Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the United States, Mexico, and Canada launched a new chapter in our historic partnership with entry into force of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement--USMCA for short. Thanks to the decisive leadership of President Trump, the USMCA will open the door for robust economic growth. At the same time, regarding his decisive leadership as President, this isn't an issue just now. This is something the President said in 2016; that the NAFTA was the worst trade agreement that we have had, and he was going to get rid of it or revise it. Most Presidents run on a platform. They may not serve on that platform. This President is serving on that platform, and today the USMCA going into force for the first time is absolute proof of this President keeping his promises and getting the job done. He also needs to compliment and thank Ambassador Lighthizer, the negotiator on this whole agreement. The USMCA brings to bear, then, a trilateral trade agreement that will lift prosperity across North America. The USMCA paves the way for freer markets and fairer trade. It replaces NAFTA and puts America in a better position to expand market access for U.S. workers, farmers, and businesses. Specifically, the USMCA modernizes rules of origin for autos, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, intellectual property rules, digital trade, financial services, customs, labor, environment, and more. Some of these issues I just mentioned weren't even around 30 years ago when NAFTA was negotiated. Modernizing NAFTA into the 21st century was the right thing to do. As we enter into this agreement, the world is navigating uncertain times, as we know. The unprecedented public health crisis has turned the economy upside down. Now, more than ever, our farmers, businesses, and workers need and deserve certainty that they can count on us to turn things around and accelerate economic recovery. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over trade, I will be keeping a close eye on the implementation of this historic trade agreement. I want to ensure that any kinks that come up are ironed out with appropriate flexibility, taking into consideration unforeseen circumstances from the pandemic, such as automakers and others who were shut down or repurposed operations to produce medical equipment, and that is just one example. I also will keep watch to hold accountable all stakeholders and ensure full compliance with the trade agreement. Now more than ever, North America must work together to harvest the fruits of the USMCA. That is how we can foster investment, innovation, and job creation for the 478 million people who live in these 3 countries. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated that the USMCA within 5 years would raise U.S. GDP by $68 billion, forecasting 176,000 new jobs in the United States. That is music to the ears for everyone in America who has been hard hit by the pandemic's economic fallout. Farmers in my State have enjoyed one of the best planting seasons in decades. However, our livestock, poultry, and biofuels producers have faced catastrophic disruption to their operations since the virus swept across the country. Iowa is the Nation's No. 1 producer of pork, eggs, and corn. Our economy depends on exports to grow and for our economy to flourish. American farmers depend on exports to pay their bills and earn a living. Farmers simply want to grow and produce for the marketplace, not for government bailouts. Today's inauguration of the USMCA offers a bright ray of hope for North America to plow forward and to plant the seeds for a robust economic recovery. With every trade issue that comes, it is always important to remember what President Kennedy said in his Presidency about trade legislation and the benefits of it--that if it benefits one country, it benefits the others. He said that ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' I am confident the USMCA will steer America's workers, farmers, and businesses to better days ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as the Congress considers the defense authorization bill--called the NDAA--this week, I hope that my amendments to improve the Pentagon's financial management systems and crack down on wasteful spending will be supported. Thirty years after Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act, the Department of Defense remains the only executive agency in our Federal Government that cannot get a clean audit opinion. Every dollar of defense spending should be used to ensure our Nation's security and support for our men and women in uniform, which is why the Department of Defense needs to be held accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse. A clean audit has something to do with proof that they can do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, since I reclaimed chairmanship of the Finance Committee at the start of this Congress, one of my top priorities has been to fix the failing multiemployer pension system and to help secure retirement benefits of more than 10 million workers and retirees in these multiemployer plans. This is especially important since 150 multiemployer plans have failed or terminated, and many others are expected to run out of money in the coming 10 years. In the decade after that, many more plans are expected to fail. In all, more than 1.5 million Americans would be affected by the failure of these multiemployer pension plans. Now, the coronavirus has had its effect on these plans as well. We don't yet have a firm read on how much the economic downturn has affected plans' funding or even the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's insurance fund backing up those plans that have failed. We expect more details on those issues later this summer. Now, one thing that we do know for sure is that this problem is only going to get worse and more costly to resolve if we wait longer to solve it. That is why all this concentration at this point. Now we have a real opportunity to get it fixed--and hopefully this year. Last November, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and I released a draft plan to reform the multiemployer pension system, protect retirees, and at the same time secure the PBGC's insurance fund. We received many thoughtful and constructive comments, and we worked over the past several months to address those comments to make our reform plan as effective and balanced as possible. So what is standing in the way? The usual thing: You have got to have bipartisanship to get anything done in the U.S. Senate. The short answer is that the Democratic leadership doesn't seem to be very interested in working to find that bipartisan solution. They seem to think the no-strings bailout which they tried to force into the CARES Act in March and which now appears in the House's HEROES Act is somehow a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. That doesn't work very well, particularly in the Senate, where it takes bipartisanship to get anything done. I would also hope that they are not playing election-year politics. If they are, then they are playing those election-year politics with the retirement security of millions of Americans. As every day goes on, the prospects of people retiring on what they thought they were going to retire on--these multiemployer plans--is getting less and less. Delaying a solution until next year is only going to make it more costly, and it will still require bipartisan support. We can and we must do better if we want a healthy multiemployer system for the long haul. We have a chance to fix this problem long term. Otherwise, we will be right back here in 5 or 10 