of August 2019 to the Treasury Department. My Democratic colleagues like to say that we started this investigation as a result of the Trump impeachment. Well, the last time I checked, August 14, 2019, was well before the impeachment investigation began. That letter was also sent before Congress was notified of the Ukrainian-related whistleblower complaint and before it was made public. No matter how hard the Democrats try to say otherwise, this investigation is rooted in nothing but simply good government oversight. That is exactly the type of investigation I have run my entire Senate career. After the August 2019 letter, news reporting picked up the pace about Hunter Biden's association with Burisma, the corrupt Ukrainian company, and the fact that his father was in charge of the Obama administration's anti-corruption policy for Ukraine. Now, just think about that for a second. Vice President Biden was responsible for carrying an anti-corruption message to Ukraine on behalf of the U.S. Government. At the same time, his son was making millions of dollars working on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian company. To any reasonable observer, that is a very questionable fact pattern that deserves attention, and it got a lot of attention besides from Grassley and Johnson. Documents made public as a result of the Freedom of Information Act and investigative reporting brought very fresh public attention and scrutiny to this fact pattern. Reporting showed additional potential conflicts of interest with respect to Hunter Biden's business dealings all over the world, not just Ukraine. Those financial dealings also exposed how Hunter Biden and his business associates sought to benefit financially from their relationship with Vice President Biden. As our report shows, Hunter Biden and his business associates had extensive connections to Russian or Ukrainian nationals. Their business association also extended to Russian nationals. The report also shows that Hunter Biden, his family members, and business associates had extensive connections to Chinese nationals. The records acquired by the committee show that Hunter Biden and his associates and family members were connected to Chinese nationals associated with the Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army. Those connections formed business links, which resulted in millions of dollars passing through company after company. Some of those companies were associated with Hunter Biden, his business partner Devon Archer, and James Biden. The records show deep and complex financial relationships with Chinese nationals and how financially fruitful those relationships became. As one example, records show that Hunter Biden opened a bank account with a Chinese national linked to the Communist regime and funded with approximately $100,000. Then he, James Biden, and Sarah Biden went on an extravagant global spending spree. Records show that Hunter Biden, via his law firm, also sent over a million dollars to James Biden's consulting firm, the Lion Hall Group. When the bank contacted Sarah Biden, who was associated with the firm's bank account, she refused to answer the questions and provide any additional information and documentation. According to records we have on file, the bank submitted the account for closure. Now, what is very clear is that Hunter Biden leveraged his name and his father's position for financial gain, and his work with Burisma is just the tip of the iceberg. These associations and the millions of dollars that passed between and among Hunter Biden, Archer, James Biden, and others create criminal financial concerns. Moreover, they create counterintelligence and extortion concerns. The investigation also uncovered that the Obama administration was well aware of the problems that Hunter Biden's board position caused. State Department officials testified that his board membership created the perception of a conflict of interest and was very awkward for all U.S. officials pushing an anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine. Secretary of State Kerry publicly denied knowing of Hunter Biden's role on the Burisma board. Now, we have acquired evidence that he did, in fact, know about that role. The owner of Burisma was viewed as an ``odious oligarch'' by State Department officials. However, in December of 2015, instead of following U.S. objectives of confronting oligarchs, Vice President Biden's staff advised him to avoid commenting on the odious oligarch and instead say ``I am not going to get into naming names or accusing individuals.'' Well, if you are running an anticorruption agenda in Ukraine and you pull your punches when it comes to Burisma while your son is on the board, that goes to judgment--and here it looks like very bad judgment and weak leadership. 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 placed the bribe in December 2014, Hunter Biden was on the board and--can you believe this--he had been hired to be on the board to assist with what they call ``corporate governance and responsibility.'' Obviously, he wasn't doing his corporate job--due diligence. The facts show that the Obama administration was well aware of the problems that Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board caused. The facts show that the Obama administration turned a blind eye to it. Everyone knew about the problems it caused, but nobody wanted to do anything about it. So much for leadership. At its core, the investigation is a good government oversight investigation. These are exactly the kinds of shady, backroom deals that the American people should know about. So now the facts are out there. The American people can judge this information for themselves. They don't need the people on the other side of the aisle of this institution telling them what went on when they were using disinformation from Russia and spreading that disinformation around and trying to say it was attributed to something that we got. As for the next step, Senator Johnson and I will continue to review the records that we possess and further records that we hope we are able to acquire. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last night, former Vice President Biden said that President Trump ``hasn't lowered drug prices for anybody.'' This is false, and I hope that the news media will call out Mr. Biden for the lie. Among several other actions, President Trump launched an initiative to lower the out-of-pocket costs of insulin for seniors through the Part D Medicaid-Medicare Program. Also, President Trump recently signed an Executive order that will launch several programs to lower drug costs and help seniors afford their medicines. More disingenuous than this claim from Mr. Biden is that it was actually the Vice President's former Democratic colleagues here in the Senate who walked away from the negotiating table and killed any hope of passing legislation to lower prescription drug costs before the election. This was an effort by Minority Leader Schumer and his Democratic colleagues to hurt President Trump and Senate Republicans. Mr. Biden seems content to capitalize on his own party's obstructions. Now, I have come to expect election-year partisan politics such as I have just described it, but during a pandemic that has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions unemployed, it is particularly egregious that Democrats have decided it is more important to hurt Republicans than help Americans. I am sorry to say this is the truth of the matter. It will be up to Democrats to make it right. I am not holding my breath, but I do hope voters hold accountable a party that failed in its basic duty to put people ahead of politics. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.