years dealing with the same problem. To put this in perspective, let's consider what it means to do nothing and to leave the current law unchanged, versus what Chairman Alexander and I propose in several key areas. First, for retiree benefits, doing nothing means the PBGC insurance fund runs out of money in 2027. If the fund goes broke, that means the PBGC will only be able to pay benefits equal to the premium revenues that it receives, which are minimal compared to the potential claims. That means retirees could receive cuts in the range of 90 percent. Let me say that another way. If these plans go broke and these people are forced into the government-run insurance backup plan, they are going to potentially get 90-percent cuts in their retirement. That is the necessity for us to work hard now to get this job done Now, in contrast, the plan Senator Alexander and I are proposing would preserve benefits and ensure solvency of the PBGC's multiemployer system over the long run. It would save many failing plans by having the government pay a portion of benefits earlier than under current law. That would help the plan to stretch its assets much longer and at the same time preserve benefits as promised under that plan. Second, for plans that aren't able to be saved, our proposal would increase the insurance guarantee amount from the current $12,870 maximum for a retiree with 30 years of service to over $20,000. Benefits will be preserved with the help of additional support from employer and union stakeholders and a modest retiree insurance premium for retirees in plans that face financial challenges. That premium would be no more than 10 percent and eliminated entirely for older and disabled retirees, as well as for plans that are well funded. That is far better than the 90-percent cut that I already told you about if we just do nothing. Doing nothing also means more and more plans will become underfunded or maybe even worse, insolvent, resulting in major benefit cuts and then only that very small benefit that is covered by the government's guaranty program, the insurance fund that we call the PBGC. The Grassley-Alexander plan would provide relief to the failing plans, and, without an upfront benefit cut, it would restore the benefit cuts that some plans chose to make under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act in 2014. It would also increase the PBGC insurance guarantee amount by more than 50 percent. Third, for other plans not on the brink, doing nothing would mean that the current minority of multiemployer plans that are better funded would continue to shrink, with many more likely to move into the danger zone in the coming years. Our plan would provide significant funding reforms--with emphasis on reforms--to help prevent that from happening. In other words, those that are in pretty good shape wouldn't get worse. Key variables, like the discount rate that plans use to estimate future assets and liability values, would be subject to new standards to help ensure that plans are funded to provide the benefits they promised. But we have taken to heart comments we have heard from stakeholders that those changes need to be phased in over a sufficient period of time to allow plans to transition smoothly. Our plan would institute other changes to improve the early warning system so multiemployer plans can avoid flirting with the underfunding danger zone. It also provides needed oversight for plans in trouble, and it would provide unions and employers the opportunity to set up composite plans--a new type of hybrid retirement plan that enjoys wide bipartisan support. Something pretty important to note, the fundamental tenet of the Grassley-Alexander reform plan is that all stakeholders have a role in fixing the multiemployer pension system that has been on the current path to failure now for four decades. Employers and unions have a role in ensuring that adequate contributions are made to the plans to ensure sufficient funds to pay the promised benefits. Plans have a role in ensuring that the PBGC insurance fund backing up those benefits is adequately funded through reasonable premiums, with higher risk plans contributing more for that insurance backup. Employees and retirees have a role in contributing to the insurance coverage that protects their benefits, just like they do now for auto, home, and life insurance. Last, but not least, is the Federal Government. I don't want to shock people, but if you study this, you will know that the government had a role in setting out the rules that have governed these plans and regulating the operation of these plans, so the government has a role in fixing the resulting situation we are in this very day. That means taxpayer funds may be needed to help the PBGC provide the partition relief for plans on the brink of failing, but those funds must come with important reforms to ensure that taxpayers are not back here on the hook again in 5 or 10 years. This legislation I am talking about looks way ahead, solving two problems: the multiemployer pension plans individually--dozens of them--and also the insurance fund, the PBGC, that the government has for backup so it doesn't go broke by 2027. We take care of two big problems all at once. As I just said, we don't want to be back here in 5 or 10 years. Unfortunately, no matter how sensible of a reform plan we come up with, it has no chance of success unless our Democratic colleagues are willing to sit down and discuss a comprehensive solution. The other side has the idea of ``my way or the highway.'' That approach is not the pathway to a successful solution. That was clear when they tried that tactic during the negotiations of the CARES Act in March. So how many times do I have to say it? We all know it, all 100 Senators know it--nothing happens in Congress without bipartisanship. I invited our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I have had more than one conversation with Speaker Pelosi--asking all to join me and Senator Alexander in finding a bipartisan solution. That invitation still stands, and we remain ready to talk. Let's use the time that we have to negotiate a balanced, sensible solution to this increasingly critical problem so that we are ready whenever that opportunity presents itself to enact that solution this year. The retirees in each of our States, the businesses in each of our States, and the unions in each of our States that support these pension plans and our long-term Federal budget deserve no less consideration than what I have laid out. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in June of last year, I held an Oversight Committee hearing about foreign threats to taxpayer-funded research. My goal is to ensure that government is doing its job to detect and deter these threats. Since COVID, America's greatest minds have been working hard to develop a vaccine. Their research will impact the health of Americans and the world. According to the FBI, China has targeted our COVID research to potentially steal our work product. Our government and private sector must guard and fight back against these malicious attacks by the Chinese Communist Government. The health of our people and the world depend on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the past few months have resulted in some dramatic changes in our daily lives. We all know that is because of the virus pandemic, but for America's farmers and the 86,000 Iowa family farms, there were still crops to be planted, fields to be fertilized, and livestock to care for, regardless of the virus pandemic. These family farms take great satisfaction in the fact that they are part of the most affordable, abundant, and safest supply of food of any country in the world. They are also proud to help fuel the country, knowing that almost every gallon of gas consumed in the United States is blended with renewable fuels. Family farmers have a lot to be proud of. As one of two farmers serving in the U.S. Senate, I can speak to that because I am one. One of the most enjoyable aspects of my job is the opportunity to speak with farmers across the State during my annual 99 county meetings. Being able to hear from them directly and to use my position on the Senate Agriculture Committee to work on their issues is an honor and a privilege that I don't take lightly. At my meetings, farmers will introduce themselves by telling me how many generations of their families have made their living on the same land that they now operate--third-, fourth-, and fifth-generation farmers using the same soil and oftentimes the same tools and barns as generations before them. In fact, the Iowa Department of Agriculture Century Farm database shows that out of these 86,000 family farmers in Iowa, there are 20,060 farms in our State that have been in the same family for more than 100 years. Even more impressive, out of that 86,000 family farmers, we have a classification called the Heritage Farm database showing 1,360 farms that have been in the same family for 150 years. Farming isn't just a profession. It isn't just a hobby or a personal passion. Farming is how many Iowans leave their mark in our world. The legacy of many Iowa families is built and created around life at that farm. Every farmer intends to leave their land to their children better than when they found it when it was entrusted to them for their care in the first place. Farmers live by that creed, and it is reflected by the fact that Iowa is a global leader in sustainable farming practices. Through farm bill programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Federal Government has proven it can successfully partner with farmers to enhance conservation practices. At the State level, Governor Reynolds and Iowa Agriculture Secretary Naig are leading the charge to implement the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy--our way of cleaning up the rivers and helping the Gulf of Mexico to not be as dead as it is so often. This includes techniques like no-till, cover crops, and wetland restoration to improve soil health and enhance water quality. Researchers at Iowa State University continue to develop new conservation techniques, like adding tall grass prairie strips to fields and modeling when to best apply fertilizer. Iowa farmers have embraced voluntary stewardship investments and practices that allow them to stay productive and to be profitable-- maybe not so profitable now when corn is at less than $3 a bushel, as an example, but overall time profitability. They do this while also ensuring their land can be productive for years to come, for when it is time to give their children a chance to take over the farm. So while the Federal Government has shown an ability to partner with Iowa farmers, there are also times when the Federal Government has overstepped its authority and attempted to regulate private landowners with one-size-fits-all solutions. For example, in 2010, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service--it goes by NRCS in most States--determined that an Illinois farmer by the name of Kurt Wilke and his family could not maintain and farm their land. This was in 2010. It is now 2020. We might have a resolution of this, finally. The USDA claimed the land contained wetlands, despite documentation to the contrary. In early 2011, Mr. Wilke started making improvements to his drainage tile system on that farm. That is when the NRCS got involved. For him, it was a terrible life for the next several years. They told him to stop the work; in other words, stop improving your land through the drainage tile system. They warned him that he was putting farm program payments at risk. Earlier this month, after nearly a decade of court battles with the NRCS--Farmer Wilke was fighting the NRCS in court battles--a determination by the Director of the USDA's National Appeals Division reprimanded this NRCS agency for overstepping its bounds. Can you imagine stepping in to say that a farmer can't farm his farm? The USDA stepped in because they had failed to obey their own rules. The appeals division favored Mr. Wilke. This protracted court battle should have been avoided. In regard to that, I am going to read, and then I am going to ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation newspaper called the Spokesman. This started in 2010. So, in 2020, this finally ends, where one division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, called the National Appeals Division, because of their decision, Mr. Wilke will have an opportunity to be reimbursed for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees incurred while fighting for fair treatment. I ask unanimous consent to print this article in the Record

Mr. GRASSLEY. He finally gets justice, but just think of the life of Mr. Wilke for the 10 years that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and that agency said he could not farm his land the way he wanted to and put in the tile system the way he wanted to. Sometimes maybe their opinion is justified, but you can see how they overstepped their bounds and how it hurt this farmer. I want to give you another example of government overreach. It was the Obama-era regulation called waters of the United States. Most people know that as WOTUS. The 2015 WOTUS rule was a dramatic expansion of the authority that Congress provided to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the navigable waters of the United States. Remember navigable waters? It is supposed to be the definition of--as far as the big boats can go up a river. That is Federal regulation. Beyond that, it is State regulation, but not for that previous administration and WOTUS. They were going to regulate the road ditches, as an example. In fact, the Obama-era rule would have claimed jurisdiction to require Federal permission to do any number of activities, not just in or near Iowa rivers and streams but on 97 percent of Iowa's land. To clear up a common confusion, this rule wasn't about regulating discharge of pollution into the waterways, which is important and is done through other parts of the Clean Water Act. What this whole WOTUS rule was about was requiring Federal redtape for routine land use decisions with little or no environmental benefit. It was a power grab, pure and simple. One week ago today, the Trump administration's WOTUS rule went into effect. This rule balances the need to protect our navigable rivers while also protecting the private property rights of businesses, homeowners, and, of course, family farms. This is a major accomplishment, and I congratulate President Trump and Administrator Wheeler on getting this rule over the finish line. I hope people remember 4 months from now--particularly people who are farmers--what WOTUS would have done for you if it had been kept in place. You maybe would have had to get a permit from the government to do normal farming operations. Now you don't have to. You never have had to in 150, 160 years in Iowa. For the time being, these two examples of government overreach have been resolved. However, the U.S. Congress and the executive branch must continue to advocate for fairness and common sense when passing legislation or regulations that will impact private land owners. Farmers understand the importance of environmental rules, and farmers will follow those rules. However, we must demand fair enforcement of those rules so that they don't disadvantage family farmers like Mr. Wilkie of Illinois was disadvantaged for 10 years fighting the bureaucracy. However, we must demand fair enforcement of these rules so that they don't disadvantage anybody, for that matter. The virus pandemic that we are in has demonstrated the importance of supporting farmers and ensuring that we have a stable, safe, and affordable food supply for our country. Through natural disasters, through droughts, through pests, through pandemics, America's families are still farming. Let's make sure that the Federal Government doesn't get in their way so that they can pass along their legacy and their farm to future generations. 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, it was a sad day yesterday when we didn't get enough votes because the Democratic leader didn't want Democrats to vote. We did get four of those votes from that side of the aisle, but the police reform bill didn't come out. Senate Republicans are taking a step in advancing real change on this issue in our country. We have heard calls for police reform and are responding--not only because of George Floyd's murder in Minneapolis a few weeks ago but also because of peaceful demonstrations around the country on this issue calling for police reform. Senator Scott is the leader of the JUSTICE Act. I am a cosponsor. It encourages States to stand as partners in addressing police reform. If State and local police departments don't comply with the provisions of the JUSTICE Act, such as training officers on deescalation and use-of- force and ensuring consistent use of body-worn cameras, they will not receive Federal funding for police action. Iowa has made significant changes already, and a number of other States have followed Iowa's example. The Iowa Legislature unanimously passed police reform issues very much like what is in the Scott bill, and, working with leaders of color in Iowa to accomplish this goal, it went very smoothly through the Iowa Legislature. I got a firsthand report from my grandson, who is speaker of the Iowa House. The Iowa House is divided 53 to 47, but both houses of the Iowa Legislature passed these reforms unanimously. Why can't Senate Democrats let us go forward with the Scott bill? All we need are four more Democratic votes. If it can happen in the Iowa Legislature, it ought to be able to happen here. We have a role to play in the Senate, but let's not forget that, while we are doing that, we are also encouraging our State partners to also lead the charge in effecting real change. In fact, 50 State legislatures--every municipality--ought to be moving forward on police reforms of not only our type but whatever they may think is best for their States or municipalities. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to block consideration of the JUSTICE bill. This happened to be the first major piece of police reform legislation in years. To be clear, this vote wasn't a vote to pass the bill in the Senate. It wasn't even a vote to limit debate on police reform. It was a vote on whether we could simply begin debate on police reform. We are standing now on the floor of what is called the world's greatest deliberative body, the U.S. Senate. Yet my colleagues on the other side wouldn't even entertain a debate on an issue that has stirred our Nation and shaken it to its core. We know why we are here. There was a murder of a citizen in Minneapolis--George Floyd. There have been peaceful demonstrations all over the country since then, and Congress's time to respond probably-- probably should have responded years ago, but this has brought to a head that we need police reform. Yes, we are in the world's greatest deliberative body, we are told. The Senate's legacy and prestige are built on our ability to debate and discuss legislation, to address the most pressing issues before our country. My colleagues on the other side have robbed the American people of the opportunity to pass meaningful police reform. On the other side, they argue that the JUSTICE Act doesn't go far enough and that their version of police reform is the only bill worth considering. All the brains in the U.S. Senate are on the other side of the aisle, is more or less what they are saying. I want to remind them that we live in a country with diverse ideas and varying opinions. Debating those differences is the only way to make meaningful reform. Democrats complain that their views weren't represented in this bill. Well, the JUSTICE Act contains a number of proposals that actually have bipartisan support. Even if that wasn't enough for them, every Democrat would still have an opportunity to make additional changes. On our side, Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina led this effort for all of us. Forty-six of us are joining him. I hope the other seven will join in as well. But that is just Republicans, and this is a bipartisan bill--presumably not bipartisan enough to satisfy the other side but still bipartisan--and they wouldn't let us move ahead. Senator Scott made clear when the bill was introduced last week that he was interested and willing to discuss changes. Leader McConnell pledged an open amendment process. Even Speaker Pelosi noted that she welcomed the opportunity to conference the Democratic House police reform bill with Senator Scott's JUSTICE Act. Instead of letting our time-honored legislative process work, my colleagues sent a letter calling the JUSTICE Act ``unsalvageable.'' Let's remember--these are the same Senators who insisted that the Senate consider a police reform bill before the July recess, which starts next week. Now that they are getting what they asked for, they say they don't want it anymore--at least that is what their vote tells me today. My question is, What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of losing control of the process if it goes to a vote? Well, then, they are afraid of democracy. They are afraid of the American people who elected each Senator in this body and trusts each Senator to represent them by voting on legislation. Are they afraid that their ideas won't be adopted? The JUSTICE Act has many similarities to the Justice in Policing Act. We want to find a way forward on a bipartisan basis. If ideas have merit, they will have to be voted on and be included. Are they somehow afraid that if we make progress, it will be perceived as giving the President and his party a win? I have been around here long enough to know that in an election year, it gets harder and harder to get things done because neither party wants the other to get any credit for anything or have an advantage. But on an issue as important as this, it is the height of cynicism and hypocrisy to prevent progress to gain political advantage. I am reminded of a Scripture: ``For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world but lose his soul?'' The American people expect better. I know that my fellow Iowans expect better. Frankly, I expect better as well. I hope my colleagues reconsider their obstruction and let us get on with crafting a bipartisan police reform bill. I know my colleagues on the other side share our desire to deliver for our constituents. I don't doubt their sincerity about wanting to address inequities in the communities or unfairness in policing. I don't doubt they would have had legitimate ideas on how to improve this legislation if it had come before the Senate. But at the very least, we can't accomplish any of those things unless we start debate. We have done it before on other issues. Only 18 months ago, this Chamber passed the FIRST STEP Act, the most significant criminal justice reform bill in a generation. That was a strong bipartisan bill. It wasn't easy, but Senator Durbin and I and Democrats and other Republicans in addition to the two of us found a path forward and are giving thousands of Americans a chance to improve their lives when they leave prison. I am frustrated that the Senate can't consider this JUSTICE Act, but I promise Iowans and the American people that this partisan exercise doesn't represent my last hope for meaningful change. I stand ready to work with any Democrat or any Republican on the issue of police reform, and, for sure, I am not alone in the willingness to do that. In fact, at the Judiciary Committee, just last week, the issue was police use of force and community relations. At that meeting, Chairman Graham indicated that he wants to hold more hearings on this issue. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to let today's vote be the end of the story. There is and has been an evergreen issue. George Floyd's murder was the spark that ignited a national outcry. We must rise to the occasion. We cannot let election-year politics and differences of opinion prevent us from even discussing how best to improve justice and safety in our community. Flynn Investigation Mr. President, I will speak just a short period of time on another issue that was resolved today by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Finally, justice has been done to a person that has been very unjustly treated, a person by the name of Lieutenant General Flynn, who served this country 33 years in the military. Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the district court to grant the government's motion to dismiss the Flynn case. Remember, this has been going on for almost 4 years. I am pleased the appeals court upheld what it rightfully called ``clearly established legal principles.'' The appeals court said that the first ``troubling indication'' of the district judge's ``mistaken understanding'' of his role was to appoint a former judge, and now a private citizen, to argue against the government's proposal to District Judge Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case. Remember, the reason for that was that he was mistreated in the first place. As the majority opinion said: ``The court has appointed one private citizen to argue that another citizen should be deprived of his liberty regardless of whether the Executive Branch is willing to pursue those charges.'' The DC Circuit is ordering an end to this charade, and let Lieutenant General Flynn get back to his life and his family. Remember, this is a case where we set up--and you saw the emails from people that were going to prosecute him. Is this to get him fired--to get Flynn fired? Or is it to get him prosecuted? That is how open it was, but we didn't know about that until a few months ago. So, today, Flynn's legal team released Strzok's notes regarding a meeting between Obama, Biden, Comey, Sally Yates, and Susan Rice. These notes appear to show several important things. The first one is, Comey said the Flynn calls with the Russian Ambassador ``appear legit.'' Two, President Obama ordered Comey to ``look at things.'' Three, President Obama directed that ``the right people'' investigate Flynn. Four, Vice President Biden appeared to raise the Logan Act. Those four things lead to these questions. Well, if it was legit, then, why ``look at things''? If it was legit, why would Biden mention the Logan Act? These notes raise legitimate questions. For example, did President Obama and Vice President Biden deliberately take steps in the final hours of their administration to undermine the incoming administration? It sure looks like that is what they were up to. It also is reasonable to question the extent of President Obama's and Vice President Biden's knowledge about Russia and the Flynn investigation. I give this to you as an example. We know that on January 4, 2017, the same day that Strzok allegedly wrote the meeting notes, the FBI wrote a closing memorandum on Flynn, who was code named ``Crossfire Razor'' by the FBI, that said the intelligence community could find no derogatory information on him. So they couldn't find any derogatory information on him, a person who had served in the military for 33 years, got out as a lieutenant general, and was going to be the National Security Advisor for this new administration. They could find no derogatory information, but for the next 3\1/2\ years, he has been fighting for his freedom. Then, on that very same day, January 4, 2017, the FBI was ready to close this Flynn case--probably based on the fact that Comey said that all this connection between Flynn and the Russian ambassador was probably legit. But that doesn't matter to somebody by the name of Strzok, who was kind of leading all of this. He asked another FBI agent: ``Hey if you haven't closed Razor don't do it yet.'' The case was still open at the moment and Strzok asked that it be kept open ``for now.'' Strzok then messaged his lover, Lisa Page, saying that Razor still happened to be open because of some oversight and said to her--I don't know whether this is tongue in cheek or whether it was real serious, but he said: ``Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. . . . '' So what is helping us? It seems like any excuse to keep going in getting Flynn. At that point, we all know the case should have been closed, but 3\1/2\ years later, it is just solved by a decision of the DC Court of Appeals. So, instead, even in light of Comey apparently saying that the calls between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador appear legit, President Obama--still President of the United States--directed Comey to ``look at things'' and make sure ``the right people'' investigate it. That has kind of been questionable, the extent to which President Obama was involved in this, but it seems like those quotes make it pretty clear. And then, at this very same conversation, Vice President Biden chimed in as well by bringing up the Logan Act, which was used as a pretext to interview Flynn weeks later. Mind you, all of this happened after the election. Now people are raising questions about: Why are you worried about things that happened 3 years ago? An injustice was done to Flynn, and if you let people run wild over the freedoms and liberties of the American people, if it can happen to a lieutenant general, it can happen to anybody else, and we saw it happen to George Floyd. He was murdered because of justice and the constitutional rights of people not being followed. So then we have the incoming Trump administration and all this going on, having no idea that Obama, Biden, Comey, and Strzok were busy setting the stage for what would become a multiyear struggle to show that Trump didn't collude with the Russian Government--so much for a peaceful transition of power from one President to another and from one political party to another. It was something that for 240 years we prided ourselves in, but not in this case. Ever since the election, November of 2016, think of all the things that have been done to get Trump out of office, and it started even before he was sworn in. Well, thankfully, the DC Circuit stepped in to restore a bit of justice after the government's multiyear campaign to destroy Flynn's reputation. The FBI and the Department of Justice's actions to frame an American citizen, drag that citizen into court, setting him up to plead guilty to lying, and then doing everything they can to cover up their transgressions should never happen and should never have happened either. Let's all hope it never happens again I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the Senate will soon cross the milestone of 200 judicial confirmations since President Trump came to the Presidency in 2017. These have been nominees in the molds of Justice Scalia, just as the President promised nearly 4 years ago. They will strictly interpret the Constitution and Federal statutes. Their decisions will be driven by what the law actually says, not their own personal policy preferences. This landmark achievement is the result of the President keeping his word and the unwavering determination of Leader McConnell, Chairman Graham, and the Republican conference. In the hands of these many strict constructionist judges, the future of American jurisprudence is very, very bright. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we are taking a very important vote tomorrow on a bill called the JUSTICE Act. I am proud to cosponsor this police reform bill, and I also applaud Senator Tim Scott for his leadership in improving police accountability while at the same time preserving the essential service that law enforcement provides. These are the people who maintain the peace in the respective communities around the United States. We are ready to work with Democrats on police reform. I hope the Democrats finally are willing to come to the table. A successful vote to proceed to the JUSTICE Act speaks volumes. A vote against proceeding shows the American people that politics are more important than people, talking points more important than change, and gridlock more important than solutions. Surely, Democrats want police reform. I hope Democrats will vote in favor of opening debate on the JUSTICE Act. George Floyd and countless others so murdered deserve the Senate's action and consideration of this bill. 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, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in morning business.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, President Trump recently signed an Executive order requiring commonsense administrative steps to promote police accountability. Democrats immediately criticized it as weak and insufficient to combat racial injustice, citing the need for changing laws. Of course, this is an Executive order. In itself, it does not and cannot solve the whole problem. This reminds me of when the President was criticized for not ordering a nationwide lockdown, despite having no such power, and then was accused of being a dictator for suggesting that he had a role in reopening the economy. The President deserves credit for taking steps within his authority to improve police accountability, but he cannot change the law. Congress must now work and do it in a bipartisan way to do what we can within the scope of our constitutional authority to make things better. You cannot legislate away racial injustice overnight, but Federal, State, and local laws must reflect our national creed that all people are created equal. 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, I ask unanimous consent to have a letter printed in the Record

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as Americans, our understanding of history has a tremendous impact on our sense of who we are and where we are headed. That is why it is so important for Americans to have a good understanding of our history--all of our history. Slavery is a great stain on our country's history, and its legacy impacts us yet today. We must not flinch from recognizing the suffering inflicted on so many Americans, contrary to our highest ideals as a nation. Still, our Nation is unique in human history in that it was founded not on the basis of some sort of common ethnic identity but on certain enduring principles that are the equal heritage of all Americans. Those principles are best articulated in the simple but eloquent words of the Declaration of Independence. I don't have to put quotes around these because everybody knows these words: ``We hold these truths to be self- evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Our patriot forefathers concluded that these principles were worth fighting for, and, indeed, they took up arms. The odds were stacked against them, and they happened to know that, but they, nonetheless, risked everything because they believed so deeply in those fundamental truths that were stated in the Declaration of Independence. Among those who risked life and limb for our Nation's founding principles were between 5,000 and 10,000 Americans of African descent who volunteered to serve as soldiers and sailors during the American Revolution. Their patriotic sacrifices at the very beginning of our Nation contributed immeasurably toward laying the foundation of the freedoms we enjoy today. The civil rights movement was later able to build on that solid foundation by calling on America to, as Dr. King said, ``live out the true meaning of its creed.'' Dr. King was absolutely right in pointing out that Black Americans have every right to fully claim our shared heritage as Americans, having helped build and shape American institutions and society from the beginning, as shown by the very sacrifice they made in the Revolutionary War. This proud history is part of who we are as Americans, but it is too little understood and, hence, fully not appreciated. That is why I was proud to colead legislation that authorized the establishment of a National Liberty Memorial on the National Mall to honor the underappreciated contributions of Black Revolutionary War veterans and patriots, as they are. I am proud to say that Iowa can claim at least one of those patriots, Cato Mead, who was born in Connecticut and is listed in Revolutionary War pension court records as a ``free person of color'' who lived out his twilight years in Southeastern Iowa. He is buried in the Montrose Cemetery in Montrose, IA. The National Mall Liberty Fund is now in the process of raising money for an environmental assessment to complete final site selection for this very important memorial. Now, more than ever, Americans need this monument as a tangible reminder that despite the lingering legacy of slavery, the promise of liberty and equality is a shared heritage of all Americans from the founding generation to this very day. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, once again, I am proud to come to tell you something about the history of Iowa, and I do this during a hectic time of the COVID-19 crisis. That crisis has had, for American educational systems, quite an impact. So, at this time, it is important to highlight some successes. The 2018-2019 school year saw the highest 4-year graduation rate in Iowa's history, and that percentage was at 91.6 percent. In 2017, Iowa had the highest graduation rate in the entire country, and with this achievement, we appear ready to do it again. During my time representing Iowa in the U.S. Senate, I had been in many of our State's classrooms and have seen firsthand the dedication of Iowa's educators. I congratulate all of those involved with Iowa schools on their fantastic work and congratulate them for doing it at all times, even over the past few months, in particular, because of all the situations they have run into because of the virus pandemic. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I previously notified the Chamber of my objection to the nominations of Marshall Billingslea, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security and Christopher C. Miller, of Virginia, to be Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. On June 12, 2020, I received two letters: one from the Department of State, which contained a copy of recent correspondence between the administration to the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, CIGIE, requesting that CIGIE investigate specific allegations into the conduct of the State Department Inspector General, State IG, Steve Linick, and another separate letter from the White House Counsel concerning the removal of Intelligence Community Inspector General, IC IG, Michael Atkinson. Without making comment regarding the veracity of the allegations made against Mr. Linick, I believe that these letters fulfill the President's requirement to provide Congress reasons for the removal of the IC IG and the State IG, as required by the Inspector General Reform Act. It is for this reason that I withdraw my objection to both Mr. Billingslea and Mr. Miller. The letter from the White House Counsel regarding the removal of the IC IG repeats a previous letter from the White House which stated that the President had lost confidence in the IC IG. However, the White House Counsel enclosed with that letter a transcript of President Trump providing his reasons for removing Mr. Atkinson to the press and has informed me that those reasons represent the President's official explanation of Mr. Atkinson's removal to Congress. I believe that this transcript and its transmittal to Congress has fulfilled the statutory notice requirement of the Inspector General Reform Act. It is for this reason that I withdraw my objection to Mr. Miller. Here follow my comments to the President, including my actions and rationale: although the Constitution gives the President the authority to manage executive branch personnel, Congress has made it clear by law that should the President fire an inspector general, there ought to be a good reason for it. No such reason was provided when the President informed Congress of the removal of Mr. Atkinson on April 3, 2020. Thus, in a bipartisan letter on April 8, 2020, my colleagues and I reminded the President of his requirement under the statute to provide reasons for removing an IG. On May 15, 2020, the President notified Congress of his intent to remove Mr. Linick. This notification also lacked reasons for the removal spurring my solo letter on May 18, 2020, again reminding the President of his requirement to provide reasons. After a delay, and a personal call with the White House Counsel, I was promised a response to my letters that would fulfill the statutory notice requirement. On May 26, 2020, I received a response from the White House Counsel explaining the President's Constitutional removal authority, which I never questioned. However, the letter still contained no reason for the removals as required by law. This failure to comply with the statute prompted my objection to both Mr. Miller and Mr. Billingslea on June 4, 2020. On June 6, 2020, I asked the White House to provide written reasons for the removals. We discussed several issues. I took this opportunity to talk to the White House and I told them that I needed reasons for the firing of IGs to be submitted in writing. On June 12, 2020, I received the enclosed letter from the State Department which finally fulfills the executive branch's legal requirement to provide Congress reasons for an IG's removal with regard to Mr. Linick. Here is my view on the firing of Mr. Linick. The State Department's correspondence with CIGIE provided four reasons for Mr. Linick's removal, all involving the investigation of the leak of information to a news reporter pertaining to an IG report, which the reporter claims to be based on information garnered from ``two government sources involved in carrying out the investigation. The letter to CIGIE requests that they begin an investigation into Mr. Linick's alleged transgressions, including his: 1) ``failure to formally refer to CIGIE . . . the investigation of [the] leak''; 2) ``hand selection'' of the Department of Defense OIG to conduct the leak investigation; 3) ``non- compliance with State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) email policies''; and 4) refusal to supply Department of State leadership with a copy or summary of the leak investigation report despite ``repeated requests'' from State Department leadership. These claims are as of yet unverified but the President has offered an additional briefing on the matter from State Department officials. I am in the process of scheduling such a briefing and reviewing the additional relevant information. After reviewing the provided rationale, I have several concerns. Chief among them is that CIGIE does not traditionally conduct investigations into agency or OIG leaks. It reviews allegations against individuals but not IG offices and generally lacks the funds and resources to conduct work outside of their narrow scope. As a matter of course however, IGs do traditionally check each other's work, and CIGIE often suggests that allegations against IGs or their offices be referred to peer IGs. This is done when crucial IG independence must be maintained but the appearance of conflicts of interest may arise. It would also not be uncharacteristic for an IG to safeguard the office's statutorily required independence by potentially refusing to provide internal information to its parent agency. In short, although it would make little sense for CIGIE to conduct the leak investigation in the manner desired by the State Department, it would not be outside the bounds of precedent for one office of inspector general to conduct an investigation into another. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to verify the allegations regarding Mr. Linick, as I noted earlier, the President retains the constitutional authority to manage executive branch personnel. My objection to these nominees was designed to prompt compliance with the IG Reform Act, which the President has now done with regards to Mr. Linick. Therefore, I am withdrawing my objection to Mr. Billingslea. On June 12, 2020, I received the enclosed letter from the White House Counsel which finally fulfills the executive branch's legal requirement to provide Congress reasons for an IG's removal with regard to Mr. Atkinson. As it pertains to Mr. Atkinson: Even though the President satisfied the requirements of the law, I do not agree that the provided reasons merited Mr. Atkinson's removal. In the provided transcript the President states, ``I thought [ Atkinson] did a terrible job. Absolutely terrible . . . But ask him, `Why didn't you go and see the [transcript of my phone call with the Ukrainian president]?' There was no rush. [Atkinson] said, `Oh we'd have to rush it.' '' I infer from this statement that the reason(s) that the President removed Mr. Atkinson was because of the speed with which he sought to bring the whistleblower information to Congress and/or his role generally in the impeachment process. With respect to this objection concerning Mr. Atkinson's supposed haste, it is necessary to review the IC IG's responsibility under the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The act provides the IC IG only 14 days to determine if an ``urgent concern'' ``appears credible'' and transmit that information to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI. Notably, the law also does not require that a full investigation of a whistle blower's allegations be completed before the information is provided to Congress. Reading such a requirement into the law could result in critical and relevant information not reaching the ODNI or Congress in a timely manner, and could pose a chilling effect on whistleblowers' willingness to report urgent concerns and other issues of waste, fraud, and abuse in the intelligence community. That being said, I understand and appreciate the President's irritation with this IG's action being a factor in the House of Representative's impeachment. In those remarks, the President also said that ``they give this whistleblower a status that he doesn't deserve . . . . And, frankly, somebody ought to sue [him].'' To the extent that the President is referring to Mr. Atkinson's determination that the whistleblower allegation at issue amounted to an urgent concern under the law, there remains a significant difference of legal opinion on this matter. The President's position is supported by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, and Presidents routinely follow the legal determinations of that office. However, whether or not the whistleblower's allegation meets the legal definition of an ``urgent concern'' under the law, I obviously do not agree that person should be sued or otherwise retaliated against. My objection to these nominees was designed to prompt compliance with the IG Reform Act, which the President has now done with regards to Mr. Atkinson. Therefore, I am withdrawing my objection to Mr. Miller. Although some may want to believe that this is a new issue unique to this administration, it certainly is not. In July of 2009, then President Obama removed the Corporation for National and Community Service--CNCS--Inspector General, Gerald Walpin, from his post in a very similar manner and also did not provide reasons for removal. This began a bout of negotiations that resulted in not only the hold of several Presidential nominees but also a bicameral congressional investigation into the matter. In that case, I similarly pushed for compliance with the statute, held up a nominee to obtain information, and disagreed with the stated reasons for Mr. Walpin's removal. In the end, Mr. Walpin was never reinstated. Given the misinterpretation of the statute by successive administrations from both political parties, it is apparent that Congress must clarify the statute to ensure inspectors general are able to continue operating without undue interference. So I am introducing a bipartisan bill today to accomplish just that. (At the request of Mr. Durbin, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record after my remarks

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 3 weeks, America will celebrate Independence Day. For 244 years, Americans have fought, marched, voted, petitioned, legislated, published, protested, and died to defend and build our blessings of freedom. The American experiment has plenty of battle scars and growing pains handed down from one generation to the next. The first half of 2020 shows us there are plenty of historical wounds to heal and challenges to overcome. In the interest of public health, stay-at-home orders limited individual freedoms that many Americans take for granted, including the right to earn a living or to worship with fellow believers. Just as the economy began to reopen, the shadows of racial injustice darkened America's doorstep. All people are created equal, but not all people are treated equally. The unconscionable suffocation of George Floyd at the knee of a police officer in Minneapolis struck a chord of unity to end racism in America. Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered to exercise their First Amendment rights. They march to protect racial injustice and police brutality. Unfortunately, some exploited the peaceful protests to riot, loot, vandalize, and burn. These criminal acts were not protected by the Constitution. It is obvious they weren't protected. They were antithetical to the laws of the land protecting life, liberty, and domestic tranquility. All of this led one of my colleagues, the junior Senator from Arkansas, to submit an essay to the New York Times. In his opinion piece, he advocated why he thought the President ought to use his authority to deploy Active-Duty military forces to uphold the law and public order, as had been done by Presidents in past instances of civil unrest. The Times op-ed pages accepted his column and published it online under the headline: ``Bring in the Troops.'' Within hours, the newsroom was in a frenzy. The leftwing rallied their troops to stop the press. The New York Times, as we know, prides itself as the ``paper of record.'' Since 1851, it has served as an influential platform to gather and report the news and to hold government accountable. Policemen keep the public peace. Journalists are the policemen of our political system to keep the political system honest and open and transparent. The New York Times opinion pages ostensibly provide a space for the free exchange of ideas and thought-filled conversation on issues of the day. I have long counted journalists as the constables of the fourth estate. They serve a very vital role in bolstering our system of checks and balances. They have a responsibility to set the tone for open dialogue. Last week, the New York Times flunked this standard. The Gray Lady ghosted Senator Cotton's opinion piece after a meltdown in its ivory tower and when the ivory tower workforce hyperventilated. It is certainly reasonable to disagree on the merits and to debate if recent events rise to the level of past riots that justified invoking the Insurrection Act. I certainly think we should be hesitant to deploy our military forces domestically, even in difficult situations. But the overheated reaction by alleged journalists even to have this debate raises the question, Do they consider themselves neutral reporters or activists for a certain world view? Even a casual reader is able to read between the lines and know that the New York Times ascribes to a left-leaning ideology, but the mutiny in their newsroom seems to cross the line from journalism with a leftwing bias to political activism and ideological conformity. Sadly, last week the New York Times lowered the bar of journalistic integrity. It snubbed a voice of dissent and rebuked the free exchange of ideas. The First Amendment protects five fundamental freedoms that sets America apart as the leader of the free world: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. The Constitution does so because the expression of diverse opinions is necessary to preserve liberty. Within 4 days of publishing Senator Cotton's commentary, the New York Times caved to an ideological revolt in the newsroom. Under mob rule, the casualty among its ranks was none other than the editorial page editor. He was forced out of his job for having the audacity to publish an opinion of a U.S. Senator. At first, the publisher made a feeble effort to stand on principle, defending, in his words, ``openness and a range of opinions.'' Within a few days, the publisher threw James Bennet under the bus. It is a sad day for journalism, a sad day for the free press. These actions damage the wall dividing the newsroom and the opinion desk. They solidified their silo of leftwing thought. Canceling dissenting views is a very slippery slope. Sooner or later, it mutes the exchange of ideas in a free society. As a student of history, I know that freedom has often been threatened by those who are convinced their views were on the right side of history. I offer a bit of wisdom without malice to the New York Times: Don't back down from the First Amendment. Swapping your free press for party- line propaganda and punishing dissent is not a good look. Ask the people of North Korea, China, and Iran. On Independence Day 2020, I encourage members of the media and all Americans to step out of your comfort zones and seek to understand other viewpoints. Before we can expand America's promise, end racism, and beat the virus, we must come together as Americans. No matter one's race, politic, creed, wealth, celebrity, remember, we are bound together by self-evident truths ``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' I want even a leftwing newspaper to be a responsible policeman for our political system. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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